Malibu City Council
May 20, 2026

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Leonard and Members of the Planning Commission Prepared by: Raneika Brooks, AICP, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Salvador Lopez Jr., Interim Assistant Planning Director Approved by: Maureen Tamuri, AIA, AICP, Interim Planning Director Date prepared: November 7, 2024 Meeting date: November 18, 2024 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 and Site Plan Review No. 24- 013 – An application for a new one-story, 3,963 square foot singlefamily residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, swimming pool and spa, roof deck and associated development; including a site plan review for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading (Continued from October 21, 2024)
Location: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4458-033-005
Owner: 24515 Vantage Point Syndication, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-46 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22-009 to construct a new one-story, 3,963 square foot single-family residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, swimming pool and spa, roof deck, and associated development; including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 24-013 for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading located in the Single-Family Medium Density (SF-M) zone within Area A of the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District at 24515 Vantage Point Terrace (24515 Vantage Point Syndication, LLC).

DISCUSSION: This project was originally scheduled for the October 21, 2024 Regular Planning Commission meeting, and was continued at the request of the applicant to consider neighborhood concerns about the project. The concerns are related to the Planning Commission
Meeting
11-18-24
Item

4.B.

Agenda Item 4.B.

EXHIBIT C
100

project’s potential to cast shadows on the neighboring property and the potential invasion of privacy from use of the roof deck.

A portion of the subject property is mapped within the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) appealable jurisdiction as depicted on the Post-Local Coastal Program (LCP) Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map because it is identified as being within 100 feet of a stream. As depicted in Figure 1, the subject site is setback over 300 feet from the mapped stream located northeast of the project. The mapped stream located southwest of the project meanders through existing residential development. The City Biologist conducted a site visit to assess the presence of a stream and the applicability of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Overlay standards. The City Biologist concluded that no stream is present, and the ESHA development standards do not apply to this project. Accordingly, project does not include improvements within the appeal area and the subject CDP is not appealable to the CCC.

Pursuant to the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.13.1, the Planning Director may process this permit application administratively, as an administrative coastal development permit, because the scope of work is for a single-family residence and associated development, and the permit is not appealable to the CCC. The project satisfies these requirements in that the project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development and is not located within the Appeal Jurisdiction Map as depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Jurisdiction Map. In addition, the project is not in the CCC’s continuing jurisdiction. Typically, this type of permit does not require a public hearing since the proposed project qualifies for an administrative coastal development permit pursuant to Local Implementation Plan Section 13.13. However, due to concerns raised relating to the proposed development, the Planning Director, in concurrence with the property owner, has determined that this proposal shall be heard by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing pursuant to LIP Section 13.16, subject to the provisions for the hearing and appeal set forth in LIP Sections 13.11 and 13.12 to allow the surrounding neighbors to comment on the proposed project.

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

Project Overview
The project includes the construction of a one-story, single-family residence on a vacant lot located in the Malibu Country Estates Overlay. With the inclusion of the SPR request 101

for remedial grading, the project conforms to the requirements of LIP Chapter 3 and the requirements of the Malibu Country Estates overlay district.

The Malibu Country Estates was established approximately 50 years ago, and at that time each parcel was designated a building pad, and that building pad was cleared of vegetation and graded to a specific elevation. The elevation of the building pad has been documented and owners are not permitted to alter the elevation of the building pad. The proposed grading for this project will not result in landform alteration nor increase the elevation of the building pad.

Story poles were installed on the project site in July 2023 to reflect the siting, bulk, and massing of the proposed residence. On October 2, 2024, staff received correspondence from the neighbor immediately to the northwest of the project site at 24523 Vantage Point Terrace who expressed concerns related to visual impacts resulting from the proposed residence. On October 7, 2024, staff conducted a visual analysis to better understand the concerns. The analysis concluded that, from the adjoining patio on the ground floor at 24523 Vantage Point Terrace, no scenically impressive views of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, the Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines exist.

However, given the five-foot side yard setback from the northern property line, the location of the proposed structure has the potential to cast shadows and create a “looming” effect for the neighbor.

After relaying these concerns to the applicant, the project was continued from the October 21, 2024 Regular Planning Commission to allow time to discuss the project with neighbors and to consider their concerns. On October 21, 2024, the applicant indicated that no changes to the project were being proposed and the project was ready to move forward for the Planning Commission’s consideration.

Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
As shown in Figure 1 and outlined in Table 1, the neighborhood is comprised of singlefamily residences on lots of varying sizes southwest of Pepperdine University. 102
103
104

Figure 2 – Proposed Site Plan
Source: Project Plans
LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and LIP. The LUP contains programs and policies to implement the Coastal Act in the City of Malibu. The purpose of the LIP is to carry out policies of the LUP. The LIP contains specific policies and regulations to which every project requiring a coastal development permit must adhere.

There are 14 sections within the LIP that potentially require specific findings to be made, depending on the nature and location of the proposed project. Of these 14, five sections are for conformance review only and require no findings. These five sections include Zoning, Grading and Archaeological / Cultural Resources, Water Quality, and Wastewater Treatment System Standards, and are discussed under the Conformance Analysis section. The nine remaining LIP sections include: 1) Coastal Development Permit findings; 2) Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA); 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division. These nine sections are discussed under the LIP Findings section. Of these nine, General Coastal Development Permit, Native Tree Protection, and Hazards findings apply to this project.

Based on the project site, the scope of work, and evidence contained within the record, the Transfer of Development Credits, ESHA, Shoreline and Bluff Development, Public 105
106
107

All quantities listed in cubic yards unless otherwise noted. *Exempt grading includes all R&R, understructure, and safety grading. **R&R= Removal and Re-compaction.
***Safety grading is the incremental grading required for Fire Department access (such as turnouts, hammerheads, and turnarounds, and any other increases in driveway width above 15 feet required by the LACFD).

Archeological/Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. The project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological resources per the adopted City of Malibu Cultural Resources Map and it has been determined to have a very low probability of containing cultural resources due to the grading previously completed on the subject property as part of Tract No. 30134 in 1971, which established the existing building pads.

Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Planning Director can review this information.

Water Quality
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection. Standard conditions of approval are required to be implemented prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during construction. These conditions require the preparation and approval of a Grading and Drainage Plan, a Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, and a Storm Water Management Plan prior to the issuance of grading permits. With the implementation of these conditions, the proposed project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.

Wastewater Treatment System Standards
LIP Chapter 18 OWTS. LIP Section 18.7 includes specific siting, design, and performance requirements. The subject property is located in a subdivision that is served by the Malibu Mesa Wastewater Treatment Plant; therefore, the onsite wastewater treatment requirements do not apply.

LIP Findings
A. Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
Pursuant to LIP Section 13.9, the following four findings need to be made on all coastal development permits.
108

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

The proposed project is located in the SFM zoning district within the Malibu Country Estates District Overlay. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards.

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

The project is not located between the first public road and the sea. In addition, the subject property does not contain any mapped trails as depicted on the LCP Park Lands Map.

Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

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

This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the proposed project would significantly lessen adverse impacts to coastal resources. Based on LCP conformance review, the project as proposed will not result in any significant adverse impacts.

Alternative Project(s) – A smaller project could be proposed on the project site. However, the project as proposed meets the maximum allowable TDSF and other development standards, inclusive of the requested SPR. The structure would be below 18 feet in height.

The project site does not contain ESHA and does not result in any significant adverse impacts to sensitive coastal resources. It is not anticipated that a smaller project would offer significant environmental advantages. The project could not be relocated to another location on the subject parcel because the overlay standards require the residence to be sited on the existing building pad. The project as proposed is sited on a relatively flat portion of the parcel, thereby minimizing landform alteration. Relocating the residential structure would either cause the structure to be built on a slope greater than 3:1, which is not in compliance with the MMC, or it would further encroach into the native tree protection zone, as discussed in LIP Findings Section 3. It is anticipated that relocating the proposed project would not offer significant environmental advantages, given no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed project.

Proposed Project – The project consists of the construction of a one-story single-family residence, which is a permitted use in the SFM zoning designation, a zone designated for residential development. As discussed in Finding 1, the project has been reviewed by the 109

applicable City, County, and State departments and agencies, and meets the residential development standards of the LCP and MMC. The proposed project has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

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

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

B. Site Plan Review for Remedial Grading (LIP Section 13.27.5) LIP Sections 3.4.1(D)(8), 8.3(G), and 13.27.1(A)(2), and 13.27.5(A) require that the City makes four findings in the consideration and approval of a site plan review for remedial grading. Based on the evidence in the record, the findings of fact for SPR No. 21-035 are made as follows:

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

The project has been reviewed for all relevant policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.

Based on submitted geotechnical reports, visual impact analysis, and detailed site investigations, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.

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

The project is compatible with other development in the adjacent area in that the neighborhood is residentially developed. The proposed remedial grading is required to properly prepare the building pad to support the weight of the proposed residence. The building pad was previously graded as part of the Malibu Country Estates subdivision project which took place over 40 years ago. Given the scope of the proposed remediation, the project is not expected to adversely affect neighborhood character since it will allow for the construction of a new one-story single-family residence.

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

As discussed throughout this report, the subject property is sited within a developed residential neighborhood. The proposed project consists of the construction of a singlefamily residence that is compatible with the surrounding residences. The proposed remedial grading will result in the creation of a building with an elevation that is consistent 110

with the requirements of the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District. It is not expected that the proposed project will result in negative impacts to existing public views.

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

The proposed project has received LCP conformance review from the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and the City Public Works Department. The project must also be approved by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division, prior to issuance of City building permits. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.

C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) As determined by an onsite observation by the City Biologist and as depicted on the LCP ESHA map, the subject parcel does not contain ESHA or is located within the 100-foot ESHA buffer. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 4 are not applicable.

D. Native Tree Protection
The provisions of the Native Tree Protection Chapter apply to those areas containing one or more native Oak, California Walnut, Western Sycamore, Alder or Toyon trees that have at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, 4.5 feet from the ground. One protected native tree, the Western Sycamore, is located on the south end of the project site, with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of 23 inches. LIP Section 5.7 requires the following three findings be made for native tree protection.

Finding 1. The proposed project is sited and designed to minimize removal of or encroachment in the protected zone of native trees to the maximum extent feasible.

The proposed project is a single-family residence with an attached garage. A Western Sycamore on the project site is located in the front of the project site east of the proposed driveway. Construction activities associated with this project have potential to impact the health and vitality of trees; however, preventative steps will be taken to minimize impact.

The proposed driveway encroaches into the protected zone and cannot be removed or shifted, as there is no space to move the driveway to the other side of the house without encroaching into the protected zone, and relocating the house would result in partially being on a slope that is greater than 3:1 and would not comply with the MMC. To minimize impact, the following design standards and processes are required and added as conditions of approval:
• The driveway is to be constructed with water infiltration. • Exclusionary fencing around the protected zone is to be installed prior to the start of construction.
111

• A certified arborist must be retained one year after construction to inspect for damages.
• If long-term survival of the native tree is compromised, a Native Tree Replacement Planting Plan with a replacement ratio of 10:1 must be prepared.

Finding 2. The adverse impact of tree removal and/or encroachment cannot be avoided because there is no other feasible alternative.

The project includes a driveway located within the native tree protected zone. However, the residence cannot be relocated, nor can the driveway be eliminated or reduced in width to minimize encroachment in the native tree protected zone. Therefore, the impact of encroachment cannot be avoided and there is no feasible alternative.

Finding 3. All feasible mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant impact on native trees have been incorporated into the approved project through design or conditions of approval.

As discussed in Finding 1, exclusionary fencing during construction, a one-year inspection by a certified arborist, and a permeable driveway would lessen any significant impacts on the native tree. There are no other structures or developments in the proposed plan that would impact the native tree.

E. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection
The Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those CDP applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road, or scenic public viewing. View protection is provided through the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District development standards.

Based on visual analysis, staff has determined that the subject property is not visible from a designated scenic roadway (PCH) or the beach. Therefore, the scenic, visual and hillside resource protection findings contained in LIP Chapter 6 are not applicable.

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

Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 7 are not applicable.

G. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity or other potential hazards must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located in or near an area subject to these hazards. The project has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, 112

City Public Works Department, and the LACFD, and has been reviewed and approved for conformance with all relevant policies and regulations of the LCP and the MMC.

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

Analysis of the project for hazards included a review of a preliminary geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation of the project site dated August 11, 2020 with supplemental reports dated July 14, 2022 and October 17, 2022. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers determined that the proposed project is not anticipated to result in potential adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity, and the Public Works Department determined the project site is not located in a flood hazard area. The proposed project, as conditioned, does not have an adverse impact on the project site or surrounding properties.

On November 8, 2023, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers approved the project, subject to conditions. All recommendations of the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

Fire Hazard
The entire city limits of Malibu are located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity zone.

The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the state so that additional personnel and fire-fighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Nonetheless, a condition of approval has been included which requires that the property owner indemnify and hold the City harmless for wildfire hazards to the project.

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

As stated in Finding 1, the project as designed, conditioned, and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers and the City Public Works Department, does not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to the project design.

Finding 3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
113

As discussed in Section A, the project as designed and conditioned is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

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

As stated in Finding 1, the project as designed and conditioned, and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers and the City Public Works Department does not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity.

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

As discussed in Section A, the development is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.

H. Shoreline and Bluff Development
The project site is not located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff or bluff top fronting the shoreline. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 10 are not applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

As described herein, the subject property and the proposed project do not meet any of these criteria in that no trails are identified on the LCP Park Lands Map on or adjacent to the property, and the property is not located between the first public road and the sea, on a bluff, or near a recreational area. The requirement for public access of LIP Section 12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.
114

J. Land Division
This project does not include a land division. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 15 are not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Director has 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 and categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 (a) and (e) – New Construction. The Planning Director 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).

PUBLIC NOTICE: Staff published a public hearing notice in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu on September 26, 2024 and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500 foot radius of the subject property.

SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the proposed project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Department’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 9 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-46. The proposed project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City and County departments.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-46

2. Project Plans

3. Department Review Sheets

4. Public Correspondence

5. Public Hearing Notice
115
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-46

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. 22-009 TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW ONE-STORY, 3,963 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING AN ATTACHED 414 SQUARE FOOT GARAGE,

NEW DRIVEWAY, SWIMMING POOL AND SPA, ROOF DECK, AND
ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT; INCLUDING SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 24- 013 FOR 3,032 CUBIC YARDS OF REMEDIAL GRADING LOCATED IN THE

SINGLE-FAMILY MEDIUM DENSITY ZONE WITHIN AREA A OF THE
MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 24515 VANTAGE POINT TERRACE (24515 VANTAGE POINT SYNDICATION, LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On March 2, 2022, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22- 009 was submitted to the Planning Department by applicant, Amit Apel Design, Inc., on behalf of property owner, 24515 Vantage Point Syndication, LLC. The application was routed to the City geotechnical consultants, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On July 7, 2023, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area.

C. On August 7, 2023, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

D. On September 26, 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.

E. On October 7, 2024, Planning Department staff conducted a site visit to assess concerns from the neighbor at 24523 Vantage Point Terrace. After the neighbor’s concerns were relayed to the applicant, the applicant requested the project be continued to the November 18, 2024 Planning Commission Public Hearing.

F. On October 21, 2024, the applicant confirmed the project will move forward as proposed.

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

DRAFT 116
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
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 found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303 (a) and (e) – New Construction. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on August 15, 2022, 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 analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 22-009 to construct a new one-story, 3,963 square foot single-family residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, swimming pool and spa, roof deck, and associated development; including Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 24-013 for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading located in the Single-Family Medium - Density (SFM) zone within Area A of the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District at 24515 Vantage Point Terrace.

The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. The project is located in a subdivision that is served by Malibu Mesa Wastewater Treatment Plant; therefore, onsite wastewater treatment requirements do not apply. 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 consists of the development of a single-family residential unit.

Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project as conditioned, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis, and site investigation, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards.

2. Evidence in the record demonstrates that as conditioned, the project will not result in biological impacts and has been designed to minimize grading. There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment.

B. Site Plan Review for Remedial Grading (LIP Chapter 13.27.5)

1. The project has been reviewed for all relevant policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP. Based on submitted geotechnical reports, visual impact analysis, and detailed site investigations, the project is consistent with all policies and provisions of the Malibu LCP.

2. The project is compatible with other development in the adjacent area in that the neighborhood is residentially developed. The remedial grading is required to properly prepare the DRAFT 117
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
building pad to support the weight of the proposed residence. The building pad was previously graded as part of the Malibu Country Estates subdivision project which took place over 40 years ago. Given the scope of the proposed remediation, the project is not expected to adversely affect neighborhood character since it will allow for the construction of a new one-story, single-family residence.

3. The subject property is sited within a developed residential neighborhood. The proposed project consists of the construction of a single-family residence that is compatible with the surrounding residences. The remedial grading will result in the creation of a building with an elevation that is consistent with the requirements of the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District.

It is not expected that the proposed project will result in negative impacts to existing public views.

4. The proposed project has received LCP conformance review from the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and the City Public Works Department. The project must also be approved by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division, prior to issuance of City building permits. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.

C. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)

1. The project is in proximity to a Western Sycamore native tree protected zone. To minimize impact, the driveway that encroaches the protected zone was designed to be permeable, exclusionary fencing around the protected zone will be installed prior to construction, and a certified arborist will be retained one year after construction to inspect for damages to the tree.

2. The project includes a driveway located within the native tree protected zone.

However, the residence cannot be relocated, nor can the driveway be eliminated or reduced in width to minimize encroachment in the native tree protected zone. Therefore, the impact of encroachment cannot be avoided and there is no feasible alternative.

3. There are no other feasible alternatives to development that would substantially lessen any significant impact on the native tree.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The project consists of a single-family residential development. As proposed, the project will meet the minimum width required by the Fire Department. The project will not result in potential adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity. In addition, the record demonstrates that the project as proposed and conditioned will not impact stability of the site or structure integrity from geologic hazards. However, since the entire city limits of Malibu are located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity zone, a condition is included in Section 5 of this resolution that requires the property owner to indemnify the City from any hazards associated with wildfire.

2. The project as designed, conditioned, and approved by the City Geologist and the City Public Works Department, does not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to the project design.

DRAFT 118
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________

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

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

5. No adverse impacts to sensitive resources are expected.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. 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. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Construction of a 3,963 square foot, one-story, single-family residence 18 feet in height, including a 414 square foot attached garage;
b. Construction of a 1,293 square foot open deck;
c. Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) of 3,982 square feet; d. New driveway, swimming pool, spa and associated equipment; and e. Grading and fencing less than six feet in height.

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be in substantial compliance with plans on-file with the Planning Department, date-stamped June 13, 2024. In the event the project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

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

DRAFT 119
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. The property owner shall comply with all the 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 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.

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

DRAFT 120
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
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.

16. 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.

19. 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.

Fencing and Walls

22. 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.

23. 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.

DRAFT 121
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
Construction/Framing

24. 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.

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

26. 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.

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, 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. 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.

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

30. 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

31. 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, DRAFT 122
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
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.

32. Drainage shall be directed away from all root zones of all native trees.

33. The following project construction measures shall be implemented:
a. Protective fencing shall be used around limits of the protected zones of the native trees within or adjacent to the construction area that may be disturbed during construction or grading activities. Before the commencement of any clearing, grading, or other construction activities, protective fencing shall be placed around each applicable tree. Fencing shall be maintained in place for the duration of all construction. No construction, grading, staging, or materials storage shall be allowed within the fenced exclusion areas, or within the protected zones of any onsite native trees. b. Any approved development, including grading or excavation, that encroaches into the protected zone of a native tree shall be constructed using only hand-held tools. c. The applicants shall retain the services of a qualified independent biological consultant or arborist, approved by the Planning Director, to monitor native trees that are within or adjacent to the construction area.

34. Pursuant to LIP Section 5.6.1, where approved development encroaches into the root zone of native trees, each affected tree shall be monitored annually for a period of not less than ten years. An annual monitoring report shall be submitted for review by the City for each of the ten years. Should any of these trees be lost or suffer worsened health or vigor as a result of the proposed development, the applicant shall mitigate the impacts as required in section 5.5 of the Malibu LIP. If replacement plantings are required as mitigation, monitoring of the replacement trees shall be provided as required by Section 5.6.2 of the Malibu LIP.

35. The driveway is to be constructed with water infiltration.

36. Exclusionary fencing around the protected zone is to be installed prior to the start of construction.

37. A certified arborist must be retained one year after construction to inspect for damages.

38. If long-term survival of the native tree is compromised, a Native Tree Replacement Planting Plan with a replacement ratio of 10:1 must be prepared.

39. 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 MMC Chapter 17.53. The certificate shall include the property owner’s DRAFT 123
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 17.53.

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

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

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

43. Construction fencing shall be placed within five feet of the southern limits of grading.

Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of any construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas.

44. The landscape and fuel modification plan has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Local Coastal Program. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the landscape and fuel modification plan. Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

45. All open areas not used for buildings, driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be attractively landscaped and maintained in accordance with a landscape plan, with native plant species, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director.

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 LACFD. Lawns are prohibited on slopes > 5 percent.

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

49. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.

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

51. Vegetation in excess of six feet in height shall not obstruct the primary view of existing residences located within a 1,000-foot radius at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

DRAFT 124
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________

52. 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.

53. Grading and/or demolition shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 – October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 – March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.

54. The use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark, pine needles, and artificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of flammable mulch (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 30 feet from the eave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.

55. New vegetation shall be situated so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time, given consideration for future growth.

56. Any night lighting required for safety shall be minimized. All night lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directly downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas.

Fuel Modification

57. Prior to the issuance of final building permits, the project shall receive LACFD approval of a Final Fuel Modification Plan. Public Works.

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

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology

59. The grading associated with the proposed pool shall not exceed a total of 500 cubic yards, cut and fill and all

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

DRAFT 125
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________

61. 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 identifies 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 Best Management Practices (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 biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; d. Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project 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 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 of the 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.

62. 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 DRAFT 126
Resolution No. 24-46

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

63. 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
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.

64. Prior to the approval of any permits and prior to the submittal of the required construction general permit document to the State Water Quality Control Board, the property owner / applicant shall submit the Public Works Department an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) for review. The ESCP shall contain appropriate site-specific construction site BMPs prepared and certified by a qualified SWPPP developer (QWD). All structural BMPs must be designed by a licensed California civil engineer. The ESCP must address the following elements:
a. Methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area and to prevent soil compaction outside the disturbed area
b. Methods used to protect native vegetation and trees
c. Sediment / erosion control
d. Controls to prevent tracking on- and off-site
e. Non-stormwater control
f. Material management (delivery and storage)
DRAFT 127
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
g. Spill prevention and control
h. Waste management
i. Identification of site risk level as identified per the requirements in Appendix 1 of the Construction General Permit
j. Landowner must sign the following statement on the ESCP:
“I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that quality personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that submitting false and/or inaccurate information, failing to properly and/or adequately implement the ESCP may result in revocation of grading and/or other permits or other sanctions provided by law.”

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

66. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site.

The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

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

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

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

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

DRAFT 128
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________

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

71. The developers consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.

Swimming Pool / Spa / Water Features

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

73. 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).

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

75. 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, dibrominated 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 in to the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries)

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

77. A sign stating “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa, or water feature waters to a street, drainage course, or storm drain per MMC Section 13.04.060(D)(5)” shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.

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

Geology

79. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City Geologist 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 a grading permit.

80. Final plans approved by the City Geologist shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any DRAFT 129
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
substantial changes may require amendment of the CDP or a new CDP.

Prior to Final Sign-Off

81. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department. A final approvalshall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this CDP.

Water Quality / Water Service

82. 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.

83. Prior to final inspection (or project sign off, as applicable) by the Planning Department, the applicant shall demonstrate that all requirements of Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 have been met, including installation of a meter, if applicable.

84. For projects including installation of a private water well, prior to final inspection (or project sign, as applicable) by the Building Safety Division, the applicant shall demonstrate that all requirements of Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 have been met, including installation of a backflow prevention device.

Prior to Occupancy

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

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

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

Deed Restrictions

88. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists DRAFT 130
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final planning approval.

Fixed Conditions

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

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of November 2024. _______________________________________
DREW LEONARD, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section

13.20.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 245.

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.

DRAFT 131
Resolution No. 24-46

______________________
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24-46 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 18th day of November 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT 132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151

BIOLOGY REVIEW

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

TO: City of Malibu Biologist
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 3/8/2022
JOB ADDRESS: 24515 VANTAGE POINT TER
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Luke Tarr, Amit Apel Design Inc.

APPLICANT ADDRESS: 33202 1/4 U Mulholland Hwy
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310)317-0500
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New SFR; pool and spa; deck and hardscape; retaining wall; water features; roof deck.

Malibu, CA 90265
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 22-009
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: To Be Assigned
TO:

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

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

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

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

Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 05/29/2018
X
3/15/22
ATTACHMENT 3
152
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Luke Tarr, Amit Apel Design Inc.

[email protected]
Project Address: 24515 VANTAGE POINT TER
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 22-009
Project Description: New SFR; pool and spa; deck and hardscape; Retaining wall; water features; roof deck
Date of Review:

Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

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

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 3/8/22
Site Survey: 3/8/22
Landscape Plan: 3/8/22
Hydrozone Plan: 3/8/22
Irrigation Plan: 3/8/22
Fuel Modification Plan: 3/8/22
Grading Plan: 3/8/22
OWTS Plan: 3/8/22
Bio Assessment:

Bio Inventory:

Native Tree Survey: Forde (3/8/22)
Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous:

Previous Reviews:

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 4.4.4 153
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 22-009
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
March 15, 2022

DISCUSSION:

1. The Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) for this project totals 52,105 gallons per year (gpy). The Estimated Applied Water Use (EAWU) totals 42,151 gpy. Therefore, the project meets the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance Requirements.

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 Chapter 9.22). 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 Chapter 9.22. (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:

Nima Parsa
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-1389
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.

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.

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

G. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited. 154
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 22-009
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
March 15, 2022

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

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

J. Grading shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 - October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 – March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.

K. 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.

L. Construction fencing shall be placed and indicated on the site plan. Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas.

M. 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.

N. Pursuant to LIP Chapter 5, projects with the potential to impact one or more native oak (Quercus species), California walnut (Juglans californica), western sycamore (Platanus recemosa), alder (Alnus rhombifolia), or toyon (Heteromelas arbutifolia) tree, that has at least one trunk measuring six inches or more in diameter, or a combination of any two trunks measuring a total of eight inches or more in diameter, measured at four and one half feet above natural grade must include a native tree protection plan.

The submitted Native Tree Report (Forde) indicatesthe presence of one or more of these native tree species and suggests potential impacts to native trees from the proposed project, specifically the driveway. Due to the small size of the parcel, encroachment into the drip line of the protected tree is unavoidable. Pursuant to LIP Section 5.4, specific development standards regarding native trees include:
• New development shall be sited and designed to preserve oak, walnut, sycamore, alder, and toyon, as identified by LIP Section 5.2. to the maximum extent feasible; • Removal of native trees subject to this ordinance shall be prohibited except where no other feasible alternative exists. Mitigation shall be required for the removal of trees as described in LIP Section 5.5;
155
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 22-009
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
March 15, 2022

• Structures, including roads or driveways, shall be sited to prevent any encroachment into the protected zone (five feet beyond extent of canopy) and to provide an adequate buffer outside the protected zone of individual native trees in order to allow for future growth, except where no other feasible alternative exists. Coastal development permits for development subject to this chapter shall include provisions or be conditioned to require that, if approved, encroachments result in the death or worsened health or vigor of the affected tree as a result of the proposed development, mitigation as described in LIP Section

5.5 shall be required;
• Within a year of the construction being completed, a certified arborist will inspect the tree on site for any damage or signs of worsened health due to the construction. Should the arborist identify any declining health of the tree, it will be mitigated according to LIP Section 5.5;
• Drainage shall be directed away from all root zones of all native trees; • Project Construction Measures:

1. Protective fencing shall be used around limits of the protected zones of the native trees within or adjacent to the construction area that may be disturbed during construction or grading activities. Before the commencement of any clearing, grading, or other construction activities, protective fencing shall be placed around each applicable tree.

Fencing shall be maintained in place for the duration of all construction. No construction, grading, staging, or materials storage shall be allowed within the fenced exclusion areas, or within the protected zones of any on-site native trees.

2. Any approved development, including grading or excavation that encroaches into the protected zone of a native tree shall be constructed using only hand-held tools.

3. The applicants shall retain the services of a qualified independent biological consultant or arborist, approved by the Planning Manager to monitor native trees that are within or adjacent to the construction area.

4. The permit shall include these requirements as conditions of approval.

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.
156
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 22-009
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
March 15, 2022

-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
157
S 52° 38' 12" W 12.02' Found Chisel "X" (No Ref.)
102
102
103
104 105
105
106
107
108
109
110
106 106
107
108
109
110
107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 98
97 N 43°08'25" E 173.08'
N 47°18'38" W 82.36' 3'
Driveway
Sidewalk Sidewalk
108.76 TW
104.6 NG
106.3 NG
108.80 TW
103.93 FL 103.54 TC
104.76
FS
FS
103.73
FS
102.45 390 SF GARAGE 812 44 SF BATH 0 81118 SF CLOSET 813 30 SF POWDER 814 37 SF Room 815 326 SF MASTER BED 817 106 SF MASTER CLOSET 827 119 SF MASTER BATH 826 141 SF BED 1 82247 SF BATH 1 828 114 SF BED 2 823 61 SF J&J BATH 824 61 SF HALL 821 24 SF W.I.C 820 150 SF GUEST/MAID 810 385 SF KITCHEN 830 412 SF DINING 833 443 SF GRAND LIVING ROOM 831 229 SF ENTRY 832 200 SF FAMILY ROOM 818 147 SF Room 816 151 SF BED 3 819 103' - 6 15/16" 104' - 9 31/32" 105' - 0" 106' - 0" PAD PAD Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: Seal: Revisions: -- 2 3
4 ------
1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 L0.0
COVER SHEET WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION STANDARDS - PLAN SUBMITTAL NOTES 1. PARKWAY DECLARATIONS: 1.1. "ALL EXISTING SPRINKLERS AND SPRAY HEADS SHALL BE REMOVED IN THE PARKWAY." 1.2. "THE INSTALLATION OF NEW SPRINKLER IRRIGATION SYSTEMS ARE PROHIBITED IN THE PARKWAY." 1.3. "THE INSTALLATION OF ANY IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN THE PARKWAY SHALL NOT DAMAGE THE ROOTS OF THE STREET TREE." 1.4. "NO MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED WITHIN SIX INCHES (6") OF THE BASE OF A STREET TREE." 1.5. "NO PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED WITHIN TWENTY-FOUR (24") INCHES OF THE BASE OF A STREET TREE." 1.6. "THE PROPERTY OWNER ADJACENT TO THE PARKWAY ASSUMES LIABILITY FOR ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARKWAY AREA." 2. GENERAL NOTATIONS: 2.1. "AN OPEN-TRENCH INSPECTION BY CITY STAFF IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO COVERING BELOW GRADE PIPES, LATERALS, AND MAINS. THE DESIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE, OR THEIR DESIGNEE, AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR, OR THEIR DESIGNEE, PERFORMING THE INSTALLATION MUST BE PRESENT AT THE OPEN-TRENCH INSPECTION. FOR OPEN-TRENCH INSPECTIONS, CALL LADBS AT 3-1-1 (WITHIN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES) OR AT (213) 473 - 3231 (FROM OUTSIDE LOS ANGELES)." 2.2. "PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION INSTALLER SHALL TEST THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO VERIFY THAT IT MEETS THE APPROVED DESIGN AND SPECIFICATIONS." 2.3. "PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION INSTALLER MUST PROGRAM THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER." 2.4. "A FINAL INSPECTION BY CITY STAFF IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO ENSURE THAT THE SYSTEM WAS BUILT TO APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. FOR FINAL INSPECTIONS,CALL LADBS AT 3-1-1 (WITHIN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES) OR AT (213) 473 - 3231 (FROM OUTSIDE LOS ANGELES). THE FOLLOWING ITEMS WILL BE REQUIRED AT FINAL INSPECTION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: 2.4.1. POST-INSTALLATION SOIL TEST RESULTS WHICH MUST CONTAIN THE PERCENTAGE (%) OF ORGANIC MATTER; MAY ALSO INCLUDE BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO SOIL TEXTURE; INFILTRATION RATE OR SOIL TEXTURE INFILTRATION RTE TABLE; PH; TOTAL SOLUBLE SALTS; SODIUM; AND RECOMMENDATIONS DETERMINED BY LABORATORY TEST. EXCEPTION: LANDSCAPES CONTAINED ENTIRELY IN PLANTERS OR CONTAINERS ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT. 2.4.2. A DETAILED IRRIGATION CONTROLLER MAP MUST BE INSTALLED INSIDE OR NEAR THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER WITH AT MINIMUM A DESCRIPTION FOR EACH ZONE INCLUDING: PLANT MATERIAL, WATERING DEVICE, VALVE OR STATION NUMBER, RUN TIME FOR PEAK DEMAND MONTH AND PRECIPITATION RATE. 2.4.3. IRRIGATION SCHEDULES INCLUDING ESTABLISHMENT PERIOD START AND END DATES, MUST BE POSTED INSIDE THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER HOUSING UNIT BY INSTALLER." 2.5. "ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION OF AN AS-BUILT SET OF PLANS TO THE CITY IS REQUIRED IF REQUESTED BY CITY INSPECTOR." 2.6. "PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION OF LANDSCAPED AREA OR IRRIGATION. THE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN AND REVIEW A COPY OF THE WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION STANDARDS." 2.7. "ALL LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION SYSTEMS MUST COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS." 2.8. "THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM MUST COMPLY WITH ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS." 2.9. "THE IRRIGATION DESIGNER OR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR LANDSCAPE DESIGNER SHALL PERFORM ONE OR MORE SITE OBSERVATIONS DURING SYSTEMS INSTALLATION TO CHECK FOR ADHERENCE TO THE DESIGN, INCLUDING THAT THE PROPER INSTALLATION OF THE BACKFLOW PREVENTION ASSEMBLY, MAIN LINE, LATERALS, VALVES, SPRINKLER HEADS, DRIP IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT, CONTROL WIRE, CONTROLLERS, AND SENSORS MEET THE INTENT OF THE IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN AS DESIGNED AND APPROVED." PROJECT CONTACT LIST ARCHITECT: APEL DESIGN 6411 INDEPENDENCE AVE. WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367 818.346.9828 STOUT DESIGN BUILD 12405 VENICE BLVD. #352 LOS ANGELES, CA 90066 310.876.1018 UTILITIES UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PHONE 800.422.4133 3. CONSTRUCTION NOTATIONS: 3.1. "AREAS DESIGNATED AS MULCH ON APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS, INCLUDING AREAS COVERED BY WOOD CHIPS, GRAVEL, STONE, DECOMPOSED GRANITE, AND AREAS DESIGNATED AS ARTIFICIAL TURF ON APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS CANNOT BE REPLACED WITH TURF GRASS OR HIGH WATER USE PLANTS AS DEFINED IN THE CURRENT EDITION OF THE WATER USE CLASSIFICATION OF LANDSCAPE SPECIES (WUCOLS), ONCE MULCH OR ARTIFICIAL TURF HAS BEEN INSTALLED." 3.2. FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ONLY INSTALLING NEW LANDSCAPING, SUBMITTED CONSTRUCTION PLANS MUST INCLUDE THE FOLLOWING DECLARATION SIGNED BY THE PROJECT APPLICANT: "THE LANDSCAPE FOR THIS PROPERTY MUST BE BUILT TO THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS WITHIN THIS APPROVED BUILDING PLAN SET. ANY REVISIONS TO APPROVED PLANS WILL REQUIRE RE-SUBMITTAL AND APPROVAL AND MUST STILL COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT WATER-EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION STANDARDS. ANY AREAS OF LANDSCAPE NOT COMPLETED AT TIME OF THE CLOSE OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION PERMIT MUST BE COVERED WITH A MINIMUM OF 3 INCH (3") LAYER OF MULCH. THIS INCLUDES ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF EXISTING PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT IN TURN APPLICATIONS, WHERE MULCH IS NOT APPROPRIATE. FUTURE LANDSCAPE INSTALLATIONS FOR INCOMPLETE LANDSCAPE INSTALLATIONS MUST BE TO THE APPROVED LANDSCAPE PLANS. I, __________________________________________________, (PROJECT APPLICANT) HAVE READ AND UNDERSTAND THE TERMS OF THIS STATEMENT." 4. LANDSCAPE NOTATIONS: 4.1. "TURF GRASS, INCLUDING EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL, IS NOT ALLOWED ON SLOPES GREATER THAN TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25%) WHERE THE TOE OF THE SLOPE IS ADJACENT TO AN IMPERMEABLE HARDSCAPE AND WHERE TWENTY-FICE PERCENT (25%) MEANS ONE FOOT (1') OF VERTICAL ELEVATION CHANGE FOR EVERY FOUR FEET (4') OF HORIZONTAL LENGTH (RISE DIVIDED BY RUN X 100 = SLOPE %)." 4.2. "PLANT MATERIAL LISTED IN THE CURRENT INVASIVE PLANT INVENTORY FOR THE SOUTHWEST REGION BY THE CALIFORNIA INVASIVE PLANT COUNCIL OR LISTED FOR THE SOUTH COAST REGION BY THE PLANT RIGHT ORGANIZATION ARE PROHIBITED, INCLUDING EXISTING PLANT MATERIAL, EXCEPT FOR KNOWN NON-FRUITING, NON-INVASIVE, STERILE VARIETIES, CULTIVARS OR SELECTIONS." KEY MAP DIG ALERT GENERAL NOTES A. ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION AND SUPPLEMENTS OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS OF CALIFORNIA. 1. SUBMITTALS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW THE PLANS AND WILL NOT SUBSTITUTE SPECIFIED PRODUCTS, BUILDING MATERIALS OR PLANTS UNLESS APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/OWNER. ALL PROPOSED SUBSTITUTIONS SHALL BE DESCRIBED AND DOCUMENTED IN SUBMITTALS BY THE CONTRACTOR, AND SUBMITTED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT/OWNER 2 WEEKS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 2. PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE AND PAY FOR ALL REQUIRED PERMITS AND INSPECTIONS. DELIVER ALL PERMITS AND CERTIFICATES OF INSPECTION TO OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 3. PROTECTION OF EXISTING FEATURES. STRUCTURES, STREETS, SIDEWALK, TREES, ALL HARDSCAPE, UTILITIES TO REMAIN AND ADJACENT PROPERTY SHALL BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT THE WORK AS REQUIRED BY LOCAL CODES AND REGULATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF ANY EXISTING MATERIALS THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 4. ACCEPTANCE OF COMPLETED PROJECT. THE PROJECT SHALL BE ACCEPTED AS COMPLETE WHEN THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN MET: 4.1. ALL WORK REQUIRED BY CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS FINAL INSPECTION HAS SATISFACTORILY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. 4.2. THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND SAFETY HAS SIGNED OFF THE FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL AT THE BOTTOM OF THE JOB INSPECTION CARD. (IF REQUIRED) 4.3. THE CONTRACTOR HAS MADE ALL PAYMENTS TO SUBCONTRACTORS AND MATERIAL SUPPLIERS AND NO LIENS EXIST. B. ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE DRAWINGS OR SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE CALLED TO THE IMMEDIATE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. FAILURE TO DO SO WILL PLACE RESPONSIBILITY ON THE CONTRACTOR FOR CORRECTION. C. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ON SITE, ALL DIMENSIONS AND LOCATIONS OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY. D. A SEPARATE APPLICATION AND PERMIT(S) IS/ARE REQUIRED FOR: 1. DEMOLITION WORK 2. RETAINING WALLS GREATER THAN 4 FEET IN HEIGHT MEASURED FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTING TO THE TOP OF THE WALL OR SUPPORTING A SURCHARGE 3. EACH SEPARATE STRUCTURE 4. FENCES GREATER THAN SIX (6) FEET HIGH ABBREVIATIONS ARCH ARCHITECT CL CENTER LINE CLR CLEAR D DOOR DS DOWNSPOUT DWG DRAWINGS EQ EQUAL EX EXISTING FF FINISH FLOOR FG FINISH GRADE HB HOSE BIB HP HIGH POINT INV INVERT LP LOW POINT MFC MANUFACTURER OC ON CENTER PROP PROPOSED PA PLANTING AREA QTY QUANTITY SJ SCORE JOINT SIM SIMILAR SYM SYMBOL TYP TYPICAL W WINDOW SHEET INDEX L0.0 - COVER SHEET L1.0 - FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN L2.0 - PLANTING PLAN L3.0 - PLANTING DETAILS L4.0 - WATER EFFICIENT WORKSHEET L5.0 - IRRIGATION LEGEND L6.0 - IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN L7.0 - IRRIGATION DETAILS L7.1 - IRRIGATION DETAILS SCALE: 1/16" = 1' CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE STOUT AND/OR CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE WITH MIN. 72 HOUR NOTICE (BY EMAIL OR PHONE CALL) WHEN SCHEDULING ON-SITE MEETINGS WITH STOUT AND/OR CLIENT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE FOLLOWING ON-SITE MEETINGS. CONTRACTOR TO OVERLAY MEETINGS TO THE BEST OF HIS/HER ABILITY. GENERAL: CONSTRUCTION KICK OFF MEETING GRADING AND DRAINAGE PHASE: A. ONCE FINAL GRADING HAS BEEN COMPLETED. IRRIGATION PHASE: A. BALL VALVE AND P.O.C., WYE STRAINER, PRESSURE REGULATOR, FLOW METER, CONTROL VALVE B. MAINLINE PRESSURE TEST C. LATERAL LINE AND DRIP LINE INSTALLATION D. DRIPPER EMISSION TEST PLANTING PHASE: A. ONCE PLANTS HAVE BEEN SET OUT PER PLAN B. ONCE ALL PLANTS HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND BEFORE MULCH IS INSTALLED UPON COMPLETION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE LANDSCAPE PHASE: A. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT REQUIRES A PROJECT WALK THROUGH UPON COMPLETION TO VERIFY THAT THE LANDSCAPE WAS INSTALLED PER THE DESIGN PLANS PROVIDED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SCHEDULE OF ON-SITE MEETINGS

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE

VANTAGE POINT TERRACE
JOHN TYLER DRIVE (PRIVATE) NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CALL BEFORE YOU DIG - 811 DIG ALERT UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT. DIAL TOLL FREE 1-800-422-4133 AT LEAST TWO DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA 1. DELINEATE THE SITE. IT IS MANDATORY THAT YOU OUTLINE THE PROPOSED EXCAVATION SITE WITH WHITE PAINT OR STAKES. 2. CALL AT LEAST TWO WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG. YOU MAY CALL 14 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXCAVATION. 3. YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE IF DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND UTILITIES RESULTS FROM YOUR DIGGING. LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAINTENANCE CONTACT WATER PURVEYOR CONTACT LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICT NO. 29, MALIBU Eran Eliyahoo 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 323.217.9818 [email protected] WATER SUPPLY TYPE IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY IS CITY SUPPLIED POTABLE WATER FROM THE EXISTING WATER METER LOCATED IN THE PARKWAY. TOTAL LANDSCAPE AREA: 3,457 SQ.FT. LOCATION MAP APPLICANT'S STATEMENT: I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PRESCRIPTIVE COMPLIANCE OPTION OF THE MWELO. SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE STREET TREES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE TO BE PLANTED PER APPROVED STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS TREE CANOPIES ARE SHOWN IN FULL MATURITY ALL HARDSCAPES, RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOLS, AND/OR BLOCK WALLS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT ALL PLANTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH DROUGHT TOLERANT LANDSCAPE (DTL) THE TYPE OF SOIL IS SUITABLE FOR ALL THE PROPOSED PLANTS IN THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR TO PROTECT AND PRESERVE IN PLACE ALL EXISTING SURVEY MONUMENTS. ANY MONUMENTS DISTURBED SHALL BE RESET BY A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR AND THE APPROPRIATE CORNER RECORD MUST BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. 158
S 52° 38' 12" W 12.02' Found Chisel "X" (No Ref.) 102 102 103 104 105 105 106 107 108 109 110 106 106 107 108 109 110 107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 98 97 N 43°08'25" E 173.08' N 47°18'38" W 82.36' 3' Driveway Sidewalk Sidewalk 108.76 TW 104.6 NG 106.3 NG 108.80 TW
103.93 FL 103.54 TC
104.76 FS FS 103.73 FS 102.45 390 SF GARAGE 812 44 SF BATH 0 81118 SF CLOSET 813 30 SF POWDER 814 37 SF Room 815 326 SF MASTER BED 817 106 SF MASTER CLOSET 827 119 SF MASTER BATH 826 141 SF BED 1 82247 SF BATH 1 828 114 SF BED 2 823 61 SF J&J BATH 824 61 SF HALL 821 24 SF W.I.C 820 150 SF GUEST/MAID 810 385 SF KITCHEN 830 412 SF DINING 833 443 SF GRAND LIVING ROOM 831 229 SF ENTRY 832 200 SF FAMILY ROOM 818 147 SF Room 816 151 SF BED 3 819 (26' MIN) 103' - 6 15/16" 104' - 9 31/32" 105' - 0" 106' - 0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PAD PAD 12'-0" 9'-0" 36'-2"
5'-0" 15'-0" 5'-0" MIN REAR YARD
MIN
SIDE
YARD

SIDE MIN YARD
VANTAGE POINT TERRACE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAVEL PATH WITHIN 5' AROUND NEW BUILDING. NO PLANTS SHALL BE PLANTED IN THIS AREAEXTENT OF ZONE A ZONE A ZONE B 5' 30' DRIVEWAY, SEE ARCH DWGS EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN, TYP EXTENT OF ZONE A Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: Seal: Revisions: -- 234 ------ 1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 L1.0 FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN GENERAL NOTES: A. SEE ARCHITECT DRAWING FOR HARDSCAPE B. SEE ARCHITECT DRAWING FOR SITE DRAINAGE C. SEE ARCHITECT DRAWING FOR GRADING NOTES: 1. EXISTING VEGETATION TO REMAIN WILL BE EVALUATED BY AN ON-SITE INSPECTION TO DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF MODIFICATION REQUIRED, IF ANY. 2. OWNER/CONTRACTOR MAY REQUEST OCCUPANCY INSPECTION AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY INSPECTION. 3. SEE SHEET L2.0 - PLANTING PLAN FOR EXISTING TREE AND PLANT SPECIES THAT WILL BE REMOVED OR WILL REMAIN. SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 8' 16' 32' 159
S 52° 38' 12" W 12.02' Found Chisel "X" (No Ref.) 102 102 103 104 105 105 106 107 108 109 110 106 106 107 108 109 110 107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 98 97 N 43°08'25" E 173.08' N 47°18'38" W 82.36' 3' Driveway Sidewalk Sidewalk 108.76 TW 104.6 NG 106.3 NG 108.80 TW
103.93 FL 103.54 TC
104.76 FS FS 103.73 FS 102.45 390 SF GARAGE 812 44 SF BATH 0 81118 SF CLOSET 813 30 SF POWDER 814 37 SF Room 815 326 SF MASTER BED 817 106 SF MASTER CLOSET 827 119 SF MASTER BATH 826 141 SF BED 1 82247 SF BATH 1 828 114 SF BED 2 823 61 SF J&J BATH 824 61 SF HALL 821 24 SF W.I.C 820 150 SF GUEST/MAID 810 385 SF KITCHEN 830 412 SF DINING 833 443 SF GRAND LIVING ROOM 831 229 SF ENTRY 832 200 SF FAMILY ROOM 818 147 SF Room 816 151 SF BED 3 819 (26' MIN) 103' - 6 15/16" 104' - 9 31/32" 105' - 0" 106' - 0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PAD PAD 12'-0" 9'-0" 36'-2"
5'-0" 15'-0" 5'-0" MIN REAR YARD
MIN
SIDE
YARD

SIDE MIN YARD
VANTAGE POINT TERRACE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CO DRIVEWAY, SEE ARCH DWGS EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN PH CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS ALOE PLICATILIS COREOTHROGYNE FILANGILIFOLI PENSTEMON HETEROPHYLUS AGAVE BLUE FLAME DUDLEYA LANCEOLATA DYMONDIA MARGARETAE SEDUM ANGELINA ABF PHPH DYM WATER FEATURE, SEE ARCH DWGS WATER FEATURE, SEE ARCH DWGS ABF PHPHPH PH D D DD DD SED DYM ABF ABF ABF ABF ABF ABF CF AP CF PH PH PH PH CF DYM DYM SED EXISTING CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 23'ABF ABF GRADE AT EDGE OF PAVING 5 L3.0 EXISTING SIDEWALK CF CF PH PH ABF ABF ABF PH PH PH CF CF CF CF PH PH PH CF CF CF ABFABF ABF EC CF CF CFEC EC EC EC CF CF CFEC EC EC EC EC CF CF CF EC EC EC EC EC POOL, SEE ARCH DWGS EXTENT OF FUEL MOD. ZONE A EXTENT OF FUEL MOD. ZONE A FUEL MOD. ZONE A FUEL MOD. ZONE B Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 8' 16' 32' Seal: Revisions: -- 234 ------ 1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 L2.0 PLANTING PLAN GENERAL NOTES: 1. SEE ARCHITECT DRAWING FOR HARDSCAPE 2. SEE ARCHITECT DRAWING FOR SITE DRAINAGE 3. SEE ARCHITECT DRAWING FOR GRADING PLANTING NOTES: 1. PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE APPROXIMATE. PROPOSED PLANT LOCATIONS SHALL BE ADJUSTED ON SITE WITH APPROVAL OF OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE. THIS INCLUDES ALL PROPOSED TREE LOCATIONS. 2. PROVIDED HEIGHT IN PLANT LIST IS FOR PLANT HEIGHTS AT MATURITY. 3. PLANT QUANTITIES SHOWN IN PLANT LIST ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY, PLANS SUPERCEDE THE LEGEND, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY PLANT QUANTITY SHOWN ON PLANS. MWELO NOTES 1. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. 2. I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS. 3. PRIOR TO THE PLANTING OF ANY MATERIALS, COMPACTED SOILS SHALL BE TRANSFORMED TO A FRIABLE CONDITION. ON ENGINEERED SLOPES, ONLY AMENDED PLANTING HOLES NEED MEET THIS REQUIREMENT. 4. FOR SOILS LESS THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP 6 INCHES OF SOIL, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THE SOIL. SOILS WITH GREATER THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP SIX INCHES OF SOIL ARE EXEMPT FROM ADDING COMPOST AND TILLING. 5. A MINIMUM THREE INCH (3") LAYER OF MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT IN TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUND COVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. TO PROVIDE HABITAT FOR BENEFICIAL INSECTS AND OTHER WILDLIFE, UP TO 5% OF THE LANDSCAPE AREA MAY BE LEFT WITHOUT MULCH. 6. ORGANIC MULCH MATERIALS MADE FROM RECYCLED OR POST-CONSUMER ORGANIC PRODUCTS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER INORGANIC MATERIALS OR VIRGIN FOREST PRODUCTS UNLESS THE POST-CONSUMER ORGANIC PRODUCTS ARE NOT LOCALLY AVAILABLE. ORGANIC MULCHES ARE NOT REQUIRED WHERE PROHIBITED BY LOCAL FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN GUIDELINES OR OTHER APPLICABLE LOCAL ORDINANCES. 7. AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, THE PERMIT APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE. 3/15/22 Courtney McCammon CDP 22-009 160
Stout Design Build
12405 Venice Blvd #352
Los Angeles, Ca 90066
(310) 876-1018
www.stoutdesignbuild.com
April 16, 2021
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Project:

Submittal Date:

Sheet Number:

Seal:

Revisions: -- 2
3 4
--
--
--
1 Drawn By:

H.M.
04/16/21
L3.0PLANTING DETAILS
PLANTING NOTES:

1. SOIL PREPARATION:

A. CLEAR SITE OF ALL VEGETATION, INCLUDING LARGE ROOT SYSTEMS FROM PLANTS REMOVED.

B. ROTOTILL TOGETHER 90% SITE SOIL AND 10% COMPOST TO A DEPTH OF 8".

C. REMOVE ALL VEGETATION REMNANTS, CLODS OF 2" DIAMETER OR LARGER, STONES, SMALLER ROOTS, AND OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL.

D. IF SOIL IS OVERLY COMPACTED (OVER 150 PSI OR 85% PROCTOR), TILL COMPACTED AREA BY HAND TO A DEPTH OF 6-8". IF SOIL IS COMPACTED BELOW 8" DEPTH, BREAK UP COMPACTION WITH AN AUGER.

E. WHEN PLANTING PER DETAIL, BACKFILL WITH 90% SITE SOIL AND 10% COMPOST.

F. ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS ARE TO RECEIVE AN EVEN APPLICATION OF SOIL HUMATE WITH AN APPLICATION RATE PER PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS DEPENDING ON TYPE USED. THE HUMATE AMENDMENT IS TO BE INCORPORATED UNIFORMLY ONTO TOP OF SOIL. THESE ARE ACCEPTABLE SOIL AMENDMENT PRODUCTS OR EQUIVALENT;

1.1. GRANULAR PRODUCT PREMIUM HUMATE FROM TRI-C. APPLICATION RATE IS 50 LBS PER 1,000 S.F. FOLLOW DIRECTION ON PRODUCT LABEL.

1.2. LIQUID PRODUCT SPRAY APPLICATION "TERAVITA LC-10 PLUS 7", (WWW. SIMPLICI-TEA.COM). FOLLOW DIRECTIONS ON PRODUCT LABEL.

1.3. "SOLU-PLKS" FROM EARTHFORT (WWW.EARTHFORT.COM). LIQUID APPLICATION= 1 GALLON/ACRE OR 7 OZ FOR 2,375 S.F.

FOLLOW DIRECTIONS ON PRODUCT LABEL.

2. PLANTING DEPTH: ALL PLANTS ARE TO BE PLANTED SO THAT AFTER SETTLING, THE CROWN OF THE PLANT IS EVEN WITH FINISH GRADE AND ALL ROOTS ARE FULLY COVERED WITH SOIL.

3. NO WATERING BASINS: DO NOT INSTALL WATERING BASINS AROUND PLANTS.

4. MULCH SPECIFICATION: A MINIMUM 3"-4" DEEP LAYER OF WOOD BARK AND LEAF MIXTURE MULCH SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL

EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS AND ON TOP OF IRRIGATION TUBING EXCEPT AT TURF AREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUND COVERS OR DIRECT SEEDING APPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED.

5. WOOD CHIPS OR ARTIFICIALLY COLORED MULCH SHALL NOT BE USED. KEEP ALL MULCH 4" AWAY FROM CROWN OF PLANTS.

6. COMPOST TEA: APPLICATION OF BREWED COMPOST TEA IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. PLEASE CONTACT COMPOST TEANA AT 310.367.6485.

7. MAINTENANCE: SIZES OF PLANTS AND TREES ARE SHOWN ON PLAN AT 75% OF MATURE SIZE. THE GARDENER WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT ALL PLANTS AND TREES RECEIVE REGULAR MAINTENANCE I.E. PRUNING, THINNING, AND DIVIDING, AND MULCH RENEWAL TO MAINTAIN LONGEVITY, HEALTH, AND AESTHETIC INTENT OF THE PLANTING. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING PLANT HEALTH AND WATERING SCHEDULING THROUGH WARRANTY. GARDENER RESPONSIBLE FOR DAY-TO-DAY MAINTENANCE.

8. QUANTITIES: CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING PLANT QUANTITIES. QUANTITIES IN PLANTING PLAN SUPERCEDES QUANTITY IN PLANTING LEGEND.

9. PLANTING PATTERN: PLANT ALL GROUND COVERS IN A TRIANGULAR PATTERN FOR MOST EFFICIENT COVERAGE.

10. SUBSTITUTIONS: IF CERTAIN PLANTS ON PLANT LIST ARE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PLANTING, CONTACT STOUT DESIGN BUILD TO DETERMINE IF A SUITABLE SUBSTITUTION COULD BE MADE.

11. ON SITE POSITIONING: STOUT DESIGN BUILD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADJUST PLANT MATERIAL ON SITE. PLANTS TO BE PLACED AND POSITIONED ON SITE PER PLAN BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. FINAL PLANT LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY STOUT DESIGN BUILD PRIOR TO PLANTING.

12. GUARANTEE: ALL PLANT MATERIAL PURCHASED BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR A PERIOD OF 3 MONTHS. GUARANTEE PERIOD COMMENCES FROM THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE BY THE OWNER. PLANTS USED

FOR REPLACEMENT OF DEAD PLANTS SHALL BE THE SAME KIND AND SIZE AS ORIGINALLY PLANTED, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY STOUT DESIGN BUILD. REPLACEMENT PLANTS ARE TO BE PLANTED FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

COMPOST SPECIFICATION:

1. COMPOST SHALL BE PRODUCED BY A COMPOST FACILITY FULLY LICENSED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHICH DOCUMENTS THE PATHOGEN REDUCTION PROCESS.

2. COMPOST IS TO BE WELL-COMPOSTED, STABLE, AND WEED-FREE ORGANIC MATTER, PH RANGE OF 5.5 TO 8; MOISTURE CONTENT 35 TO 55 PERCENT BY WEIGHT: 100 PERCENT PASSING THROUGH 3/8" SLEEVE; SOLUBLE SALT CONTENT OF 5 TO 10 DECISIEMENS/M; AND NOT EXCEEDING 0.5 PERCENT INERT CONTAMINANTS AND FREE OF SUBSTANCE TOXIC TO PLANTINGS.

A) ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT: 50 TO 60 PERCENT OF DRY WEIGHT B) FEEDSTOCK: AGRICULTURAL, FOOD, OR INDUSTRIAL RESIDUALS; YARD TRIMMINGS; OR SOURCE-SEPARATED OR COMPOSTABLE MIXED SOLID WASTE. SLUDGE OR SEWAGE WASTE COMPOSTS ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE.

C) AMEND SOIL WITH AGRI SERVICE OR COMPARABLE HUMIC COMPOST SOIL AMENDMENT, SIX CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET TO A DEPTH OF 5" TO 8" OF SOIL. 161
L4.0
WATER EFFICIENT WORKSHEET Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: Seal: Revisions: -- 234 ------ 1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 DESIGN STATEMENT: I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. Signature of Licensed Landscape Architect Date Gabrielle Harris, RLA, LEED AP Landscape Architect 310.876.1018 3/15/22 162

1. THIS DESIGN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. ALL VALVES, ETC., SHOW WITHIN PAVED AREAS FOR DESIGN CLARIFICATION ONLY, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE PLANTING AREAS WHERE POSSIBLE, AVOID ANY CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND EXISTING STRUCTURES, UTILITIES AND PLANTING. 2. ALL PRESSURIZED MAINLINE AND LATERAL PIPING UNDER PAVING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE SLEEVES, MAIN LINE SLEEVE, CONTROL WIRE SLEEVES SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE FOR THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF WIRES UNDER PAVING, OR SIZE AS INDICATED ON PLANS. 3. ALL EXTERIOR LOW VOLTAGE WIRE CONNECTIONS SHALL BE FULLY ENCLOSED USING WATERPROOF CONNECTORS. 4. EXTEND ALL SLEEVES A MINIMUM OF SIX (6) INCHES BEYOND PAVING EDGES. 5. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 18” COVER OVER ALL PRESSURE MAINLINE PIPE AND 12” MINIMUM COVER OVER ALL NON-PRESSURE LATERAL LINES. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PULLING VALVE WIRING THROUGH SLEEVING WHEN NECESSARY. 7. ALL LATERAL LINE PIPING UNDER PAVING SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 PIPE AND SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO PAVING. 8. EXERCISE EXTREME CARE WHEN EXCAVATING FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM DUE TO EXISTING UTILITIES. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO BECOME FAMILIAR WITH ALL GRADE DIFFERENCES, LOCATION OF WALLS, STRUCTURES, AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE HIS WORK WITH AND ALL OTHER TRADES ON SITE. 9. DO NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS IN THE FIELD THAT UNKNOWN OBSTRUCTION, GRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES IN THE AREA DIMENSIONS EXIST THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE DESIGN. SUCH OBSTRUCTIONS OR DIFFERENCES SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. IN THE EVENT THIS NOTIFICATION IS NOT PERFORMED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ASSUME ALL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REVISIONS NECESSARY. 10. ALL THREADED PIPE CONNECTIONS MADE TO SLIP-JOINT PVC PIPE SHALL BE MADE WITH A PVC THREADED COUPLING. ALL THREADED ADAPTERS AND COUPLINGS ARE TO BE ‘DURA’ DEEP SOCKET TYPE. 11. ALL VALVES SHALL BE LOCATED IN GROUND COVER AREAS WHENEVER POSSIBLE. REMOTE CONTROL VALVES SHALL BE INSTALLED IN BELOW GRADE BOXES. USE BROWN COLORED BOXES UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THE FINAL CONNECTION OF CONTROL WIRES BETWEEN EXISTING WIRES AND NEW CONTROL VALVES. 13. CONTRACTOR SHALL FOLLOW ALL MANUFACTURER’S INSTRUCTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLATION AND COORDINATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INSURE A COMPLETE SYSTEM. 14. COVER ALL DRIP LINES WITH MINIMUM 3" THICK LAYER OF APPROVED BARK MULCH. 15. MANUAL SHUT-OFF VALVES SHALL BE REQUIRED, AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE POINT OF CONNECTION OF THE WATER SUPPLY, TO MINIMIZE WATER LOSS IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY OR ROUTINE REPAIR. GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES CONTRACTOR SHALL BE LICENSED; IT SHALL BE THE CONTRACTOR’S RESPONSIBILITY TO READ, UNDERSTAND, AND ADHERE TO PROJECT NOTES AND SPECIFICATION, PERTAINING TO ALL PLANS, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING GENERAL AND SITE SPECIFIC NOTES. LOW FLOW REMOTE CONTROL VALVES W/PRESSURE REGULATOR & RBY FILTER ASSEMBLY: CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL, NEW RAINBIRD CONTROL ZONE KITS WITH PLASTIC GLOBE VALVE AND COMBINED PRESSURE REGULATOR AND FILTER, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT AS FOLLOWS: • AT CONTROL VALVE USE RAINBIRD MODEL XCZ-LF-100-PRF 1" CONTROL ZONE KIT IN A SQUARE VALVE BOX WITH COMBINED PRESSURE REGULATOR AND FILTER • INSTALL NEW CONTROL VALVES IN NDS PRO-SERIES 14”X19” CORRUGATED VALVE BOX, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT, WITH OVERLAPPING BOLT DOWN LID, SAND COLOR, BOX AND COVER PART # 314BCB-SAND, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT LEGEND SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SHEET & DETAIL CALL-OUT 1" Ø BALL VALVE: CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL NIBCO, PVC Tru-Bloc TRUE UNION, MODEL 'D' BALL VALVE WITH DUEL THREADED UNIONS OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. • INSTALL USING NDS PRO-SERIES 14"X19" CORRUGATED VALVE BOX, WITH OVERLAPPING BOLT DOWN LID, SAND COLOR BOX AND COVER PART #314BCB-SAND OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONTROLLER: WEATHERMATIC SL1600 SMARTLINE 8 ZONE MODULAR WEATHER MONITOR: WEATHERMATIC SLW1 IRRIGATION MAIN LINE: CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL 1"Ø SCH 40 PVC PIPE AND ALL REQUIRED FITTINGS AND MATERIAL, FROM NEW 1" POINT OF CONNECTION AND BALL VALVE. IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO CONFIRM LOCATION OF POINT OF CONNECTION WITH CITY REPRESTATIVE, SEE SITE SPECIFIC NOTES. IRRIGATION LATERAL SCHEDULE: 34" 40 PVC PLASTIC PIPE AND ALL REQUIRED FITTINGS & MATERIALS FROM DRIP REMOTE CONTROL VALVES 1" RP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR W/STRAINER AND PRESSURE REGULATOR FEBCO MODEL # 860 ON GRADE IN-LINE DRIP IRRIGATION PIPE: NETAFIM TECH LINE CV 17MM BROWN UV RESISTANT POLYETHYLENE DRIPLINE MODEL #TLCV4-18GRID WITH 0.4 GPH FLOW. EMITTER SPACING 12" O.C. INSTALL PER DRIP DETAILS, DRIPLINE ROW SPACING 18" O.C. 34" LATERAL UNDERGROUND SLEEVES: 4" DIAMETER SCHEDULE 40 PVC TYP., UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXTEND 6" BEYOND EDGE OF ALL PAVING AREA LAYOUT POLY LINE BASED ON ACTUAL PLANT LOCATIONS AND SITE CONDITIONS MANUAL LINE FLUSH VALVE: CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL, NETAFIM MANUAL SHUT OFF VALVE MODEL# TLSOV, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. MOUNTED AT END OF POLYETHYLENE (BLANK) IRRIGATION TUBING RUN. SEE PLAN FOR REFERENCE LOCATIONS, FINAL LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED ON SITE DURING INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM.INSTALL USING NDS PRO SERIES, 10" DIAMETER X 12"H ROUND SAND COLORED VAVLE BOX WITH LID, PART #111 BC SAND, OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT. MWELO NOTES: WATER DURING INTIAL PLANTING PERIOD: SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVERS SYSTEMS: 30 MINUTES 1X PER DAY FOR FIRST 10 DAYS SPRING WATERING DURING PLANT ESTABLISHMENT TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SYSTEMS: 30 - 35 MINUTES 2X PER WEEK SUMMER WATERING AFTER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SYSTEMS: 45 MINUTES 1X PER WEEK (FOR NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS) FALL WATERING AFTER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SYSTEMS: 35-45 MINUTES 2X PER WEEK (FOR NATIVE OR DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTS) WINTER WATERING AFTER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SYSTEMS: 40 MINUTES 1X PER WEEK (SUPPLEMENTAL WATER ONLY REQUIRED IN DROUGHT CONDITIONS) SPRING WATERING AFTER PLANT ESTABLISHMENT TREE, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER SYSTEMS: 30-40 MINUTES 1X PER WEEK NOTES: 1. WATERING SCHEDULE IS PROVIDED AS A GENERAL GUIDELINE. TIME AND DAYS PER WEEK SHALL BE ADJUSTED BASED ON WEATHER CONDITIONS, PLANT TYPE, SOIL, ETC. 2. ESTABLISHMENT IS TYPICALLY FIRST 3-6 MONTHS. RECOMMENDED WATERING SCHEDULE 1" DEDICATED LANDSCAPE SUB-METER: DLJ EPOXY COATED BRONZE WATER METER, MODEL # DLJ100. INSTALL IN STANDARD RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX. 4" SLEEVE SEE 1/L7.0 SEE 4/L7.0 SEE 6/L7.0 SEE 7/L7.0 -- SEE 2/L7.0 SEE 3/L7.0 SEE 4/L7.1 SEE 5/L7.0 34" HYDROZONE DESCRIPTION AND LEGEND CONTROL VALVE # (HYDROZONE ZONE) LANDSCAPE AREA (SQ.FT) W.U.C.O.L.S. PLANT WATER USE RATING HYDROZONE DESCRIPTION CONTROL VALVE # CONTROL VALVE LEGEND CONTROL VALVE SIZE W.U.C.O.L.S. PLANTS WATER NEEDS RATINGS: MED = MEDIUM, L = LOW, M/L = MEDIUM LOW, L/VL = LOW TO VERY LOW 1 GENERAL DRIP NOTES X VALVE # DASHED LINE IS DELINEATION OF HYDROZONE BOUNDRY STATIC WATER PRESSURE & SOIL TYPE ZONE AREA HYDROZONE BOUNDRY ZONE PRESSURE 296 LOW GROUNDCOVER/SHRUBS,TREES 30 PSI 2 1,766 LOW 30 PSI FOR INLINE DRIP: ALL PLANTS SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ONE EMITTER PLACED OVER THE ROOTBALL ON THE UPHILL SIDE. APPLICATION RATE .43 IN/HR ZONE FLOW RATE (GPM) 5.71 1.33 1. I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS. 2. A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. 3. A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE SIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, THE SIGNER OF THE IRRIGATION PLANS, OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT. 4. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. 5. PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IS WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIC IRRIGATION DEVICES. 6. RECIRCULATING WATER SYSTEMS SHALL BE USED FOR WATER FEATURES. 7. CHECK VALVES OR ANTI-DRAIN VALVES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL SPRINKLER HEADS WHERE LOW POINT DRAINAGE COULD OCCUR. 8. AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, THE PERMIT APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE. SEE 1/L7.1 SM # HUNTER ECO-INDICATOR WITH POP-UP YELLOW STEM: (MINIMUM ONE PER ZONE AND ONE IN EACH SEPARATE BED PER VALVE IF APPLICABLE), CONTRACTOR TO SUPPLY AND INSTALL, HUNTER 6" POP-UP BODY IWITH HUNTER FLEXIBLE SWING JOINT ASSEMBLY, SEE DETAIL. PLACE IN VISIBLE LOCATIONS PER SDB APPROVAL. INSTALL PER MFG. NOTE AND SPECIFICATION. 1. NEW 1" WATER METER TO BE INSTALLED. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE SIZE AND LOCATION ONSITE. 2. EXISTING STATIC WATER PRESSURE IS 110-115 PSI. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY STATIC WATER PRESSURE ONSITE AFTER THE NEW METER IS INSTALLED. 3. SET STATIC WATER PRESSURE AT THE NEW REGULATOR FOR IRRIGATION SYSTEM @ 60-70 PSI. 4. SOIL TYPE IS TO BE DETERMINED. 5. INLINE DRIP APPLICATION RATE IS 0.43 INCHES PER HOUR. 6. IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLY IS CITY SUPPLIED POTABLE WATER. .43 IN/HR SEE 5/L7.1 GROUNDCOVER/SHRUBS,TREES 3 486 LOW SHRUBS 30 PSI 5.71 .43 IN/HR Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: Seal: Revisions: -- 234 ------ 1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 L5.0 IRRIGATION LEGEND MAINTENANCE TASK 1. CONTROLLER CABINET - OPEN CABINET AND CLEAN OUT DEBRIS AND REPLACE BATTERY AS NECESSARY. CHECK WIRING AND REPAIR AS NEEDED AND CHECK CLOCK AND RESET, IF NECESSARY. 2. IRRIGATION SCHEDULE - ADJUST SCHEDULE FOR SEASONAL VARIATIONS AND OTHER CONDITIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT THE AMOUNT OF WATER NEEDED TO MAINTAIN PLANT HEALTH. ADJUST AS NECESSARY. 3. POC - VISUALLY INSPECT COMPONENTS FOR LEAKS, PRESSURE SETTINGS, SETTLEMENTS OR OTHER DAMAGE AFFECTING THE OPERATION OF A COMPONENT. REPAIR AS NEEDED. 4. REMOTE CONTROL VALVES - ISOLATION VALVES AND QUICK COUPLER VALVES VISUALLY INSPECT FOR LEAKS, SETTLEMENT, WIRE CONNECTIONS AND PRESSURE SETTINGS. REPAIR OR ADJUST AS NEEDED. 5. MAINLINE AND LATERALS VISUALLY INSPECT FOR LEAKS OR SETTLEMENT OF TRENCH. 6. SPRINKLERS VISUALLY CHECK FOR ANY BROKEN MISSIGNED OR CLOGGED HEADS. HEADS WITH INCORRECT ARC, INADEQUATE COVERAGE OR OVERSPRAY AND LOW HEAD DRAINAGE. REPAIR AS NEEDED. 7. FILTERS AND STRAINERS VISUALLY CHECK FOR LEAKS, BROKEN FITTING CLEAN AND FLUSH SCREENS. FREQUENCY QUARTERLY MONTHLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY QUARTERLY WEEKLY MONTHLY THE IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE TASKS LISTED BELOW ARE INTENDED AS MINIMUM STANDARDS AND MORE FREQUENT ATTENTION MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON THE PARTICULAR SITE CONDITIONS. 163
S 52° 38' 12" W 12.02' Found Chisel "X" (No Ref.) 102 102 103 104 105 105 106 107 108 109 110 106 106 107 108 109 110 107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 107
106
105
104
103
102
101
100
99 98 97 N 43°08'25" E 173.08' N 47°18'38" W 82.36' 3' Driveway Sidewalk Sidewalk 108.76 TW 104.6 NG 106.3 NG 108.80 TW
103.93 FL 103.54 TC
104.76 FS FS 103.73 FS 102.45 390 SF GARAGE 812 44 SF BATH 0 81118 SF CLOSET 813 30 SF POWDER 814 37 SF Room 815 326 SF MASTER BED 817 106 SF MASTER CLOSET 827 119 SF MASTER BATH 826 141 SF BED 1 82247 SF BATH 1 828 114 SF BED 2 823 61 SF J&J BATH 824 61 SF HALL 821 24 SF W.I.C 820 150 SF GUEST/MAID 810 385 SF KITCHEN 830 412 SF DINING 833 443 SF GRAND LIVING ROOM 831 229 SF ENTRY 832 200 SF FAMILY ROOM 818 147 SF Room 816 151 SF BED 3 819 103' - 6 15/16" 104' - 9 31/32" 105' - 0" 106' - 0" PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PAD PAD VANTAGE POINT TERRACE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 21,766 SQ. FT. INLINE DRIP 2 34" LOW FLOW REMOTE CONTROL VALVES, TYP 1 NOTE: LOCATION OF THE IRRIGATION MANIFOLD INCLUDING THE BACKFLOW PREVENTOR AND SUB-METER IS DIAGRAMMATIC ON THE PLANS. THIS ENTIRE MANIFOLD SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT PROPERTY IN A LANDSCAPE AREA AND NOT IN THE PARKWAY OR HARDSCAPE AREAS. FINAL LOCATION SHALL BE APPROVED BY OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. 34"2 MANUAL FLUSH VALVE, TYP HUNTER ECO-INDICATOR WITH POP-UP, TYP ECOECO POOL 687 SQ.FT. WATER FEATURE 61 SQ.FT. WATER FEATURE 161 SQ.FT. WEATHER BASED IRRIGATION CONTROLLER VERIFY LOCATION ONSITE WITH BUILDING OWNER RAIN SENSOR ON ROOF AT SOUTHERN EXPOSURE, CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATION ONSITE WITH OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE S C FUEL MOD. ZONE A EXTENT OF FUEL MOD. ZONE A FUEL MOD. ZONE B 3486 SQ. FT. INLINE DRIP EXTENT OF FUEL MOD. ZONE A POINT OF CONNECTION: A NEW 1" WATER METER SHALL BE INSTALLED FOR LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY SIZE AND LOCATION ONSITE. SEE ENGINEER'S DRAWINGS FOR NEW WATER METER DETAILS. 1296 SQ. FT. INLINE DRIP ECO 34"3 RPB WM 1" BALL VALVE, TYP 1" RP BACKFLOW PREVENTOR 1" DEDICATED LANDSCAPE SUB-METER POINT OF CONNECTION: NEW 1" WATER METER. SEE NOTE THIS SHEET. Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 8' 16' 32' Seal: Revisions: -- 234 ------ 1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 L6.0 IRRIGATION HYDROZONE PLAN MWELO NOTES: 1. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. 2. I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS. 3. A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FOR THE SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES. 4. A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE SIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, THE SIGNER OF THE IRRIGATION PLANS, OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT. 5. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION. 6. PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIC IRRIGATION DEVICES. 7. RECIRCULATING WATER SYSTEMS SHALL BE USED FOR WATER FEATURES. 8. CHECK VALVES OR ANTI-DRAIN VALVES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL SPRINKLER HEADS WHERE LOW POINT DRAINAGE COULD OCCUR. 9. UNLESS CONTRADICTED BY A SOILS TEST, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THE SOIL. 10. AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION, THE PERMIT APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY WITH A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION, CERTIFICATE OF INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SCHEDULE OF LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE. 164
Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: Seal: Revisions: -- 234 ------ 1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 L7.0 IRRIGATION DETAILS NOTE: INSTALL WATER METER IN STANDARD RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX. 165
®
®
® Stout Design Build 12405 Venice Blvd #352 Los Angeles, Ca 90066 (310) 876-1018 www.stoutdesignbuild.com April 16, 2021 24515 Vantage Point Terrace Malibu, CA 90265 Project: Submittal Date: Sheet Number: Seal: Revisions: -- 2 3
4 ------
1 Drawn By: H.M. 04/16/21 L7.1
IRRIGATION DETAILS NOTE: IF THERE ARE ANY EMITTERS IN THE NETAFIM GRID THAT WILL NOT BE NEEDED IN THE PRESENT, PLUG THEM WITH THE "DRIPPER PLUG RING" FROM NETAFIM. THESE PLUGS ARE REUSABLE. TO ENSURE THAT EACH NEW PLANT HAS AN EMITTER ON ITS ROOT BALL, USE THIS ADAPTOR FROM NETAFIM. IT IS CALLED A MICRO TUBING ADAPTOR. THE MODEL NUMBER IS: TLMTUBEADP. CLIP THIS ADAPTOR ONTO THE NEAREST INLINE EMITTER IN THE GRID TO THE PLANT. THEN ATTACH A LENGTH OF 1 4" DRIP TUBING, AND RUN IT TO THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL, AND STAPLE IT DOWN. THIS ADAPTOR AND 1 4" TUBING MAY BE REMOVED AFTER THE ROOTS OF THE PLANTS MOVE OUT INTO THE NATIVE SOIL. 166
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: November 8, 2023 Review Log #: 4887
Site Address: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Lot/Tract/PM #: Lot 84/ Tract 30134 Planning #: CDP 22-009 P4
Applicant/Contact: Luke Tarr, [email protected] BPC/GPC #:

Contact Phone #: 310-317-0500 Fax #: Planner: Raneika Brooks Project Type: New single-family residence and attached garage, swimming pool, retaining walls, decks, grading
Submittal Information
Consultant(s) / Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
GeoConcepts, Inc. (Barrett, CEG 2088; Dermendjian, RCE 88261):
10-26-2023, 10-17-2022, 7-14-2022
GeoConcepts, Inc. (Barrett, CEG 2088; Walter, GE 2476): 8-11-2020 4th Planning Submittal
Architectural plans prepared by Amit Apel Design, Inc. dated February 17, 2022, 15 sheets.

Grading plans prepared by California Civil and Things, Inc. dated October 12, 2023.

Previous Reviews: 9-26-2023, 10-6-2022, 5-18-2022
Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
☒ The residential development project is ACCEPTABLE from a geotechnical perspective, with the following comments to be addressed prior to building plan check stage completion. ☐ The project is NOT ACCEPTABLE from a geotechnical perspective. The listed ‘Review Comments’ shall be addressed prior to acceptance.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review
☒ Awaiting Building plan check submittal.
☐ The plans are COMPLETE from a geotechnical perspective. No further reviews are required-the plans were stamped approved by City geotechnical staff. ☐ The plans are NOT COMPLETE from a geotechnical perspective. Please respond to the listed ‘Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments’ AND review and incorporate the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ into the plans.

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:
167
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6232) – 2 –
• City of Malibu Local Coastal Program – Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan (LCP-LUP and LCP-LIP)
• Malibu Municipal Code – Title 15, Buildings and Construction • City of Malibu Guidelines for the Preparation of Geotechnical Reports and Procedures for Report Submittal (November 2013) referred to herein as Geotechnical Report Guidelines In the case of conflicting requirements between the Geotechnical Guidelines and any other referenced standards, the latest standard will apply. The Applicant is responsible for complying with the submittal requirements for all Planning variances, as appropriate; any questions regarding variances should be directed to the case Planner.

Remarks
The referenced supplemental geotechnical report # 3 and revised grading plans were reviewed by the City’s consultants from a geotechnical perspective. The proposed development includes constructing a new 3,567 square foot one-story single-family residence and attached 414 square foot garage, a new swimming pool and spa, water features, 1,293 square feet of open decks, and retaining walls.

Grading is required to support the new improvements and will consist of 3,032 yards of R & R; 190 yards of cut under structure; 439 yards of cut non-exempt; and 629 yards of export.

The subject site is on a previously graded subdivision and the Malibu Coast Fault was investigated as part of the subdivision map approved by the County of Los Angeles circa 1972. The lots were entitled and developed with single-family residences.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:

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

2. Clearly show the Code-required minimum structural foundation setbacks from the descending slopes on the plans.

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

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

5. Include the following note on the plans: “The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall prepare an asbuilt report documenting the installation of the pile foundation elements for review by City Geotechnical staff. The report shall include total depths of the piles, depth into the recommended bearing material, and a map depicting the locations of the piles.”

6. The Project Geotechnical Consultant states that the fill and bedrock are suitable for vertical excavations up to 9 feet. However, they recommend verification of this during construction. Please include the following note on the grading and foundation plans: “The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the excavations for the R & R grading and provide revised recommendations, as appropriate, if variations in the soils/bedrock are encountered.”

7. The Project Geotechnical Consultant recommended, in additional to the recommended lateral earth pressure, that retaining walls be designed to resist surcharge imposed by proposed adjacent structures and/or traffic. Please include the following note on the retaining walls and foundation plans: “The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the retaining wall design for the earth pressure and any surcharge used in the wall design.”

8. Include the following note on the foundation plans and details: “An evaluation of soil Expansion Index shall be made in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of the City of Malibu’s geotechnical guidelines at the 168
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6232) – 3 –
completion of grading by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall provide appropriate recommendations.”

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

10. Include the following a note in the grading and building plans. “Prior to the placement of concrete slabs, the slab subgrade soils shall be pre-moistened to at least 3% above the optimum moisture content to the depth specified by the Project Geotechnical Consultant. The pre-moistened soils should be tested and verified by the Geotechnical Engineer within one day prior to the placement of the moisture barrier and sand.”

11. Include the following note on the foundation plans and details: “An evaluation of soil corrosivity shall be made in accordance with Section 6.2.1 of the City of Malibu’s geotechnical guidelines at the completion of grading by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, who shall provide appropriate recommendations.”

12. In addition to the recommended lateral earth pressure, the retaining walls and swimming pool may need to be designed to resist the surcharge imposed by proposed adjacent structures, floor loads and/or traffic. Please include the following note on the retaining walls and foundation plans, and plans for the swimming pool: “The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the retaining wall and pool design for the earth pressure used and any imposed surcharge required in the wall and pool design.”

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

14. Please include a detail in the swimming pool plans for the recommended subdrain and suitable outlet.

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

16. One set of electronic final grading, retaining wall, 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 e-stamped 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.
169
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6232) – 4 –
Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to the City’s geotechnical consultants listed below.

Geology Review by: 11-8-2023
Christopher Dean, C.E.G. #1751, Exp. 9-30-24 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (805-370-8710)
Email: [email protected]
Geotechnical Engineering Review by: __________________________________ 11-8-2023 Franklin Fong, G.E. #315, Exp. 12-31-23 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (909-860-7515)
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.

170

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
DATE: 3/8/2022
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Luke Tarr, Amit Apel Design Inc.

APPLICANT ADDRESS: 33202 1/4 U Mulholland Hwy
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310)317-0500
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New SFR; pool and spa; deck and hardscape; retaining wall; water features; roof deck.

Malibu, CA 90265
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 22-009
JOB ADDRESS: 24515 VANTAGE POINT TER
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
5/26/22
171
1 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/24515 Vantage Point Ter/CDP 22-009/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/24515 Vantage Point Terrace CDP 22-009.docx Recycled Paper City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Jorge Rubalcava P.E., Senior Civil Engineer
Date: May 27, 2022
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for 24515 Vantage Point Terrace CDP 22-009 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. 172
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/24515 Vantage Point Ter/CDP 22-009/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/24515 Vantage Point Terrace CDP 22-009.docx Recycled Paper

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

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

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

STORMWATER

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

Erosion Controls Scheduling
173
3 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/24515 Vantage Point Ter/CDP 22-009/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/24515 Vantage Point Terrace CDP 22-009.docx Recycled Paper
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste
Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

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

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

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

9. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, alagecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
• The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
• There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and • The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) 174
4 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/24515 Vantage Point Ter/CDP 22-009/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/24515 Vantage Point Terrace CDP 22-009.docx Recycled Paper
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.

175
176

FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW

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

TO: Los Angeles County Fire Department
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 3/8/2022
JOB ADDRESS: 24515 VANTAGE POINT TER
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Luke Tarr, Amit Apel Design Inc.

APPLICANT ADDRESS: 33202 1/4 U Mulholland Hwy
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310)317-0500
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New SFR; pool and spa; deck and hardscape; retaining wall; water features; roof deck.

Malibu, CA 90265
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 22-009
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Fire Prevention Engineering Assistant
Compliance with the conditions checked below is required prior to Fire Department approval.

The project DOES require Fire Department Plan Review and Developer Fee payment ______ The project DOES NOT require Fire Department Plan Review ______ The required fire flow for this project is ________ gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a 1 hour duration. (Provide flow information from the water dept.) ______ The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system. ______ Final Fuel Modification Plan Approval is required prior to Fire Department Approval ______ Conditions below marked “not approved” shall be corrected on the site plan and resubmitted for Fire Department approval.

App’d N/app’d
Required Fire Department vehicular access (including width and grade %) as shown from the public street to the proposed project. _____ ______ Required and/or proposed Fire Department Vehicular Turnaround _____ ______ Required 5 foot wide Fire Department Walking Access (including grade %) _____ ______ Width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates _____ ______

*County of Los Angeles Fire Department Approval Expires with City Planning permits expiration, revisions to the County of Los Angeles Fire Code or revisions to Fire Department regulations and standards. **Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project maintains compliance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the time revised plans are submitted. Applicable review fees shall be required. __________________________________ _____________________

SIGNATURE DATE
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of complete architectural plans.

The Fire Prevention Engineering may be contacted by phone at (818) 880-0341or at the Fire Department Counter:
26600 Agoura Road, Suite 110, Calabasas, CA 91302; Hours: Monday – Thursday between 7:00 AM and 11:00 AM Rev 04/21/10 mr
1,250
X
X
X
X
X
C. KENNELLY 6-1-2022
177
SEPARATE APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR:

Underground fire line plansFire sprinkler plansFire alarm plans SUBMIT PLANS TO:

Fire Sprinkler Plan Check UnitFire Alarm Plan Check UnitUnFireFir SUBM
FireFi

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING

APPROVED
By________________________
Fire Prevention Engineer
Date_______________________
E.Ochoa


*)4' *)4'
%PPRI[GSRWXVYGXMSRWLEPPGSQTP][MXL'6'7IGXMSR
178
179
SEPARATE APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR:

Underground fire line plansFire sprinkler plansFire alarm plans SUBMIT PLANS TO:

Fire Sprinkler Plan Check UnitFire Alarm Plan Check UnitUnFirFir SUBM
FireFi

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING

APPROVED
By________________________
Fire Prevention Engineer
Date_______________________
E.Ochoa


*)4' *)4'
180
181
182
183
SEPARATE APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR:

Underground fire line plansFire sprinkler plansFire alarm plans SUBMIT PLANS TO:

Fire Sprinkler Plan Check UnitFire Alarm Plan Check UnitUnFirFire SUBM
FireFi

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING

APPROVED
FOR_____________________

OCCUPANCY ONLY
By________________________
Fire Prevention Engineer
Date______________________
Subject to field inspection approval.

Subject to conditions on plans.

The stamping of this plan and specificationsSHALL NOT be held to permit or to be anapproval of the violation of any provisions ofany County/City Ordinance or State Law. 

Su
Su
E.Ochoa
*)4' *)4'
69
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
SEPARATE APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR:

Underground fire line plansFire sprinkler plansFire alarm plans SUBMIT PLANS TO:

Fire Sprinkler Plan Check UnitFire Alarm Plan Check UnitUnFirFire SUBM
FireFi

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING

APPROVED
By________________________
Fire Prevention Engineer
Date_______________________
E.Ochoa


*)4' *)4'
192

EXHIBIT D
193
From: Planning Commission
To: Raneika Brooks
Subject: FW: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200 Date: Monday, October 28, 2024 2:49:36 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
From: Alistair Saeghi <
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 1:58 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>; Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>; Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>; Salvador Lopez, Jr. <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24- 200
Dear planning commission members
As I mentioned in my opposition email last week, I’ll be out of town in the Nov18th, which is set for hearing date for this project.

Please kindly change the date for this hearing. I could attend the hearing the week before or the week after, or kindly announce any other day, so I can plan and attend.

With Kind regards
Dr. Saeghi
Malibu Ca 90265
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 23, 2024, at 17:22, Alistair Saeghi < > wrote:
194
Dear planning commission members
This is Dr. Saeghi and I live on Malibu Ca 90265.

Hereby I’m announcing my opposition to the project next door to me.

I am not and I did not support this project once I was allowed to object to it.

The owner and the builder tried to convince me that somehow, building this long wall in front of me and blocking the light, and having a staircase next to my south side leading to the top of this long wall and roof deck, is not gonna be intrusive to my privacy.

Frankly, once he shared the plan with me I noticed things I did not know before, On last Sunday's communication/ text with him, I made sure he understands that I am opposing the staircase and the wall.

Honestly I don't even know how the city approved this plan. I am sure if any of the officials had just made a quick visit to the site with the plans in hand, would be able to notice the unusual staircase along the fence and massive wall/ roof deck it is leading to.,
I asked him to slope the wall and they said no and
They also said it's glass on top of it to make me feel better. It is not and it won’t matter.

They didn't even know what they were looking at.

Their only objective was to get a, yes, from me. Not to address my concern.

I have consulted my team and we strongly object to this plan as it is today.

I am NOT trying to be a difficult neighbor. Just trying to protect my interest.

I also have an appraisal to give me his findings in writing about the impact and the devaluation of my property because of this long straight wall.

Thank you for your consideration.
195
Best,
Dr. Saeghi
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:01 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

The applicant indicated the neighbor’s are now supporting the project, which requires correspondence from the neighbor’s for the file.

Best,
<Logo An
image of
the City of
Malibu
Seal..png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning From: Alistair Saeghi < >
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:41 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
So, then what is the point of him sending me that letter asking me to sign? On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:35 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good day.

Regrettably, the applicant and owner have decided to move forward with project as-is. You’re welcome to submit a letter of opposition now or once the staff report is published on November 7, 2024. As an interested party on this application, you’ll be notified when the report is published. If you 196
don’t received the notification, please let me know, and the link to the staff report will be forwarded to you.

Best,
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi < >
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 6:42 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
Good evening
It’s Sunday evening and I just flew back from a conference in Scottsdale.

As I am looking into my next trip I booked long time ago, I noticed I’ll be out of the country and will be unable to attend the hearing in Nov 18.

I actually return Nov 18 9:30 pm. Suppose to land at that time. I can show proof if necessary.

My question is, is it possible to postpone the meeting to the week after? Otherwise, I’ll have to have my attorney, architect or contractor represent me.

Just to keep you posted, he sent me a text and PDF file to gather my signature and agreement on his project.

I responded by saying that I am in total disagreement with the wall and the staircase next to my fence leaden to the flat part of his roof, totally exposing my house and my backyard.
197
I will explore all my options trying to protect my interests. Not trying to be a difficult neighbor.

Best wishes
Dr. Saeghi
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2024, at 13:55, Alistair Saeghi
< > wrote:

Thank you for the update.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 11:41 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good day. This project has been continued to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting, and the report
publication date is now scheduled for November 7th. After speaking to the applicant, they requested additional time to attempt to address the neighbor concerns. Your information was provided to them. In the interim, you are welcome to come to City Hall and review the plans digitally.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424)
422-8364
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
198
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live!
Register here for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Ali Saeghi < >
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
Thank you so much for the update.

Any possible link for us to view the project as we discussed? Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 7, 2024, at 18:12, Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for allowing me to come out on such
short notice. I did reach out to the architect who
is working with the property owner to continue
the project to a different hearing date. This will
allow the architect time to discuss the project
and work to address the concerns. Regrettably,
the City doesn’t maintain a list of local
expeditors, but below I’ve linked a list provided
by the Malibu Chamber of Commerce. I hope
this helps.
https://chambermaster.blob.core.windows.net/us
erfiles/UserFiles/chambers/2860/CMS/MASTER
-REBUILD-RESOURCE-LIST-10.1.2020.pdf
Best,
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
199
<image001.png>
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 |
Mobile: (424) 422-8364
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu,
CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Dr. Ali Saeghi < >
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:00 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal
permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
Thank you for meeting with me today.

It was very pleasent meeting over a very
unpleasant project.

I was wondering if you have a list of city
professors?
someone I can have representing me in the
meeting for the hearing? Opposing that project
obviously.

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2024, at 13:49, Raneika
200
Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:

Sure. I’ll come by at 1 pm on
Monday.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks,
AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489
ext. 276 | Mobile: (424)
422-8364
23825 Stuart Ranch
Road | Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu Development
Portal has gone live! Register here
for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/
Planning
From: Ali Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 1:45
PM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site
plan Review number 24-200
I can be available on Monday
between 12 and 1:30. I’ll have to
201
rush back to the house and then
rush back to the office. Is it possible
for you to meet me within that
Time slot?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2024, at
13:06, Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]
g> wrote:

Thank you. Are you
available on Monday at
2 pm?
Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu
Development Portal has
202
gone live! Register here
for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/.

For additional Planning
Department information,
please
visit https://www.malibuc
ity.org/355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October 3,
2024 12:43 PM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515
Vantage Point TerraceCoastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number
24-200
Here you go. Please let
me know if this is what
you need?
I'll be happy to show
you the close proximity
of the project
next door.,
Please let me know if
you have any questions
and when you'll be able
to stop by. If I am not
available to meet with
you, I'll have someone
open the door for you to
see it from inside
Best,
Dr. Saeghi
203
On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at
11:40 AM Raneika
Brooks
<[email protected]
g> wrote:

The links are provided
below:

Primary View
Determinations
Uniform Application
Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu
Development Portal
has gone live!
Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/
. For additional
Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malib
ucity.org/355/Planning
204
From: Raneika Brooks
Sent: Thursday, October
3, 2024 11:34 AM
To: Alistair Saeghi
< >
Subject: RE: 24515
Vantage Point TerraceCoastal permit 22-009
and site plan Review
number 24-200
Of course. Linked
below is information
regarding your rights
to protect your views.

Also linked below is
the uniform
application for you to
request the primary
view determination.

The will be used to
assess the pending
application or any
future application
within the 180 degree
view to be protected.

If you could submit
the PVD request by
the end of the day
tomorrow, I’d like to
come out Monday to
document the view
obstruction if that
works for you.

In the interim, I’ll
reach out to the
architect for the
project to advise them
of concerns related a
view obstruction.

Best,
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
205
<image001.png>
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu
Development Portal
has gone live!
Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/
. For additional
Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malib
ucity.org/355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
<
Sent: Thursday, October
3, 2024 10:02 AM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]
g>
Subject: Re: 24515
Vantage Point TerraceCoastal permit 22-009
and site plan Review
number 24-200
Thank you for your
response
Yes. That would be
awesome.
206
I am talking about my
viewpoint from my
property. I'll
appreciate it if you
could run an
analysis.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2024
at 6:56 PM Raneika
Brooks
<rbrooks@malibucity.
org> wrote:

Thank you for your
correspondence.

Just to clarify, is
your concern
related to a view
obstruction from
your residence, or
is this a general
concern about
neighborhood
character? If this
concern is related
to the obstruction of
your views, I can
conduct a visual
analysis from your
property to photodocument the view
impacts with a
primary view
determination.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
Malibu, CA
90265
207
208
209
but also for the
cultural and
economic wellbeing of the city.

I understand the
need for
development, but it
is crucial that we
carefully consider
the long-term
consequences of
allowing structures
that could
permanently alter
the landscape.

Malibu’s unique
environment must
be preserved for
future generations,
and I believe there
should be stricter
guidelines for new
developments,
particularly in
relation to height,
scale, and view
preservation. This
project is literally
sitting next to my
windows on the
south side of the
property. They are
simply too tall and
too close. Pictures
can be provided on
demand.

I respectfully urge
the City of Malibu
to take these
concerns into
account as part of
the planning and
approval process.

More community
input should be
prioritized when
considering new
developments,
210
especially those that
may disrupt the
natural beauty of our
surroundings.

Thank you for your
time and
consideration. I look
forward to hearing
how the City plans
to address these
concerns and ensure
that Malibu’s scenic
views are protected.

Sincerely,
Alistair Saeghi
D.D.S.

Modern Age
Dentistry
Where Science is
Committed to Art
www.modernagede
ntistry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is
Committed to Art
www.modernagedenti
stry.com
211
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is
Committed to Art
www.modernagedentist
ry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art
www.modernagedentistry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art
www.modernagedentistry.com
Show Quoted Content
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:01 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

The applicant indicated the neighbor’s are now supporting the project, which requires correspondence from the neighbor’s for the file.

Best,
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
212
<Logo An
image of
the City of
Malibu
Seal..png>
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<An image of the global symbol for the internet with a link to the City of Malibu webpage..png>
<An image of the Instagram logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu Instagram account..png>
<An image of the Twitter logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu Twitter account..png>
<An image of the YouTube logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu YouTube account..png>
<An image of the Facebook logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu Facebook account..png>
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning From: Alistair Saeghi < >
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:41 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
So, then what is the point of him sending me that letter asking me to sign? On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:35 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good day.

Regrettably, the applicant and owner have decided to move forward with project as-is. You’re welcome to submit a letter of opposition now or once the staff report is published on November 7, 2024. As an interested party on this application, you’ll be notified when the report is published. If you don’t received the notification, please let me know, and the link to the staff report will be forwarded to you.

Best,
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
213
<image001.png>
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 6:42 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
Good evening
It’s Sunday evening and I just flew back from a conference in Scottsdale.

As I am looking into my next trip I booked long time ago, I noticed I’ll be out of the country and will be unable to attend the hearing in Nov 18.

I actually return Nov 18 9:30 pm. Suppose to land at that time. I can show proof if necessary.

My question is, is it possible to postpone the meeting to the week after? Otherwise, I’ll have to have my attorney, architect or contractor represent me.

Just to keep you posted, he sent me a text and PDF file to gather my signature and agreement on his project.

I responded by saying that I am in total disagreement with the wall and the staircase next to my fence leaden to the flat part of his roof, totally exposing my house and my backyard.

I will explore all my options trying to protect my interests. Not trying to be a 214
difficult neighbor.

Best wishes
Dr. Saeghi
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 9, 2024, at 13:55, Alistair Saeghi
< wrote:

Thank you for the update.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 11:41 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good day. This project has been continued to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting, and the report
publication date is now scheduled for November 7th. After speaking to the applicant, they requested additional time to attempt to address the neighbor concerns. Your information was provided to them. In the interim, you are welcome to come to City Hall and review the plans digitally.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424)
422-8364
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
215
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live!
Register here for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Ali Saeghi < >
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
Thank you so much for the update.

Any possible link for us to view the project as we discussed? Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 7, 2024, at 18:12, Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for allowing me to come out on such
short notice. I did reach out to the architect who
is working with the property owner to continue
the project to a different hearing date. This will
allow the architect time to discuss the project
and work to address the concerns. Regrettably,
the City doesn’t maintain a list of local
expeditors, but below I’ve linked a list provided
by the Malibu Chamber of Commerce. I hope
this helps.
https://chambermaster.blob.core.windows.net/us
erfiles/UserFiles/chambers/2860/CMS/MASTER
-REBUILD-RESOURCE-LIST-10.1.2020.pdf
Best,
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 |
Mobile: (424) 422-8364
216
<image001.png>
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu,
CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Dr. Ali Saeghi < >
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:00 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal
permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200
Thank you for meeting with me today.

It was very pleasent meeting over a very
unpleasant project.

I was wondering if you have a list of city
professors?
someone I can have representing me in the
meeting for the hearing? Opposing that project
obviously.

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2024, at 13:49, Raneika
Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:
217
Sure. I’ll come by at 1 pm on
Monday.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks,
AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489
ext. 276 | Mobile: (424)
422-8364
23825 Stuart Ranch
Road | Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu Development
Portal has gone live! Register here
for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/
Planning
From: Ali Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 1:45
PM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site
plan Review number 24-200
I can be available on Monday
between 12 and 1:30. I’ll have to
rush back to the house and then
rush back to the office. Is it possible
for you to meet me within that
218
Time slot?
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2024, at
13:06, Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]
g> wrote:

Thank you. Are you
available on Monday at
2 pm?
Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu
Development Portal has
gone live! Register here
for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/.
219
For additional Planning
Department information,
please
visit https://www.malibuc
ity.org/355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October 3,
2024 12:43 PM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515
Vantage Point TerraceCoastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number
24-200
Here you go. Please let
me know if this is what
you need?
I'll be happy to show
you the close proximity
of the project
next door.,
Please let me know if
you have any questions
and when you'll be able
to stop by. If I am not
available to meet with
you, I'll have someone
open the door for you to
see it from inside
Best,
Dr. Saeghi
On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at
11:40 AM Raneika
Brooks
220
<[email protected]
g> wrote:

The links are provided
below:

Primary View
Determinations
Uniform Application
Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu
Development Portal
has gone live!
Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/
. For additional
Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malib
ucity.org/355/Planning
From: Raneika Brooks
Sent: Thursday, October
3, 2024 11:34 AM
221
To: Alistair Saeghi
< >
Subject: RE: 24515
Vantage Point TerraceCoastal permit 22-009
and site plan Review
number 24-200
Of course. Linked
below is information
regarding your rights
to protect your views.

Also linked below is
the uniform
application for you to
request the primary
view determination.

The will be used to
assess the pending
application or any
future application
within the 180 degree
view to be protected.

If you could submit
the PVD request by
the end of the day
tomorrow, I’d like to
come out Monday to
document the view
obstruction if that
works for you.

In the interim, I’ll
reach out to the
architect for the
project to advise them
of concerns related a
view obstruction.

Best,
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
222
<image001.png>
Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu
Development Portal
has gone live!
Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/
. For additional
Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malib
ucity.org/355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October
3, 2024 10:02 AM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]
g>
Subject: Re: 24515
Vantage Point TerraceCoastal permit 22-009
and site plan Review
number 24-200
Thank you for your
response
Yes. That would be
awesome.

I am talking about my
viewpoint from my
property. I'll
223
appreciate it if you
could run an
analysis.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2024
at 6:56 PM Raneika
Brooks
<rbrooks@malibucity.
org> wrote:

Thank you for your
correspondence.

Just to clarify, is
your concern
related to a view
obstruction from
your residence, or
is this a general
concern about
neighborhood
character? If this
concern is related
to the obstruction of
your views, I can
conduct a visual
analysis from your
property to photodocument the view
impacts with a
primary view
determination.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K.

Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310)
456-2489 ext.
276 | Mobile:
(424) 422-
8364
23825 Stuart
Ranch Road |
Malibu, CA
90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
224
225
City of Malibu
Planning
Department
Dear Raneika,
I am writing to
express my concern
regarding the
installation of story
poles for upcoming
development and it's
potential impact on
the scenic views that
are such an integral
part of Malibu’s
character and
appeal.

As a resident of this
beautiful
community, I have
always appreciated
Malibu’s
commitment to
maintaining the
natural beauty of our
environment.

However, the
presence of story
poles marking future
development site
raises serious
concerns about the
potential obstruction
of coastal and
mountain views that
are cherished by
residents and
visitors alike. The
preservation of these
views is essential
not only for the
aesthetic enjoyment
but also for the
cultural and
economic wellbeing of the city.
226
I understand the
need for
development, but it
is crucial that we
carefully consider
the long-term
consequences of
allowing structures
that could
permanently alter
the landscape.

Malibu’s unique
environment must
be preserved for
future generations,
and I believe there
should be stricter
guidelines for new
developments,
particularly in
relation to height,
scale, and view
preservation. This
project is literally
sitting next to my
windows on the
south side of the
property. They are
simply too tall and
too close. Pictures
can be provided on
demand.

I respectfully urge
the City of Malibu
to take these
concerns into
account as part of
the planning and
approval process.

More community
input should be
prioritized when
considering new
developments,
especially those that
may disrupt the
natural beauty of our
surroundings.
227
Thank you for your
time and
consideration. I look
forward to hearing
how the City plans
to address these
concerns and ensure
that Malibu’s scenic
views are protected.

Sincerely,
Alistair Saeghi
D.D.S.

Modern Age
Dentistry
Where Science is
Committed to Art
www.modernagede
ntistry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is
Committed to Art
www.modernagedenti
stry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.
228
Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is
Committed to Art
www.modernagedentist
ry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art
www.modernagedentistry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art
www.modernagedentistry.com
--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art
www.modernagedentistry.com
Sent from my iPhone
229
1 Planning Commission
From: Alistair Saeghi
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 1:58 PM
To: malibu planning; Raneika Brooks; Maureen Tamuri; Salvador Lopez, Jr.; Planning Commission Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200 Dear planning commission members
As I mentioned in my opposition email last week, I’ll be out of town in the Nov18th, which is set for hearing date for this project.

Please kindly change the date for this hearing. I could attend the hearing the week before or the week after, or kindly announce any other day, so I can plan and attend.

With Kind regards
Dr. Saeghi

Malibu Ca 90265
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 23, 2024, at 17:22, Alistair Saeghi wrote:

Dear planning commission members
This is Dr. Saeghi and I live on Malibu Ca 90265.

Hereby I’m announcing my opposition to the project next door to me.

I am not and I did not support this project once I was allowed to object to it.

The owner and the builder tried to convince me that somehow, building this long wall in front of me and blocking the light, and having a staircase next to my south side leading to the top of this long wall and roof deck, is not gonna be intrusive to my privacy. 230
2 Frankly, once he shared the plan with me I noticed things I did not know before, On last Sunday's communication/ text with him, I made sure he understands that I am opposing the staircase and the wall.

Honestly I don't even know how the city approved this plan. I am sure if any of the officials had just made a quick visit to the site with the plans in hand, would be able to notice the unusual staircase along the fence and massive wall/ roof deck it is leading to., I asked him to slope the wall and they said no and
They also said it's glass on top of it to make me feel better. It is not and it won’t matter.

They didn't even know what they were looking at.

Their only objective was to get a, yes, from me. Not to address my concern.

I have consulted my team and we strongly object to this plan as it is today.

I am NOT trying to be a difficult neighbor. Just trying to protect my interest.

I also have an appraisal to give me his findings in writing about the impact and the devaluation of my property because of this long straight wall.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Dr. Saeghi
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:01 AM Raneika Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

The applicant indicated the neighbor’s are now supporting the project, which requires correspondence from the neighbor’s for the file.

Best,
<Logo An
image of
the City of
Malibu
Seal..png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 231
3 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265

The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning From: Alistair Saeghi < >
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:41 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

So, then what is the point of him sending me that letter asking me to sign?

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:35 AM Raneika Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

Good day.

Regrettably, the applicant and owner have decided to move forward with project as-is. You’re welcome to submit a letter of opposition now or once the staff report is published on November 7, 2024. As an interested party on this application, you’ll be notified when the report is published. If you don’t received the notification, please let me know, and the link to the staff report will be forwarded to you.

Best,
232
233
5 I responded by saying that I am in total disagreement with the wall and the staircase next to my fence leaden to the flat part of his roof, totally exposing my house and my backyard.

I will explore all my options trying to protect my interests. Not trying to be a difficult neighbor.

Best wishes

Dr. Saeghi

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 9, 2024, at 13:55, Alistair Saeghi > wrote:

Thank you for the update.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 11:41 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good day. This project has been continued to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting, and the report publication date is now scheduled for November 7th. After speaking to the applicant, they requested additional time to attempt to address the neighbor concerns. Your information was provided to them. In the interim, you are welcome to come to City Hall and review the plans digitally.
234
6 Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Ali Saeghi <
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

Thank you so much for the update.

235
7 Any possible link for us to view the project as we discussed?

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 7, 2024, at 18:12, Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for allowing me to come out on such short notice. I did reach out to the architect who is working with the property owner to continue the project to a different hearing date. This will allow the architect time to discuss the project and work to address the concerns. Regrettably, the City doesn’t maintain a list of local expeditors, but below I’ve linked a list provided by the Malibu Chamber of Commerce. I hope this helps.
https://chambermaster.blob.core.windows.net/userfiles/UserFile s/chambers/2860/CMS/MASTER-REBUILD-RESOURCE-LIST10.1.2020.pdf Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

236
8 <image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live!
Register here for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Dr. Ali Saeghi < >
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:00 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

Thank you for meeting with me today.

It was very pleasent meeting over a very unpleasant project.

I was wondering if you have a list of city professors?
someone I can have representing me in the meeting for the hearing? Opposing that project obviously.

237
9 Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 3, 2024, at 13:49, Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Sure. I’ll come by at 1 pm on Monday.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has
gone live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/.

For additional Planning Department
238
10 information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Ali Saeghi >
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 1:45 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal
permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

I can be available on Monday between 12 and
1:30. I’ll have to rush back to the house and
then rush back to the office. Is it possible for
you to meet me within that
Time slot?

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2024, at 13:06,
Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
wrote:

Thank you. Are you available on
Monday at 2 pm?
Best,
239
11 <image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development
Portal has gone live! Register
here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For
additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/
355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024
12:43 PM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number 24-200

240
12 Here you go. Please let me
know if this is what you need?
I'll be happy to show you the
close proximity of the project
next door.,
Please let me know if you have
any questions and when you'll
be able to stop by. If I am not
available to meet with you, I'll
have someone open the door
for you to see it from inside

Best,

Dr. Saeghi

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 11:40 AM
Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
wrote:

The links are provided below:

Primary View Determinations
Uniform Application
Best,
241
13 <image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu
Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For
additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/
355/Planning
From: Raneika Brooks
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024
11:34 AM
To: Alistair Saeghi
Subject: RE: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number 24-200

242
14 Of course. Linked below is
information regarding your rights
to protect your views. Also linked
below is the uniform application
for you to request the primary
view determination. The will be
used to assess the pending
application or any future
application within the 180
degree view to be protected. If
you could submit the PVD
request by the end of the day
tomorrow, I’d like to come out
Monday to document the view
obstruction if that works for you.

In the interim, I’ll reach out to the
architect for the project to advise
them of concerns related a view
obstruction.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

243
15 <image006.png>

The City of Malibu
Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For
additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/
355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
>
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024
10:02 AM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number 24-200

Thank you for your response

Yes. That would be awesome.

I am talking about my
viewpoint from my property. I'll
appreciate it if you could run
an analysis.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at
6:56 PM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
wrote:
244
16 Thank you for your
correspondence. Just to clarify,
is your concern related to a
view obstruction from your
residence, or is this a general
concern about neighborhood
character? If this concern is
related to the obstruction of
your views, I can conduct a
visual analysis from your
property to photo-document the
view impacts with a primary
view determination.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu
Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlb245
246
18 presence of story poles marking
future development site raises
serious concerns about the
potential obstruction of coastal
and mountain views that are
cherished by residents and
visitors alike. The preservation
of these views is essential not
only for the aesthetic enjoyment
but also for the cultural and
economic well-being of the city.

I understand the need for
development, but it is crucial
that we carefully consider the
long-term consequences of
allowing structures that could
permanently alter the landscape.

Malibu’s unique environment
must be preserved for future
generations, and I believe there
should be stricter guidelines for
new developments, particularly
in relation to height, scale, and
view preservation. This project
is literally sitting next to my
windows on the south side of
the property. They are simply
too tall and too close. Pictures
can be provided on demand.

I respectfully urge the City of
Malibu to take these concerns
into account as part of the
planning and approval process.

More community input should
be prioritized when considering
new developments, especially
those that may disrupt the
natural beauty of our
surroundings.

Thank you for your time and
consideration. I look forward to
hearing how the City plans to
address these concerns and
ensure that Malibu’s scenic
views are protected.

Sincerely,

247
19 Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed
to Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed
to Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.
248
20 Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to
Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
249
21 Where Science is Committed to Art

Show Quoted Content
On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 10:01 AM Raneika Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

The applicant indicated the neighbor’s are now supporting the project, which requires correspondence from the neighbor’s for the file.

Best,
<Logo An
image of
the City of
Malibu
Seal..png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<An image of the global symbol for the internet with a link to the City of Malibu webpage..png>

<An image of the Instagram logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu Instagram account..png>

<An image of the Twitter logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu Twitter account..png>

<An image of the YouTube logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu YouTube account..png>

<An image of the Facebook logo, with hyperlink to the City of Malibu Facebook account..png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning 250
22 From: Alistair Saeghi <
Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2024 9:41 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

So, then what is the point of him sending me that letter asking me to sign?

On Tue, Oct 22, 2024 at 9:35 AM Raneika Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

Good day.

Regrettably, the applicant and owner have decided to move forward with project as-is. You’re welcome to submit a letter of opposition now or once the staff report is published on November 7, 2024. As an interested party on this application, you’ll be notified when the report is published. If you don’t received the notification, please let me know, and the link to the staff report will be forwarded to you.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>
251
23 The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning From: Alistair Saeghi < >
Sent: Sunday, October 20, 2024 6:42 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

Good evening

It’s Sunday evening and I just flew back from a conference in Scottsdale. As I am looking into my next trip I booked long time ago, I noticed I’ll be out of the country and will be unable to attend the hearing in Nov 18.

I actually return Nov 18 9:30 pm. Suppose to land at that time. I can show proof if necessary.

My question is, is it possible to postpone the meeting to the week after?

Otherwise, I’ll have to have my attorney, architect or contractor represent me.

Just to keep you posted, he sent me a text and PDF file to gather my signature and agreement on his project.

I responded by saying that I am in total disagreement with the wall and the staircase next to my fence leaden to the flat part of his roof, totally exposing my house and my backyard.

I will explore all my options trying to protect my interests. Not trying to be a difficult neighbor.
252
24 Best wishes

Dr. Saeghi

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 9, 2024, at 13:55, Alistair Saeghi < wrote:

Thank you for the update.

On Wed, Oct 9, 2024 at 11:41 AM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:

Good day. This project has been continued to the November 18th Planning Commission meeting, and the report publication date is now scheduled for November 7th. After speaking to the applicant, they requested additional time to attempt to address the neighbor concerns. Your information was provided to them. In the interim, you are welcome to come to City Hall and review the plans digitally.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 253
25 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Ali Saeghi >
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 9:46 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

Thank you so much for the update.

Any possible link for us to view the project as we discussed?

254
255
27 <image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live!
Register here for your projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Dr. Ali Saeghi
Sent: Monday, October 7, 2024 6:00 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

Thank you for meeting with me today.

It was very pleasent meeting over a very unpleasant project.

I was wondering if you have a list of city professors?
someone I can have representing me in the meeting for the hearing? Opposing that project obviously.

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 3, 2024, at 13:49, Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]> wrote:
256
28 Sure. I’ll come by at 1 pm on Monday.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has
gone live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/.

For additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Ali Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 1:45 PM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
257
29 Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace- Coastal
permit 22-009 and site plan Review number 24-200

I can be available on Monday between 12 and
1:30. I’ll have to rush back to the house and
then rush back to the office. Is it possible for
you to meet me within that
Time slot?

Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 3, 2024, at 13:06,
Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
wrote:

Thank you. Are you available on
Monday at 2 pm?
Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
258
30 <image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development
Portal has gone live! Register
here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For
additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/
355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024
12:43 PM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number 24-200

Here you go. Please let me
know if this is what you need?
I'll be happy to show you the
close proximity of the project
next door.,
259
31 Please let me know if you have
any questions and when you'll
be able to stop by. If I am not
available to meet with you, I'll
have someone open the door
for you to see it from inside

Best,

Dr. Saeghi

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 11:40 AM
Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
wrote:

The links are provided below:

Primary View Determinations
Uniform Application
Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
260
32 <image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu
Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For
additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/
355/Planning
From: Raneika Brooks
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024
11:34 AM
To: Alistair Saeghi
>
Subject: RE: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number 24-200

Of course. Linked below is
information regarding your rights
to protect your views. Also linked
below is the uniform application
for you to request the primary
view determination. The will be
used to assess the pending
application or any future
application within the 180
degree view to be protected. If
261
33 you could submit the PVD
request by the end of the day
tomorrow, I’d like to come out
Monday to document the view
obstruction if that works for you.

In the interim, I’ll reach out to the
architect for the project to advise
them of concerns related a view
obstruction.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu
Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For
262
34 additional Planning Department
information, please
visit https://www.malibucity.org/
355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
<
Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024
10:02 AM
To: Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 24515 Vantage Point
Terrace- Coastal permit 22-009 and
site plan Review number 24-200

Thank you for your response

Yes. That would be awesome.

I am talking about my
viewpoint from my property. I'll
appreciate it if you could run
an analysis.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at
6:56 PM Raneika Brooks
<[email protected]>
wrote:

Thank you for your
correspondence. Just to clarify,
is your concern related to a
view obstruction from your
residence, or is this a general
concern about neighborhood
character? If this concern is
related to the obstruction of
your views, I can conduct a
visual analysis from your
property to photo-document the
view impacts with a primary
view determination.
263
35 Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu
Development Portal has gone
live! Register here for your
projects: https://mlbpptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For
additional Planning
Department information,
please
visit https://www.malibucity.or
g/355/Planning
From: Alistair Saeghi
>
Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024
2:35 PM
264
265
37 I understand the need for
development, but it is crucial
that we carefully consider the
long-term consequences of
allowing structures that could
permanently alter the landscape.

Malibu’s unique environment
must be preserved for future
generations, and I believe there
should be stricter guidelines for
new developments, particularly
in relation to height, scale, and
view preservation. This project
is literally sitting next to my
windows on the south side of
the property. They are simply
too tall and too close. Pictures
can be provided on demand.

I respectfully urge the City of
Malibu to take these concerns
into account as part of the
planning and approval process.

More community input should
be prioritized when considering
new developments, especially
those that may disrupt the
natural beauty of our
surroundings.

Thank you for your time and
consideration. I look forward to
hearing how the City plans to
address these concerns and
ensure that Malibu’s scenic
views are protected.

Sincerely,

Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
266
38 Where Science is Committed
to Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed
to Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to
Art
267
39 --
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.

Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art

--
Alistair Saeghi D.D.S.
268
40 Modern Age Dentistry
Where Science is Committed to Art
Sent from my iPhone
269
270
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Rඍඞඑඛඍඌ N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ
Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
Rඍඞඑඛඍඌ N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 18, 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. 22-009 AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 24-200 - An application for the construction of a new one-story, 3,963 square foot single-family residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, swimming pool and spa, a roof deck and associated development; including a site plan review for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 24515 Vantage Point Ter / 4458-033-005 / Single-family Medium (SFM) APPLICANT / OWNER: Amit Apel Design Inc. / 24515 Vantage Point Syndication LLC APPEALABLE TO: City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) APPLICATION FILED: March 8, 2022
CASE PLANNER: Raneika Brooks, Senior Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 276
*This notice reflects that the project is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission.

A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Commission’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the Planning Commission on, or before, the date of the meeting.

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 14, 2024 271
From: Eran Eliyahoo <e >
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 10:50 AM
To: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Cc: Luke Tarr <[email protected]>; Amit Apel <[email protected]>; Machluf Turgeman < >; Elchin Sadigov <[email protected]>; Mike Mac Laren <[email protected]>; Victoria <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Nov 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, Item 4.B. // Ltr to Malibu Planning Commission o/b/o Dr. Saeghi Opposing CDP 22-009 SPR 24-013 24515 Vantage Point (11.15.24) Hello,
Please schedule the date to be Monday, 12/2/2024. Thank you, Eran
On Nov 18, 2024, at 10:44 AM, Raneika Brooks <[email protected]> wrote:

Could you confirm if you’d like to continue the project to a specific hearing date? Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects:
https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Raneika Brooks
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 10:09 AM
To: Eran Eliyahoo < >; Luke Tarr <[email protected]>
Cc: Amit Apel <[email protected]>; Machluf Turgeman < >; Elchin Sadigov <[email protected]>; Mike Mac Laren <[email protected]>; Victoria <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]> ATTACHMENT 4
272
Subject: RE: Nov 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, Item 4.B. // Ltr to Malibu Planning Commission o/b/o Dr. Saeghi Opposing CDP 22-009 SPR 24-013 24515 Vantage Point (11.15.24)

Thank you for the update. The agenda will be updated to include a continuance.

Best,
<image001.png>
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Senior Planner
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 276 | Mobile: (424) 422-8364 23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

<image005.png>

<image006.png>

The City of Malibu Development Portal has gone live! Register here for your projects:
https://mlb-pptsrv.ci.malibu.ca.us/. For additional Planning Department information, please visit https://www.malibucity.org/355/Planning
From: Eran Eliyahoo < >
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 10:02 AM
To: Luke Tarr <[email protected]>
Cc: Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>; Amit Apel <[email protected]>; Machluf Turgeman ; Elchin Sadigov <[email protected]>; Mike Mac Laren <[email protected]>; Victoria <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Nov 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, Item 4.B. // Ltr to Malibu Planning Commission o/b/o Dr. Saeghi Opposing CDP 22-009 SPR 24-013 24515 Vantage Point (11.15.24)

Hello,

Yes Renaika, we would like a continuance to the next hearing.

Thanks Eran Eliyahoo

On Nov 18, 2024, at 9:01 AM, Luke Tarr <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Raneika,

273
Our office has asked the owner to request a continuance of this item so our office can prepare responses to the items mentioned in this letter.

We have requested the owner to contact you directly to confirm.

<Outlook1gnoj54y.png>
<Outlooksumb4b4w.png>
“Connecting People to
the Art of Living”
Luke Tarr Sr. Project Coordinator
(310) 317-0500 | [email protected]
apeldesign.com
33202 1/4U Mulholland Hwy
Malibu, California, 90265, United States
<Outlook-3jhyfvlu.png>

<Outlook-dem4tmvt.png>

<Outlook-5c0ebbrf.png>

<Outlook-14zujtlm.png>

<Outlook-3ahucind.png>

274
1 Planning Commission
From: Stephen Weaver <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2024 7:17 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Raneika Brooks
Subject: Nov 18, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting, Item 4.B. // Ltr to Malibu Planning Commission o/b/o Dr. Saeghi Opposing CDP 22-009 SPR 24-013 24515 Vantage Point (11.15.24)
Attachments: Ltr to Malibu Planning Commission obo Dr. Saeghi Opposing CDP 22-009 SPR 24-013 24515 Vantage Point (11.15.24) [r].pdf
Dear Chairman Leonard and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

See attached.

Stephen J. Weaver, Esq.

WEAVER LAND LAW
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, 8th Fl
Los Angeles, CA 90025
P. 310.806.9212
F. 310.943.2216
www.weaverlandlaw.com
275
12100 Wilshire Boulevard
Eighth Floor
Los Angeles, California 90025
Telephone: 310.806.9212
Facsimile: 310.943.2216
E-mail: [email protected]
November 15, 2024
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ([email protected]) Drew Leonard, Chair
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: OPPOSITION TO PROJECT IN ITS CURRENT FORM
Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 // Site Plan Review No. 24-013 Project Location: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Zoning: Single Family Medium Density (4 du/acre)
Malibu Country Estates Overlay District, Area A
Applicant: 24515 Vantage Point Syndication, LLC
Hearing Date: November 18, 2024
Dear Chairman Leonard and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

This office represents Dr. Alistair Saeghi, the adjoining neighbor to northwest of the above-captioned project. Dr. Saeghi objects to this project in its current form because it unnecessarily impinges upon his privacy and views, is incompatible with surrounding properties in the neighborhood, lacks adequate and required safeguards for stability of adjacent land, and fails to sufficiently study environmental factors unique to the project.

Of greatest concern, the project is situated so close to his home and is poorly designed to create a large viewing platform into his backyard, pool, and bedroom.

For these reasons, Dr. Saeghi respectfully requests that the Planning Commission reject this project.
276

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
[bookmarked for convenience]
Section Page
I. Factual Background 2
II. Table of Exhibits 3
III. The Project Must Be Denied Because It Substantially Infringes on Dr.

Saeghi’s Privacy and Protected Views
3 IV. The Project Must Be Denied Because It Fails to Conform to the Requirements of the LCP and the Malibu City Code
6 V. The Commission Should Reject the Discretionary SPR Because of the Insufficient Shoring Analysis

9 VI. The Project is Not Exempt from CEQA Because of its Unusual Circumstances and Cumulative Impacts of Prior Development 10 VII. The Commission Should Not Approve the Project Because the Public Does Not Have the Legally Mandated Required Information to Understand and Evaluate It
15 VIII. Conclusion 17
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1. The Project
The Applicant seeks a Coastal Development Permit and Site Plan Review to construct a new 3,963 square foot single-family residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, landscaping, swimming pool and spa, a roof deck, and associated equipment and activity, including 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading (the “Project”). The Project comprises 3,982 square feet of total development square footage.

The Project site (the “Site”) includes a steep hillside, directly across the street from the Pepperdine University campus.

2. Privacy Issue from Staircase and Roofdeck Pad Overlooking 24523 Vantage Point Terrace
While numerous issues require further consideration, the new project 277

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] unnecessarily positions a flat roof and a stairwell with a close and complete view of Dr.

Saeghi’s back yard. The other homes in the Malibu Country Estates generally do not suffer from such an extremely close stairwell and observation rooftop located so close to the common boundary. Applicant certainly does not need such an observation deck, nor does he need exterior stairs for rooftop access.

3. The Commission Should Reject the Project or Require Further Proceedings Consistent with the Malibu City Code
The Project is incompatible with the neighborhood, infringes upon Appellant’s view rights and privacy, and does not comply with the Local Coastal Program (the “LCP”), the Local Implementation Plan (the “LIP”) or the regulations of the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District (the “District”). Furthermore, the staff report errs in recommending that the project receive an exemption from preparation of an Environmental Impact Report because of unusual circumstances specific to the Project and because of the impact of previous developments. For these reasons, the Planning Commission should reject the Project.

II. TABLE OF EXHIBITS
The following Exhibits are included for the Planning Commission’s reference:

TABLE OF EXHIBITS
[bookmarked for convenience]
Exhibit Description
I Photographs Reflecting Obstruction of Protected Views Shown by Story Poles and Privacy Intrusions
(1) View from Dr. Saeghi’s Yard [Protected View and Privacy Issue] (2) View from Vantage Point Terrace [Story Pole Condition] II Certification of Michael McNeff
III. THE PROJECT MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE IT SUBSTANTIALLY INFRINGES ON DR.

SAEGHI’S PRIVACY AND PROTECTED VIEWS

1. Privacy
The Project is situated extremely close to the adjoining property to the northwest (only requiring a five-foot setback), known as 24523 Vantage Point Terrace. In spite of this fact, the Applicant proposes to build both a large rooftop deck and a staircase leading to that deck very close to this property. Notably, very few, if any, homes in the Malibu 278

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] Country Estates incorporate a layout that enables a full “looming” (a word used in the Staff Report) into their neighbor’s back yard, poolside, and bedroom.1 This materially harms Dr. Saeghi’s privacy. The Applicant should consider alternate designs. The rooftop deck should be eliminated, as it is not a necessary part of the structure.

The following image shows the layout of 24523 Vantage Point Terrace property:

Figure III-1 [Google Earth Aerial View of 24523 Vantage Point Terrace] As it stands, the proposed building is less than 20 feet away from Dr. Saeghi’s house, and about 5 feet from the common boundary line. This directly diminishes his privacy in his own home. The deck would menace over and have direct views of the pool area and backyard. It is out of sync with the neighborhood and unnecessary.

Furthermore, the proposed structures violate the City of Malibu Municipal Code (the “MMC”). With a “roof deck,” the decking is considered part of the roof. The MMC only allows 20% of any roof in the Malibu Country Estates to be flat.2 At 1,293 square feet, the roof deck occupies far more than 20% of the “flat roof” area allowed by the MMC. Thus, the Project violates the MCC.
1 Staff Report, p. 3 [“However, given the five-foot side yard setback from the northern property line, the location of the proposed structure has the potential to cast shadows and create a ‘looming’ effect for the neighbor.”] 2 MMC § 3.4.1(D)(10)(a) [“Flat roofs shall not exceed 20% of the total roof area.”] 279

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace]

2. View Protection
Views are an important benefit and a privilege afforded by the City to those who reside in the District. To that end, the MMC requires that applicants for Site Plan Review avoid blocking certain views:

The project [must] not obstruct visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal residence as defined in Section 17.40.040(A)(17);3
The view below taken from the yard in the ground level shows a significant obstruction of impressive views of the Santa Monica Mountains:

Figure III-2 [View from Yard 24523 Vantage Point Terrace Looking at Remaining Story Poles] Even with the story poles not completely reflecting the scope of the obstruction (because they are in complete disrepair, as seen in the picture), the view elimination is clear. The Project could both avoid obstructing the view and better promote Dr. Saeghi’s privacy if it (a) changed its massing/layout; and/or (b) scaled down its size, somewhat. Notably, the MCC requires a minimum square footage of 2,000 square feet for new projects, but the 3 MMC § 17.62.040(D)(4).
280

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] Applicant’s design nearly doubles that. A modest reduction in massing along the northwestern portion of the Site would eliminate these problems.

IV. THE PROJECT MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE IT FAILS TO CONFORM TO THE

REQUIREMENTS OF THE LCP AND THE MALIBU CITY CODE

1. Site Plan Review
Site Plan Review requires that the Project meet the following criteria:
(1) It must be consistent with the LCP;
(2) It must not adversely affect the neighborhood character; (3) It must afford maximum feasible protection to views under Chapter 6 of the LIP; and
(4) It must comply with all applicable State and local laws.4 Criteria (1), (2), and (4) above are not satisfied.

Specifically, as to Criteria (1), the Project does not comply with the LCP, as effectuated through the LIP, particularly Chapter 13.9 (Coastal Development Permit Findings), Chapter 9 (Hazards), and Chapter 4 (ESHA).
(A)Project Inconsistency with the LCP [via the LIP]
---CDP Findings---
With respect to the Coastal Development Permit Findings, the project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative.5 The Staff report itself notes the possibility of a smaller project, since the current project is nearly 2,000 square feet over the minimum building footprint required in the District.6 The weight of the total massing on the hillside, including oversized structures that will require deep boring and massive remedial grading, as well as the pool on the edge of the northern side of the lot, clearly creates cause for concern and leaves room for improvement. There is no reason a slightly smaller project would materially harm the Applicant.

---Hazards---
Chapter 9 of the LIP mandates specific requirements for grading and stabilization for projects in locations with less-geologically-stable conditions. Because the Site includes a landslide zone, the LIP requires particular development standards. For 4 LIP § 13.27.5; MCC § 17.62.040 et seq. 5 LIP § 13.9(C). 6 Staff Report, p. 10 [noting that “[a] smaller project could be proposed on the project site.”] 281

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] example, “New development proposed on landslides, steep slopes, unstable or weak soils or any other identified geologic hazard area, shall be permitted only where a factor of safety of 1.5 (static) and a factor of safety of 1.1 (pseudo static) [a/k/a ‘seismic’] can be provided.”7 However, the geotechnical report does not confirm the necessary 1.1 safety rating. It relies on a slope stability analysis of the adjacent property’s that could only indicate “static and seismic factors of safety in excess of 1.5 and 1.0, respectively.” Thus, the proposed new development does not conform to the LIP based on the slope analysis because it lacks a sufficient safety factor.
---ESHA Considerations---
Although the Site is not in a designated ESHA Overlay Zone, the City is still required to analyze whether the Site contains or sits within proximity of an ESHA.8 The LIP requires the consideration of whether a Site is subject to ESHA based on a sitespecific biological study, “as well as available independent evidence.”9 As detailed below, the Site qualifies as an ESHA Overlay Zone. Thus, the failure to proceed with an Environmental Review Board evaluation compels rejection of the application.

The Project sits less than 100 feet from the 830-acre Pepperdine University campus. The LIP subjects to ESHA overlay protections those parcels within “200 feet of a designated ESHA [or areas later determined to be ESHA, even if not previously designated].”10 As discussed below, the campus qualifies as an ESHA due to the continuous and relatively abundant presence of Mountain Lions, a threatened and “specially protected” species under the California Fish and Wildlife Protection Act of 1990.11
The Coastal Act defines “environmentally sensitive area(s)” as those “in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.”12 Geographic areas must be designated ESHAs where:
(a) The presence of particular species or animals is noted; (b) the subject species or habitat is rare or valuable; and 7 LIP § 9.4(D), emphasis added. 8
LIP § 4.3 [Any area not designated on the ESHA Overlay Map that meets the ‘environmentally sensitive area’ definition (Chapter 2 of the Malibu LIP) is ESHA and shall be accorded all the protection provided for ESHA in the LCP.”] 9 Ibid.
10 LIP § 4.2; see also § 4.3. 11 Fish and Game Code § 2780 et seq. 12 Public Resources Code § 30107.5. 282

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] (c) The area is easily degraded by the presence of human activities.13 The Coastal Commission stated, regarding ESHA areas in and around the Santa Monica Mountains:

In the context of the Malibu LCP, the Commission found that the Mediterranean Ecosystem in the Santa Mountains is rare, and especially valuable because of its relatively pristine character, physical complexity, and resultant biological diversity. Therefore, areas of undeveloped native habitat in the Santa Monica Mountains that are large and relatively unfragmented may meet the definition of ESHA by virtue of their valuable roles in that ecosystem, regardless of their relative rarity throughout the state. This is the only place in the coastal zone where the Commission has recognized chaparral as meeting the definition of ESHA. The scientific background presented herein for ESHA analysis in the Santa Monica Mountains is adapted from the Revised Findings for the Malibu LCP that the Commission adopted on February 6, 2003. 14
The documented presence of Mountain Lions, a threatened species, in the Santa Monica Mountains and specifically on the campus of Pepperdine, squarely places the area within the definition of an “environmentally sensitive habitat area.” In 2018, the National Park Service estimated that “any given time, there are approximately 10 to 15 lions in the Malibu-adjacent Santa Monica Mountains south of the 101 Freeway.15 Just a few years ago, there had been as many as 10 sightings within a 6-week period.16 The presence of these animals is undisputed.

Furthermore, as noted by the Coastal Commission, these animals depend on a wide range of habitat in the Santa Monica Mountains, including the Pepperdine campus.

The Site also happens to sit 100 feet from the campus. For these reasons, the Site should be considered proximate to a sensitive habitat and thus receive the same treatment as an ESHA Overlay Zone.
(B) Project Inconsistency with Neighborhood Character
As set forth in detail above, the project’s layout would unnecessarily erode the privacy of Dr. Saeghi’s property. Almost none of the other buildings’ decks in the area do not similarly loom over their neighbor’s yards. The extreme disregard for privacy, based on the proximity and location of the rooftop deck and staircase undermines the sense of 13 Draft Proposed ESHA Findings for the City of Malibu LCP, https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibuesha-draft-6mm2.pdf, last accessed November 14, 2024. 14 Memorandum re “Designation of ESHA in the Santa Monica Mountains,” March 25, 2003, https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/smm-esha-memo.pdf, last accessed November 14, 2024. 15 “Mountain Lion Watch, Fall 2018, https://www.pepperdine.edu/magazine/fall-2018/mountain-lionwatch.htm, last accessed November 14, 2024. 16 “Mountain lion sightings at Pepperdine University prompts safety warning,” https://abc7.com/pepperdine-lions-mountain-university/1736872/, last accessed November 14, 2024. 283

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] tranquility, peace, and seclusion associated with living in the coveted Malibu Country Estates.

This problem can be remedied by relocating or removing the roofdeck and accompanying stairwell that is proposed to be directly adjacent to the 24523 Vantage Point Terrace property. It is a minor change that would have a major impact on one of the Applicant’s two adjacent properties.

The proximity of the rooftop and location of same allows new sight angles into the backyard of 24523 Vantage Point Terrace, ground floor rooms and bedrooms. It stands above the fence designed to safeguard privacy. Otherwise, as stated above, the failure to conform to the requirements of the LIP and the MCC requires that the Planning Commission reject the application in its current form.17 (C) The Project Does Not Comply with Local Laws
As noted, the Project fails to comply with roof coverage, grading and stabilization, story pole maintenance, and view protection. Thus, the Planning Commission must reject the Site Plan Review.

2. The Planning Commission Should Reject the CDP Because the Project Does not Comply With Applicable Laws
For the reasons outlined above, the Project violates laws respecting roof apportionment and views protected in the District. As discussed in further detail below, the Project also does not meet stability requirements based on the Site’s slope and situation. Thus, the CDP similarly fails.

V. THE COMMISSION SHOULD REJECT THE DISCRETIONARY SPR BECAUSE OF THE

INSUFFICIENT SHORING ANALYSIS
The remedial grading analysis is inadequate given (a) its scale and proximity to existing structures on the 24523 Vantage Point Terrace property; and (b) the proximity of the pool next to the steep, arid hillside pictured below:
continued on next page
17 See Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of LA (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 511 [for discretionary permits to be granted, there must be “substantial evidence (that) supports the findings that legislative requirements have been satisfied.”]
284

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] Figure V [Photo taken on November 13, 2024 from John Tyler Drive Showing Rear of Site] Broadly speaking, the proposed pool is situated too close to the northern edge of the property. The massing and footprint of the structures, coupled with the pool and the proximity to Dr. Saeghi’s property, will put a tremendous strain on the hillside. Given arid conditions, landslide danger, and constant fire risk, this layout is impermissibly unsafe. At a minimum, further evaluation should occur.

Exhibit II contains a declaration from a professional civil, structural, and mechanical engineer that annotates numerous other deficiencies with the grading and shoring plans, many of which violate the MCC and the LIP. Those concerns and arguments are incorporated by reference, herein.

VI. THE PROJECT IS NOT EXEMPT FROM CEQA BECAUSE OF ITS UNUSUAL

CIRCUMSTANCES AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF PRIOR DEVELOPMENT

1. EIRs Are Required for Projects that Could Cause Significant Impacts on the Environment
The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report where a project may have a significant adverse impact 285

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] on the environment, and the exceptions to it are narrowly construed.18 A significant adverse impact on the environment is “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”19
The responsible party must prepare the EIR “as early as feasible in the planning process to enable environmental considerations to influence project program and design and yet late enough to provide meaningful information for environmental assessment.”20

2. Unusual Circumstances Exist Because of a Combination of Factors, including the (a) Site’s Inclusion of a Landslide Zone and the Siting of Accessory Structures; (b) the Site’s proximity to the Pepperdine University campus (c) the Site Location on a Hillside; (d) the Large Amount of Grading and Export Activities Required and (e) the Combination of the Previous Factors With the Situation of the Property in a High Fire Severity Zone
The Staff Report argues that the Project is exempt from CEQA apply to the Project, under a Class 3 Exemption for New Construction. Nonetheless, an exemption cannot stand when the party challenging the exemption provides evidence supporting a “fair argument” (a standard even less rigorous than the substantial evidence standard) that the exemption applies.21 In this case, there is a high probability that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to circumstances unique to the subject parcel.22 Numerous factors individually, and in tandem, present usual circumstances that lead to an elevated risk of environmental damage.

First, the Site suffers both from potential liquefaction and simultaneously contains bedrock described as very hard to bore through. Applicant’s Geotechnical Report states, “[e]tremely hard layers of bedrock were encountered in the explorations.”23 The report unfortunately does not employ sufficient consideration of the landslide zone and the buildout necessary to fully stabilize the adjacent properties. As noted in Exhibit II, that 18 Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal. App. 4th 1165, 1120 [“The purpose of CEQA in general is well established: to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language." (Emphasis added, internal citation and quotation marks omitted.)] 19 LCP § 13.6.4(M). 20 Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal. 3d 376, 395; Public Resources Code § 21080(d) (“[i]f there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.” [Emphasis added.]) 21 See Bankers Hill, Hillcrest, Park West Community Preservation Group v. San Diego (2006) 139 Cal.

App. 249.
22 See 14 CCR § 15300.2(c) [unusual circumstances as an exception to Class 3 exemptions]. 23 “Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation and Engineering Investigation, Proposed Single Family Home on 24515 Vantage Point Terrace, August 11, 2020, p. 5. 286

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] report uses an overly conservative, and at times inconsistent, approach to soils stability.24 Furthermore, nowhere does the City nor Applicant even consider the effect of the large pool sitting at the north property line of the Site, against a steep hillside that runs down to John Tyler Drive and Pepperdine. The absence of proper shoring is worrisome.

How much water will be included, what will be the weight, and what risk factors accompany leaks and or overrun water onto the hillside over time? These questions must be analyzed in greater depth.

The Site also lies in a High Fire Severity Zone, which contributes to issues faced by the Project. Fire risk in Malibu is more severe than before, and the site itself contains flammable brush on the side leading towards John Tyler Drive. Construction sites involve flammable materials, including fueled vehicles and materials for roofing, scaffolding, sealants, solvents, power sources, and various other objects that either start or catch fire.

Construction activities under windy conditions in such areas pose even greater fire risk, which should be studied and mitigated.

Additionally, complicated the above factors, is the Site’s location across the street from Pepperdine. The area receives an unusual amount of traffic due to students, faculty, and innumerable visitors. As noted above, the area also frequently entertains threatened species of wildlife, like cougars. Thus, particular study and attention must be paid to construction practices and environmental disturbance.

Complicating the analysis and compounding the concerns, significant grading and construction activities reflect a potential significant environmental impact under these circumstances. Among other things, the LIP acknowledges hazards that affect the area, including land movement on sloped properties:

A. The City of Malibu and the Santa Monica Mountains coastal zone contains areas subject to hazards that present substantial risks to life and property. These areas require additional development controls to minimize risks, and include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

1. Low Slope Stability and/or high potential for landslide, rockfall, or debris flow, and hillside areas that have the potential to slide, fail, or collapse. Some areas potentially subject to earthquake-induced landslides are identified on the official Seismic Hazard Zone maps released by the California Geological Survey, but areas not shown on these maps may also be subject to earthquake-induced landslides.
24See Public Resources Code § 21080(e)(1) [“substantial evidence (that a project may have a significant effect on the environment) includes expert opinion supported by facts.”] 287

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] * * * *

4. Liquefaction: areas where water-saturated cohesionless soils can potentially lose strength, subside, and/or spread laterally during strong ground shaking. Some areas potentially subject to liquefaction are identified on the official Seismic Hazard Zone maps released by the California Geological Survey, but areas not shown on these maps may also be subject to liquefaction.25 There has been no building on the lot for the last 50 years. 26 During that time, land has
likely moved around and compacted around the current footing of the home.

Furthermore, according to the California Earthquake Hazards Map maintained by California State Department of Conservation, the Site itself is located within a landslide zone.27 The LIP recognizes the threat from “earthquake induced landslides.”28 Vibration impacts and noise should be studied as well, based on the very high quantities of fill to be removed. The situation of the land and the massive increase in floor area to be installed suggest substantial drilling/excavation that could upset the balance of the hillside.

3. Summary of Unusual Conditions
For ease of reference, the following conditions are unique to the Project and warrant preparation of an EIR:
(a) The subject property sits directly across from the Pepperdine University campus, where numerous protected species including mountain lions have been observed and known to traverse, as well as a high foot and vehicular traffic area due to campus activities;
(b) The subject property itself sits within a landslide zone, according to the California Earthquake Hazards Map maintained by the California State Department of Conservation;
(c) The subject property is located in a high fire severity zone, which coupled with landslide risks specific to the Site, warrants closer attention; (d) Considering land movement risks, the Site has been vacant and undisturbed for 50 years.
(e) The proposed swimming pool appears to put major strain on the edge of the Project, which is closest to the steepest portions of the lot. 25 LIP § 9.2(A)(1). 26 Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation and Engineering Investigation, Proposed Single Family Home on 24515 Vantage Point Terrace, August 11, 2020, p. 2 [“The Site is vacant and generally unimproved but was graded in 1971.”] 27 Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation Digital Map, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/, last accessed November 14, 2024. 28 LIP § 9.2(1).
288

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace]

4. There Is No Consideration of Cumulative Impacts of the Project Coupled with Earlier Buildout
CEQA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for a project that has “possible environmental effects that are individually limited but 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.”29
“All exemptions for these classes [including ‘New Construction’] are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.”30 Numerous properties that either abut or are in the vicinity of Applicant’s property have been developed over time, approximately 107 homes, while the Site has seen no activity in over half a century. Undoubtedly, over time the effects of these properties are significant, especially when the abut a liquefaction zone. None of the geotechnical reports prepared acknowledge effects of construction on these properties.

Even more troubling, the August 11, 2020 report prepared by or for Applicant explicitly underscores the lack of information: “A 300-foot geologic research review was performed at the City of Malibu. The searches yielded very little geologic information on adjacent properties.”31 Additional study needs to occur to ensure the safety of the development for the neighborhood.

5. The Entirety of the Project, Including the Pool, Must Be Considered in a CEQA Exemption Analysis
CEQA has anti-segmentation provisions that require a study of the “whole project.”32 Improper piecemealing occurs “when the purpose of the reviewed project is to be the first step toward future development…”33 Thus, the pool must be considered together with the weight of the nearly 4,000 square foot structures that comprise the Project.

A substantial buildout of a property on a slope as steep as the subject property, consider the absence of activity for 50 years on the Site, presents a great risk to the community. This risk must be evaluated through a complete environmental review. 29 14 CCR § 15065; see also 14 CCR § 15300.2(b) [cumulative impact as an exception to Class 3 exemptions]. 30 14 CCR § 15300.2(b). 31 “Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Investigation and Engineering Investigation, Proposed Single Family Home on 24515 Vantage Point Terrace, August 11, 2020, p. 4. 32 14 CCR § 15378 [requiring study of the “whole project.”]; also 14 CCR § 15268(d) [“Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to the requirements of CEQA.” (Emphasis added.)] 33 Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport (2012) 211 Cal. App. 4th 1209, 1223. 289

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] VII.THE COMMISSION SHOULD NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT BECAUSE THE PUBLIC

DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGALLY MANDATED REQUIRED INFORMATION TO

UNDERSTAND AND EVALUATE IT
Constitutional and statutory framework concerning due process applies to administrative hearings. The State of California recognizes a “much more inclusive” and “protects a broader range of interests than under the federal Constitution.”34 The City itself recognizes the importance of an informed and fair public participation in decisions affecting its citizens.

Adjoining landowners have fundamental rights at stake conferred by statute/code, including (1) the right to proper environmental review of nearby properties; and (2) the rights and protections afforded to them as property owners in Malibu Country Estates Overlay District (the “District”).
35 First, the link to the materials available to the public omits several reports:
including:
(1) The Biology Review Referral Sheet – the one provided concerns an unrelated project at 6307 Via Cataldo Street; and
(2) A Public Works Review Referral Sheet – the one provided concerns an unrelated project at 6307 Via Cataldo Street.36
The error stems from inclusion of reports for unrelated projects. Stakeholders should have an opportunity to review materials provided that evaluate the project, especially where those evaluations make consequential determinations. For example, according to the Staff Report, the Biologist’s report apparently concludes that, despite mapping to the contrary, there is actually no stream within 100 feet of the project. As a result, staff concludes that the area is not subject to additional environmental protections ordinarily afforded to such projects. The report should be available before a hearing in order to allow a fair public process.

Furthermore, the story poles have not remained in place. Many are tilted and clearly do not reflect the positioning of the proposed structure. The LCP States:
34 Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego (2001) 94 Cal. App. 4th 1048, 1069 [internal quotations and citations omitted]; See also Cal. Gov. Code § 54950 et seq. [the Brown Act, which provides for open meetings and fair comment]; Cal. Gov. Code § 11340 et seq. [California Administrative Procedures Act.]
35 Desmond v. County of Contra Costa (1993) 21 Cal. App. 4th 330, 338-39 [observing that the Contra Costa County Code required consideration of adjoining landowners with respect to discretionary approvals.]
36 City of Malibu November 18 Regular Meeting Agenda Documentation, https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/6980?fileID=70846, last accessed November 15, 2024.
290

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] proposed structures shall be accurately indicated as to footprint, height and rooflines by story poles with flags. All proposed grading and the proposed location of access roads or driveways, including the centerline top of cut and toe of fill, shall be accurately indicated by stakes. Both poles and stakes shall remain in place for the duration of the approval process.37 This picture was taken on November 13, 2024, which shows the story poles in complete disrepair:

Figure VIII [Photo taken of Site on November 13, 2024 from Vantage Point Terrace] With the poles bent and the orange demarcations in tatters, it is very difficult to get a sense of the impacts on views from the Project. With the story poles in this condition, it renders impossible a meaningful evaluation of the project by the public.

Based on the mistaken reports concerning the Project and/or the lack of accurate silhouettes, the Planning Commission should continue this matter in order to allow the public an opportunity to participate in this process in an informed manner. 37 LCP § 6.3.
291

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] VIII. CONCLUSION
The Project is unlawful and flawed.

The Project would affect protected views, neighborhood compatibility, and it carries a substantial risk of environmental disaster, such as destabilizing and irrevocably altering the hillside. The development, as proposed, does not advance the goals of the District nor does it protect the natural and scenic resources that provide value.

The CEQA analysis is inadequate. It does not take all the unique circumstances of the Project into account, nor the cumulative effects on the hillside of numerous previous projects.

Most troubling, the Project would dramatically invade Dr. Saeghi’s privacy. The Project can easily be reduced to (a) eliminate privacy concerns; (b) reduce geotechnical and structural worries; and (c) contribute to the makeup of the neighborhood.

Otherwise, the Planning Commission should reject the Project in its current form.

Sincerely,
Stephen Weaver, Esq.
cc: Raneika Brooks, Case Planner [via email]
292

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] Exhibit I
[Photographs Reflecting Obstruction of Protected Views Shown by Story Poles and Privacy Intrusions]
(1) View from Dr. Saeghi’s Yard [Protected View and Privacy Issue] (2) View from Vantage Point Terrace [Story Pole Condition] All Photos Taken on November 13, 2024
293
294
295

November 15, 2024
Opposition to CDP No. 22-009, SPR No. 24-013 [24515 Vantage Point Terrace] Exhibit II
[Certification of Michael McNeff]
296
I, Michael McNeff, certifY and state as follows:

1. I am, and at all times relevant to this declaration was, a licensed mechanical, civil, and structural engineer, in good standing in the State of California. My Mechanical License Number is M30817, my Civil License Number is C61048, and my Structural License Number is S4825.

2. I reviewed the geotechnical reports prepared for a proposed project at 24515 Vantage Point Terrace, Malibu, CA 90265 (the "24515 Vantage Point Property"), bearing case numbers Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 and Site Plan Review No. 24-013.

3. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of my comments written on the Site Plan for the24 515 Vantage Point Property.

4. Attached as Exhibit B is a copy of my comments on the preliminary geotechnical analysis for the project.

I certifY that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 15th day of November, 2024, in Carlsbad, California.
~ Michael A. McNeff, P.E., S.E.
297
Exhibit A
298
1 ~ L
r APPROVED BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR APPROVED BUILDING ROOF VALLEY FLASHING SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 0.019­ IDENTIFICATION SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED SO AS TO BE PLAINLY VISIBLE AND LOT TRAC T NO 30134; LOT 84 INCH (NO. 26 GALVANIZE D SHEET GAGE) CORROSION­ LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST VVITH RESISTANE METAL INSTALLED OVER A MINIMUM 36-INCH THE NUMBER FEET ABOVE OR BELOW HIGH POINT OF CURB: -0.7 IR BACKGROUND, BE ARABIC NUMERALS OR ALPHABET LEnERS, AND BE A MINIMUM OF 4 WIDE UNDERLAYMENT CONSISTING OF ONE LAYER OF NO INCHES HIGH WI TH A MINIMUM STROKE VY1TH OF O.SINCH. FIRE CODE 505.1 72 ASTM CAP SHEET MEETING RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH MEC. CuMMErJTS CONTROL POINT FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT MEASUREMENT 105.87 OF THE VALLEY (REPRESENTS THE CE NTER HEIGHT OF EACH PAD. FROM WHICH THE AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS SET FORTH BY BUILDING COE 903 AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND MAXIMUM FINISHED FIRST FLOOR SHALL FIRE CODE 903 TO BE PROVIDED. PLANS SHALL BE S UBMITIED TO THE SPRINKLER PLAN ALL ROOF COVERINGS SHALL BE CLASS ··A·· AS BE MEASURED. 105.87' _ 0,7 == 105.17' CHECK UNIT FOR REVIEW AND APPR OVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. SPECIFIED IN BUILDING CODE 150S.1.1 tv' . t-J\C tJ EFF MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT FRO M CONTROL POINT (+1 8') == 123.1 7' SINGLE- AND MULTIPLE- STATION CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL BE LlSTE:,D AS COMPLY ING WITH MAX.IMUM 1ST FLR HEIGHT FRO M CONTROL POINT (+3') == 108.11' ROOF GUTIERS SHALL BE PROVIDED VIJITH A MEANS TO THE PREVENT THE ACC UMULATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN REQUIREMENTS OF UL 2034 CARBON MONOXIDE DECTECTORS SHALL BE LISTED AS COM PLYING WITH THE GUTTER (RESIDENTIAL CODE R327.1 S34 AND BUILDING THE Il/l'8/2i1 REOUIREM ENTS OF UL 2075 CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS REOUIRED BY (SECTIONS R3 1S.1 AND R315.2) CODE 70SAA)
ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING OR r WWfgETBAcROPOSEO 26·..()· 36 ·-2· SHALL BE DOVVNWARD FACING (SECTIONS 420.4.1 AND 420.4.2) SHALL BE INSTALLED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS

1. OUTSIDE OF EACH SEPARATE DW ELLING UNIT SLEEPING AR EA IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE SIDE SETBACK (SOUTH) g'-O" 9'-0" BEDROOM(S). WHERE MORE THAN ONE SMOKE ALARM IS REQUIRED TO BE (Cf, 5t-\- rf cT<7) SIDE SETBACK (NORTH) S·-O'· 5. 0 0" 2 . ON EVERY LEVEL OF A DWELLING UNIT INCLUDING BASEMENTS. INSTALLED WITHIN AN INDIVIDUAL DWELLIN G OR SLEEPING 3, FOR R-l ONLY, ON THE CEILING OF SLEEPING UNITS I/VlTH PERMANENTLY INSTALLE D FUEL-BURNING UNIT. T HE SMOKE ALAR MS SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED IN REAR SETBACK (EAST): 1S·,,()" 63·-' " APPLIANCES BUILDABLE PAD DEPTH 94·-6"' SUCH A MANNER THAT T HE ACTIVATION OF ONE ALARM WILL ACTIVATE ALL OF THE ALRAMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT.

RESI DENTIAL CODE R31 4.5 PROVIDE APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES OR MARKINGS THAT INCLUDE TH E BUILDABLE PAD WIDTH 10S·-3' WORDS "NO PARKI NG - FIRE LANE,·· SIGNS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DIM ENSION OF 12 INCHES WI DE BY 18 1NCHES HIGH AND HAVE RED LETTER S ON P-.INHITE REFLE CTIVE BACKGROUND AN APPROVED CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM SHALL BE SIGNS SHALL BE PROVI DED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS, TO CLEARLY INDICATE THE INSTALLED IN DWELLING UNITS AND IN SLEEPING UNITS W ENTRANCE TO SUCH ROAD. OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF AND AT INTERVALS, AS ITHIN W HICH FUEL·BURNING APPLIANCES ARE INSTALLED R EOUIRED BY THE FIRE INSPECTOR. FIRE CODE 503.3 AND IN DWELLING UNITS THAT HAVE ATIACHED GARAGES

REQUIR ED CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL RECEI VE

THEIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDIGN WI RING WHERE

SUCH WI RING IS SERVED FROM A COMMERCIAL SOURCE AND SMOKE ALARMS SHALL RECEIVE TH EIR PRIMARY POWER FROM THE BUILDING WI RING PROVIDED SHALL BE EQU THAT SUCH VV'lRING IS SERVED FRO M A COMMERCIAL SOURCE AND SH.l\,LL BE EQUIPPED WITH A IPPED WITH A BATTERY BACK-UP. WEHRE

MORE THAN ONE CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM IS REQUIRED BATIERY BACKUP

TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN T HE DWELLING UNIT OR WITHIN A
SLEEPING UNIT THE ALARM SHALL BE INTERCONNECTED IN A 1Hl~ PL-MJ Sfi9W.$ 1? I
Clearance of br ush and vegetative growth shall be maintained p€ f Fire Code 32S A CTION REQUIRED SET~flCK Tb PuJI~ £D1)M 8. pl)O~ MA NNER THAT ACTIVATION OF ONE ALARM SHALL ACTIVATE ALL OF THE ALARMS IN THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT. RESIDENTIAL
CODE R31 S.1 .2, BUILDING CODE 420.4.1
~vT O~ >tTEefS OEPlC-r (+/-) g'SETMc-K. CLEARANCE OF BRUSH A ND VEGETATIVE GROWTH SHALL BE MAINTAINED PER FIRE CODE 32S. +01 ... DEC
DECKS
KI NG
. PO
, SUR
RCHES
FACES
, A ND
. STAIR

BALCONIES

TREADS,
WHER
RISE
E
RS.

ANY
AND
POR
LANDI
TION
NGS
OF
OF t: W .- I­
_ 00 SUCH SURFACE WITHI N 10 FEET OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE SHALL BE APPROVED NONCO MBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION. 0 ceo
D- .- N
ALL REQUIRED PUBLI C FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE D.0l INSTALLED. TESTED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO vot~''{ "JI'I'c.W 61IIi= j(. Cl) We::! BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. FIRE CODE SOl .4 fc.,~ $~er7 ' C)
L /'
0 0
FIRE VEHICULAR A CCESS ROADS MUST BE INSTALLED AND I ...

I c ::i MAINTAINED IN P-. SERVICEABLE MANNER PRIOR TO AND DURING - g'U
,tI!.e THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION ctS /
/ +01 >=
lOti!
t: ..... ~ 10 8 o 0) o ctS '<t
WOOD FEN CE > N
HEIGHT 6· A. F.F

MATERIAL : PREFINISHEO WOOD

FRAME AND POST:STEEL

COLOR MAHOGANY

I 32' \ '
\ ~
'­
0 :r:
z
o
:AJ
<:
m 8'
5t~ ~ o 29 \ "­
~
Cl
"
~ -\ \ » , UPDATEDGl \
m ,
Z \
~ \
:AJ
~~ y
\ Vantage Po

W OOD FENCE
HEIGHT 6' A.F.F
MATERIAL: PREFINISHED WOOD
FRAME A ND POST:STEEL
COLOR MAHOGANY \
\
\
\ G) SITE PLAN LIMIT OF APPEAL ZONE ,11/8" =1'-0" t _0§ .JJ) 1K~_ 1'"e\ ~.t .~"';'. ;; :"'~t:IA ­
:. E?:T ~~"":l:;:;.'!':. • .:: ~"'·.:.: ...

A·D, I
299
~
==

1. A copy Of' TH E CONSTRUCTION OCCUMENTS OR A COMPARABLE DOCUMENT INFORMATION FROM ENRGY CODE SECTIONS " 0.10(El) THROUGH 110.10 IC) SHALL BE PROVIDED l O THE OCSUp.o,NT
'2. FOR PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE LANSCAPE WORK, THE LANDSCAPE Ce:RTIFICATION, FROM Gi'lN 12 SHA.LL BE COMPLETED PERIQR , 0 FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL. (STATE ASSEMBLY Bil L NO. 1~8 1 ) 3, r.1ATERIAlS DELIVERED TO THE CONS TRUCTION SITE SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM RAIN OR OTHER SOURCES CF MOISTURE 14407.4)

4. AN OPERATIO"l AND MAII,TE NANCE IMNUAL INCLUDING, AT A MIN IMUM, THE I"TEMS liSTED IN SECTIQ;,

4.410.1. SHALL BE COMPI.ErED AND PLA CE D IN THE BUILOINGA"- THE TIME OF FINAlIN5PECTIOl':. [4.410.1) 5 THE FIREPLACE IS DIR ECT_VENT, SEALED COMBUSTION TYPE. ANY INSTAllEDWooDSTOVE OR PELLER STOVE SHALL COMPlY WITH U,S. EPA PHASE II EM ISSION LIMI TS WHERE A"PlfCABLE. INCOR POR"'T MANUFACTURER'S SPEC IFICAT IONS ONTO PLAN . (~S O~ 1)

6. wooo E3'J RNING FIREPLACES AND OTHER W000 BUR N""G DEVICES ARE PROMI8ITED. q4 5)

7. ALL DUCT Al'm OTHER RELAT[D AIR DIS'IRIBUTION COMPONENT OPENINGS SHALL Be COVERED WITH TAPE. PlASTIC. OR SH EET METAL UNTIL THE FINAL 5TARTUP
EOJIPMENT. (4.5O 4)

8. ARCHITECTUI<AL FAINTS AND COA iIr>JG ADH ESIV':;S
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOJNO I VDC) LIMITS LISTED IN TABlES 504 -4 0~ 3 9_ A'~~ CARPET INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING INTER IOR SHALL Io1EET TriE , ESTING ANDPROQIJCT REQUIREMENTS OF ONE OF THE FOlLO'r'lIt-."G
L CARPET AND RUG INSTITU TE S GREEN LABEL PlUS FRCGRAM
II. CALIFORNLA DEPARTMENT Cf D\JBlK: HEALTH STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE TESTING OF VOCS (SPECIFICATION 01350)
III. NSFIANSll 4Ci AT THE GOlD LEVEL
IV, SCIENT IF IC CERTI"ICATIONS SYSTE MS INCO::>R ADVAN,AGE'M GOlD

10. ALL CARPET CUSHION INSTALLED IN THE BUILDING INTERIOR SHAll- MEET THE REQUIREMENTScr THE CARPET AND RUG INSTITUTE GRF.EN LABEL PROGRAM, (4 5(l43.1) o ~~~~: t~~~~g~~~~~~~ ~~~I~ I:~6 ~~ ~~;~~~i:~~R~!~g':;T ND TC A HEIGHT 0, NOT LESS THAN 6 FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR .(2\ OCORS LEADING FROM THE HOUSE TO HAVE PCOL ACCESS SHALL BE PROTECTED WITH ~~
<9 ~~;:~~ ;g:~~Rp;~~F:EC~~LSE~A~ ~CL';~:~~~~ D~/t~:~~~~~M:~: ~I:~ V ENTRY, M TANKLESS WATER HEAT ER BY NORITZ MODE L NRC' 111 SERI.,S SEE SFECIFICATIONS OR

APPROVED EQUAL ISSE PLUMBING PLAN S FOR EXACT MAKE & ODE ) <2> ~~~~~ ::~;~~h1~~~ 6'L~~~MATED IRRIGATION SYSTEM
~;~~I~IT) ONE 208,240Y 40 AMP FOR FllTURE ELECTRIC VEH ICLE (}) g~::~~ ~ 6~:T~ ~~~; ~~~~;~RTE~A~ASRE~ ~~~~~~ CEILING, BEAM, PIPE. vEm , MECHANICAL EOUIPMENT OR SIMILAR CONSTRUCTION (MBMC

10.64., OOC) l -HOJR RATED WALL AND CEILING
<§> SOH~~S8~~r;r~;+: ~~~~~A~L~I~I~B~I ~G~6S~~~~~ ~~T~E~~~ 6T~~~ ~~~~~RAGE MATERIAL AND SHALL NOT AHVE OPENINGS INTO THE GARAGE (R302,5.2)

-OTHER PENETRATIONS OF GARAGEIDVl/EfLLING CEILINGS AND WALLS SHALL BE PROTECT ED AS

REOU IRED BY SECTION R30 1~ ITEM ~ (R302,5,3)

• GARAGE FLOOR SURrACES SHALL BE OF AN APPROVED NONCOMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL AN!) THE AREA USED TO PARK VEHICLES SHALL BE SLOPED TO A ORAIN OR TOY'.'AR!) THE MAIN VEHICLE ENTR Y DOORWAY.

EACH CHIMNEY USED I" CONJUNCTION WITH ANY FIR EP~ACE 8ARBEQUE, INCINEi<ATOR OR ANY HEATING APPLIANCE I ~I WfilCH SOliD OR LIQUID FUEL IS USED, UPON A BUILDlhlG, STRUCTURE. OR PREM ISES LOCATED WrTH IN ANY HAlAROOUS FIRE: AREJI. SHALL BE MAINTAINED WITH A SPARK ARRESTRER CONSTRJCTED WITH HEAVY WIRE ME:SH OR OTHER NONCOMBUSTIBlE MATERIALS /s' :r~~oZ ~~~!)T~RE g~~~F~ ~~~~~E PLACE II~STA((.II, TION ANO ~/ ACCOROING TO M':"NUFACTURER REQUIREMENTS, FOR PROPER AND SAFE FUNCTIO""(

11. SO'" OF THE TOTAL AREA RECEIVING RESILIE NT i"LCXJRINGSHALL COMPt. Y WITH ONE OR MORE OF THE Fa,LOWIN(;
I. YOC EM ISSOll ll'o'lITS DEFINED If, THE CHPS HfGH

PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS DATABASE

II. PRODUCTS COMPLAINT WrTH THE CHPS- CRIT ERIA CERT"' IE!J UNDER THE GREENGUARD CHILDREI, AND SCHoo..S PROGRAM
III. CERTIFICIHIQN UNDER THE RESiliENT FLOOR COVERING
INSTITUTE (RFO) FL~SCCfl E PROORAM
IV. MEET THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH'S
Sf"ECIFICATION01 JSO

12. NEW HARDw(xx) PI..YV'."CX)O PARTICLEBOARD AND MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD COMPOSIlE WOOD PRODUCTS USED ON , Hf' INTERIOR OR E.KTERIOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL ""EET THE
FOf< MALDEHYDE CONTEN1 FOR ALL APPLICABLE WCOO PRODUCTS SHAU. BE READILY AVAILAaLE A1 THE JCIB SITE ANO BE PROVID!:D TD THE FILES INSPECTOR FOR VER IFICATION, (.:I , 5() ~, !i )

13. BUILDING MATERIALS W ITH VISIBLE SK;.NS OF WATER DAMAGE:

SHAU NOT BE INSTALLED WAU AND FLOOR FRAMING SHALL NOT BE ENCLOSED UNrT IT IS INSPECT ED AND FOUND TO BE SATlSF':"CTQRY BY H iE BUILDING INSf'!:CTOR ,(4.505.3)

14. THE HEATING AND AIR-CONDlTIONlflG SYSTEMS SHALL BESiZ:ED AND DESIGNED USING ANSVA,CCA MANUAL J_2004, NSVACCA 29-D-ZODS OR ASH RAE HANCleQOI(S AND ~VE THEIR OUIP~1EN1 SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANSVACCA J6-S MANUAL 5_"2000<1 14.507.2) 15_ 1 HE VOC Cenlal\l Ye "hc;e llon he(:~I t!. lerm GRN 2, SHALL BE COMPlETED AND VERII'IED PERIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICA.TlONS SHOWING VOC CONTENT FOR ALL APPLIC"-SlE PRODUCTS SHALL BE READILY AVAILABlE AT TH~ Joe SITE ANO BE PROYIDED 1 0 t HE FIELD INSPECl 00 FOR VER IFICATI'",JN 1~ .504,l J

16. THE Forml!lfdeohVCIe Erros5lO,.. V~ o;:tlh n he ~ilsl. FORM GR~ 3,

SHAU BE COMPLETED PERIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION APPROVAL THE

MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS SHOWING FORMALDEHYDE
CONTENT FOR AU APPLICA BLE WOCl) PRODUCTS SHALL BE REAOlIY AVAILABLE AT THE J06 Sn E AND BE PROVIDED TO THE FIELD
INSPECTOR FIR VERIFICATION (4,504.5)

17. ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES
~~i~~~:~~~~i~~~~~~~~\~~~~~lOF
CONCRETE MASQNARY OP. MET AL PLATES PIPING PR ONE TO
CORROSION SHAll 8E I"ROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 313 OOF THE lOS .ANGELES Pt.UMBIr-.G CQOE, (4,406.1)

18. EVER'!' SPACE INTENDED FOR t-ruMAN OCCuPANCY SHAL e BE PRovIDED WITH NATURAL l IGHT BE MEANS OF I:)CTERIOR GLAZEO OPENING IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION RJOJ.l OR SHALL BE
PROVIDED WtTHARTIFCIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PI-:OVIDE ArJ AVERAGE ILLUMIW\TlO!'l Of 6 FOOT -CANDU:S OVER THE ARE OF THE ROOM AT A HEtGHTOF 30 INCHES ABOve THE FLOOR LEVEL. (R303.1) ~~STI~~L~B.E~ ~~~:;~~.,(L~~~~ ~ONDITrJN S OF

10. GARACE FLOOR SURFACES SHAU 8E OF AN APPROI'ED NON
COMBUSTIBLE M"TERIAL !'.ND TH E. AREA USEOTO PARK VEHICLES SHAU BE SLOPED TO ORAIN 00 TOWARD THE MAIN VEHICLE ~TRY OQORWAI' (PX)9 10)

21. WATER HEATER ""UST BE STRAPPED TO WALL 15e('. 507.3, LAPC) All. 120 YOL1 SINGLE PHASE
15- ANO 20 AMP SRANCHCIRCUITS SuPPLYING
OUTLElS OR DEYICES INSTtlLLED IN DWELliNG UNIT KITCHENS FAM IIL Y ROOM S. DININO ROOMS lIYING ROOMS rJARLORS. Ll8RARIE'S DE ~J S 9I:DROOMS, SUNROOM .S
R£CREATiO'-I R~ CLOSETS HALLWAYS. LAUNDRY AREAS. OR SIWIILAR ROOMS OR " REAS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY ANY 01' THE MEA NS DESCRIBED IN 2 ' 0 n IA)(l) THROUGH (6)
THE ARC_FAUll CIRCUIT INTERRUPTER SHALL BE INSTALLED IN A REA!)IL Y Acce SSIBLE LOCAION
THE SERVICE PANELS ANDlQR SUB PANELS SHALL HAVE THE CAPACITY OF AN AOOrriON AL LOAD NOT LESS TKAN S kVA FOR EVERY 2000 SQAUI<E FEET OF LV ING Sf'ACE OESIGNTED TO ACCOMOQATE FUTURE ENSRGY STORAGE SYSTEMSiS) THIS LOAD SHALL8E CONSIDERED CONTINUOUS MID DEMAND FACTORS SHAU NOT APPLY. AOOITIONALL Y 1HE SERVICE PANELS ANc:wc:lR sue PANELS SHALL HAVE $PACE(S)
RESERVEDI'OEOICATED TO PERMn INSTALLATION 0"" THt BRANC., ClRCun OVERCURRENT PROTECTIVE OEV CES~S ) FOR THE ENERGY 1~1!"IPING SKIILL BE INSTALLED TO PER MIT THE
DISCHARGE FRO~ CLOTHES WASHERS BATHTuBS SHOWERS. AN D
SATHRooM I RESTROQI.I 'NASH BASINS TO BE USED F~ A
GRlI.VWATER IRRIGATION SYSTEM
DlCAT NG THE
~

IAQMD RU LE
OF THE HEATINGIo1 COO-irK; AND VENTILA1 1(-,",
CAULKS AND SEALANTS SMALL COMf'LY WITH THE o (~. 504,2 _.:I 50~ ,3; G
,
\ 1_~,I
:~~E2g;~; ~J i:~~'~6ANY
VENT.~ TO BE
@
@
fr{'~~y...~cAtE: , _ .- -----"-­
THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM SHALL 8E APPROVED BY PLUMiNG DlV. PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ~
USE 2_'50' FELT BACKINGWHE'" STUCCO IS APPLlFD OVER P\..YWOOD. UBC SEC.2~ 1 .:I

NOTE' SMOKE DETECTORS
SMOKE [)ElECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS FOlLOWS ~l1C-. 9. ~) SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL RECEIVE THEIR "'RIMARY POWER SOiJRCE FROM THE BUILDING WIRING AND SHAU BE EOUIPPE!) WITH BArTERY PACK UP AND LOW 6ATTER v SIGNAL SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE cOCATEO IN EACH SLEEPING RCDM &. HALLWAY OR AREAGIYING ACCESS TO A SLEEPING ROOM .tlND ON EACH ",ORY AND BASEMENT

FDR DWELLINGS WITH MOR E THAN ONE STCRY

AN APPR OVED BACKWA TER YAL 'IE IS REQUIRED FOR DRAINAGE PIPING SERV ING FIXTURES LOCATED BELC¥i THE ELEVATION OF THE NEXT UPSTREAM ELEVATION SHALL NOT DISCHARGE THROUGH THE SACK WATER VALVE IUPC 7101i {NONOCCURING NOT REOUIRED) SMO+<.E DETECTORS SHAll. BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DVl/ELLING UNI1 S INTENDED rOR "UMt..N OCCUPANCY UPON THE OWNER'S APPL ICATION FOR A PERMIT "OR At TERATIONS REPAIRS OR AOOITIONS EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND OCLL.ARS (S1000) IR)I ~ 6 2)
WHERE A PER T IS REQUIRED FOR AL TERATlC)I'lS REPAIRS OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING Ct-IETHOUSAI<lt) DOLLARS (51000) , EXISTING DIfIIELlINGS OR SU:'EPING UNITS m-".T HAVE ATIACHE'D GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNIIlG APPLIANCES SH ALL BE °ROV IDED WITH A CARBON M()NQ;.<;IDE LAR~' !N ACCORDA~ICE WiTH SECTION R31: 2 CARBON MONOXID-E' ALARMS S HALL ONLY BE REOVlRED IN l HE SPEClclC [MIELLING I~II T OR SLE.EPING UNIT S FOR WH ICH THE PER 1IT Y'/ AS 08TAINED i J1 ~.2.2)
-
DOORS BETW~ ~ GARAGE AND THE DWELLING UNIT SrlALL HAVE A MINIMUM FIRE PROTECTION RAT ING OF 20 MINlJTES AND SELF-CLOSING AND SHF·LATCHING O" VICES OR SOLID WC)()[) OR SOLID OR HONEYCO~18COR E ST EE L NOT LESS THAN 1 Y. INCHES TH ICK
THE GARAGE SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE JI'<'ELUNG AND ITS ArTlC AREA INIICCOPDANCE W!TH TA8LE R302.o i R:>(26)

DUCTS PENETRATING THE WALLS OR CEILINGS SEPARATING THE DWEL LING FROM THE GARAGE SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF A MI NI ~' NO. ~ GAGE SHEET STf EL OR OTHER AWROV ED MATERIAL AND SHALL NOT HAVE OPENINGS INTO THE GARAGE. IR302 5,2)
.:I OTHE R PENETRATIONS or. GARAGBOWEU ING CEILINGS AND WAUS SHALL BE PRO,ECTED AS REOUIRED BY SECTION ~
. R30211I TEM~ (R.302.5 . 2J

1. · -ffl _ ~ '.J: • -::- K'- ~~T~"'ffi~!ER D'''''8 ~~~8~&l~I(.~~~:lli1~me~",l'i'R~. '",,"C '''''''' '' 8C.)OR W THE LOCATION OF THE HQOI(_UF , HE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WiTHIN TEN FEET or ANY POWER LINE S-WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERlY , FAILURE TOCOMP!.Y MAY CAUSE CONSTRUCTIDN DELAYS ANDIOR AODITIO'JAL EXPENSE 3 PRCV IDE NATURAL VENTILATION IN (HABITABlE =<OOMS) (BATHROOMS) BY fI>1EA NSOF OPEI,ABLE EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS WITH ,loB ARE~ NOT LES S THAN.:I~ OF Fi.()()R AR EA. MECHANICA-~ VE,'HILATING SYS,EMS MAY RF. PERMITIED !P303. 1) .:I PROVIDE TU RAL LlGHl IN (HAS ITABLE RCOMS) BY t.1 EAN S Of' EXTERiOr:;: WALL OPENINGSVlITH M" AREA NOT LESS THAN 8% OF FLCOR .AREA. ARTIF ICIA, I. IGHTING MAY aE FERMITTED.(R303 I I RECbMfv\ENOCO ""oLl> lEt<. B'EAM
IN:; st/oI<.trJtq wALL
e.. ;;..T-I-t.:
'KEcDM.MCrJOC'(? >th>.ll~ wAlL
0"01 AS ~(nlCAL) .mll12l.l<
~~
@jI
~
~~ .~I)NG FIXT URES AR E RECJUIRED TO BE CON NECTED TO A SANITAR Y SEWER OR TOAN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTE M ~ H ~~;~~~~ '\~IA~E~Ar~~ ~~~;~~EU~~OS~~~SO~~~~~T~~i~~~~' ~~;;;~ WAS ING MACHIN E OU1LETS SHALL S" P~OV ID D ru?' ~Il H A :Z~c:tfE ~~:5~~~~~~C~~~~~~~~ U:Li ~h~~~~Z~~~i~~6/~~ ;~\~~~~~:::~~~;~;7;i~~~L"~ I~ ISH EV (R:l:l71)

<1 NEW CONS1RUCTION SHALL PROV IDE ULT"lA LCMl FLUSH WATER CLOSETS AND EXISTING SHOI-YEF. HroADS ANO TO ILETS "IS1 Bl:

ADAPTED l"oP LOYVW;,TER ONS L;~ 1? ON e
S ....U INTERK)R AND EXTERrJR STAIRWAYS SHALL BE IUUIo1INATED

6 WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL (SEC 507.1. LAPC)

-; DUC7 S PENETRATING THE WALLS OR CEIL INGS SEPARATI~.JG THE D'lVE:LLlNC FROM THE GtlRAGE SH/'ll. SE CQNTR LiCTEDO" A MINIMUM NO.

26 GAGE SHEET STEEL OR OTC1ER APPROV ED fMTERIAL"ND SHA_L NOT HAVE OPENINGS INTO THF GflRAGE

8 UNIT SKYLlGf-ITS Sf-'ALL BE LABHE DBY A LA CITY APPROVEt: LABEliNG AGENC Y. SU::H lABEL SHALL STATE: THE APPROVED LABELII"G

AGE r..c'" NAME PRODUCT DESIGNATrJN AND PERFORIo1ANCE GRADE RUING. (RESEARCH REPORT NOT REQUIRE D j (R306.6.9,)

I
L
- OVRING CONSTR U ('TIOfJ THERE ARE A
NUIo18ER Cf' WAYS THAT AIR OIJALIT IN
THE BlJlLDINGCAN BE PllT AT RI SI<.

Tt-IES E I~CLUD E WATER DAMAGE TO
"'tl1ERIALS DLlST C OLLECTION IN 1'"HE
YENTILATIONSYST [M . ABSORPTION OF
VOCS INTO POROllS M ATERIALS LIKE
CA"P!;;T AND FURN ITURE, AND
CLOGGED FilTERS. PREPAR Ir>.'G A PLAN

PRIOR TO CCNSTR UCT ION ANO
PRDVlDlr,c THE PL A N TO THE
CONTRACTOR HELPS TO!::NSURE T''AT
AIR uUALITY ISSUE::S WILL ~ WELL
MANAGED THROl..'GHQUl THE
CONSTRUCTION PR OCESS. PROJECTS
SHAL:. PROVIDE A COI"STRUCTIQN AIR

DUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN ON THE
CONSTRlJCTION DRAWINGS T"AT, AT A

MINIMUM INCLUDES PROTECTING

DLX::TS DURING CONSTRUCTICN AND

CHANGII>J(; THE FILTERS AND

VACUUMING DLeTS PRIOR TO

OCCUPANCY

• LOW \/OLATILE ORGANIC COI.1 POUND

[VOC) PAIr--:TS AND WOOD FINISHES ARE

BROADl ':' ""'AILABLE A T LlTTc.c OR NO

ADDITIONAL COST THAN THEIR TOXIC

COUNTERPARTS. USING THESE

MATERIALS PROTE C TS BOTH WORKERS

AND OCCUPANTS FROM RESPIRATOR Y

IRR ITATIONS THAT CAN BE GENERATED

BY VOCS, MOST LOW_Vex:: PAINTS

MAiiKETEO BY PAIN; MANUFACTURERS

'-'lEEr THE THR:::SHOLD OF () GRAM S

(OR LESS) PER LITE R FOR FLAT PAINTS

AND 150 GRAM S PE R LITER {OR LESS)

FOR NON·FLAT PAl ms

ENERGY STAR OUALIFIED

APPLIANCES INCORPORATE ADVANCED

ifCHI\'OLOCiIES THAT U SE tD 'i()". LESS

ENERGY ANDI'IATER THAN STANDARD

MODElS.THEY ARE WIDELY AVIIILAS:'E

FROM ALL MAJCiR BRANOS. REBATES

AND INCENTIVES AR E OFTEN AVAILABLE

FROM SOUTHERN C ALI F-ORNIA EDISON

SE~
f.ITTP IMON'N. SCE,COM/REElATESANDSA
• AND ALSO FROM S OCAL GAS

COMPANY ANO LADWP. COMMERCIAL

APP:.IANCES THAT ARE NOT AVAILASLE

IN EN E'<GY STAR ARE EXEMPT FRO ~

TH IS RECUIRE MENT

- PROJECTS SHA COM PLY WITH

APFLICASLE REOUIR E MENTS FOR

lJTlLIZING LOW-FLOW S HOWER'-1EADS

FAUCETS AND WATER CLOSETS AS

ADClPTED BY SECTION 1 3, 12 O~ I I) AND

iJ) T'1E MAXIMUM RATE FOR LOW

FLU/V FAUCETS IS 1 . B G ALLONS PER

MIN<JTE, THE MAXIM U M RATE FOP

SHO'NER HEA'JS IS 2,0 GA'~ LClN S PER

MINUTE. THESE; FIXTURES CAN HELP

REDUCEo WATER US AGE AT A TIME

'NHEN SOLJTHERN CALIFORNIA IS

~Of\fO FACING A SHARP DECREASE 11'01 WATER

SU"PLY
• OUTDOOR LIGHTING S HOU LD BE

DESIGNED TO PREVENT Gi..ARE, LIGHT

«i~ TRESPASS, AND SKY GLOY'i AS MUCH

AS POSSIBLE , PERMANENTLY

INSTALLED LIGHTING SHOULD NOT

SliNK. FLASH. OR 8E OF UNUSUALLY
-"";-LDPE HIGH INTENSITY OR BRIGHTNESS t: "t:. . EXTERIOR lICHTING MUST 8E ENERGY­

EF i' ICI E~1T AND SHIELDEO SO THAT ALL

~lA.. EXTEtJj)
GLARE IS CONFINED WITHII" THE

BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE ENERGY

EFFICIEI\oT OUTDCDR LIGHTING LASTS

LONCER TH AI\' INCA N DESCENT BULBS

SAVES NERG ' AN D MONEY. AI.JO
INn.EXr5Tl ~ LlGIfT SPILL!'.GE IS R E DUCED
- PROJECTS MUST COMp!'Y WITH ALL

APPLICABlE REOUIREIVIE NTS IN

~C ION 19,28, ' 00(8) (PARKING AREA

LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS). THE

PARKING LOT MUST HAVE PERIMETER

L"NDSCAPING. WITH' C ANOPY TREE

~OR EVERY 9 PARK ING S PACES

PARKING AREAS AD.JACE NT TO THE

F'lJ9LIC RIGHT OF WAY A N D PARKING

AREAS ADJACENT TO RE SID€ t-ITIALLY

l.ONED yllRCELS MUST BE SCREENED

FROM VIEW WITH LA.NDSC APING TO A

HEfGHT OF 42', ~~EASUR ED FRO.... THE

SURFACE OF THE PARKIN GAREJ\

~~
• PROJECTS SHAll COM PLY WITH ALL

APPLICABLE REQUIREM E NTS IN

CHAPTER 15 (::NVIRONIII ENTAL

PROTECTICN POLL UTION. ANO SOLID

WASTE)

IS
t\)~~1
~L I.F TIle $5f/tJc; ,S'bDf'6IS r-l~'" (JsU.OW'EP
TO ors1U~~ C?
UPDATED·

PROGRESS
W"OO"'OI..........,"".t

CD 1ST FLOOR LEVEL
3/16" = 1 '-0" DES.,..l.' .......'.:.-" ,·.

& Vantage Point
CARBON MONOXiDE
DETEC10R
24515 Vanta ge Pomt TOI
Malibu, CA 90265 Fl USH CEILING EXH AUS"
c~
ENER GY STAR &. FIRST FLOOR PLAN UM ID STA~ DUCTEDTO
Ql.JTSIDE STUDY _ ROOM I,AME
-<c----R COI~ NUIiiSER DOOR "lARK CAL~OlJT IDR AWN ICKD.8\' IFtOORl A-1 .1 'NOOOSTUO WALLS
E · _ · _·.... -l~~;~~~T~~D
c::::=::::=:::J CONCRETE R'~!JIJ Il ~~ ~l,
CC WF 20-216_217
300
--.J

GREEN BUILDING NOTES

1. DURING CONSTRICTION THERE AR E A NUMBER OF

WAYS THAT AIR QUALITY IN THE BUILDING CAN BE PUT AT
RISK. THAT INCLUDE WATER DAMAGE TO MATERIALS,

DUST COLLECTION IN THE VENTILATION SYSTEM ,

ABSOR PTION OF VDCS INTO POROUS MATERIALS LIKE
CARPET AND FURNITURE, AND CLOGGED FilTERS.

PREPARING A PLAN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND

PROVIDING THE PLAN TO THE CONTRACTOR HELPED TO
ENDURE THAT AIR QUALITY ISSUES VV1LL BE WELL

MANAGED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS

PROJECTS SHALL PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION AIR
QUALITY MANAGEMENT PlAN ON THE CONSTRUCTION
DRA\NINGS THAT, AT A MINIMUM INCLUDES PROTECTING

DUSTS DURING CONSTRUCTION AND CHANGING THE

FILTERS AND VACUUMI NG OUST PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY

2. LOW VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUND (VOC) PAINTS
AND WOOD FINISHED AR E BROADLY AVAILABLE AT LlTILE

OR NO ADDITIONAL COST THAN THEIR TOXIC
COUNTERPARTS. USING THESE MATERIALS PROTECTS

BOTH WORKERS AND OC CUPANTS FROM RESPIRATORY
IRRITATIONS THAT CAN BE GENERATED BY VOC S> MOST
Low-vae PAINTS MARKETS BY PAIN MANUFACTURERS
MEET THE THRESHOLD OF 50 GRAMS (OR LESSi PER
LITER FOR FLAT PAINTS, AND 150 GRAMS PER LITER (OR
LESSO FOR NON- FLAT PAINTS.

3. ENERGY STAR QUALIFIED APPLIANCES
INCORPORATE ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES THAT USE 50%
LESS ENERGY AND WATER THAN STANDARD MODELS.

THEY ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE FROM ALL MAJOR BRANDS

REBATES AND INCENTIVES ARE OFTEN AVAILABLE FROM
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON, SEE:

HTIP:ffWNlf.lSCE.COM/REBATESANDSAVINGSI AND ALSO
FROM SOCAL GAS COMPANY AND LADWP. COMMERCIAL

APPLIANCES THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN ENERGY STAR
ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT.

4. PROJECTS SHALL COMPLY WlTH APPLICABLE

REQUIREMENTS FOR UTILIZING LOW-FLOW

SHOWERHEADS. FAUCETS AND WATER CLOSETS AS

ADOPTED BY SECTION 13.12.030(1) AND (J). THE MAXIMUM

RATE FOR LOW- FLOW FAUCETS IS 2.2 GALLONS PER

MINUTE. THE MAXIMUM RATE FOR SHOWER HEADS IS 2.5

GALLONS PER MINUTE. THESE FIXTURES CAN HELP

REDUCE WATER USAGE AT A TIME WHEN SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA IS FACING A SKARP DECREASE IN WATER

SUPPLY

5 OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO
PREVENT GLA.RE, LIGHT TRESPASS, AND SKY FLOW AS
MUCH AS POSSIBLE. PERMANENTLY INSTALLED LIGHTING
SHOULD NOT BUNK. FLASH. OR BE OF UNUSUALLY HIGH
INTENSITY OR BRIGHTNESS. EXTERIOR UGHTING MUST BE

ENERGY-EFFICIENT AND SHIELDED SO THAT ALL GLARE IS
CONFINED WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SITE.

ENERGY EFFICIENT OUTDOOR LIGHTING LASTS LONGER

THAN INCANDESCENT BULBS, SAVES ENERGY AND
MONEY. AND LIGHT SPILlAGE IS REDUCED.

6. PROJEC TS MUST CO MPLY WILL ALL APPLI CABLE

REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 19.28. 100(8) (PARKING AREA

LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.) THE PARKING LOT MUST

HAV E PERIMETER LANDSCAPING, WITH 1 CANOPY TREE

FOR EVERY 9 PARKING SPACES PARKING AREA

A DJACENT TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND PARKING

AREAS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PARCELS

MUST BE SCREENED FROM VI EW WITH lANDSCAPING TO

A HEIGHT OF 42"", MEASURED FRO M THE SURFACE OF THE

PARKING AREA

7. PROJEC rs SHALL COMPLY Wl TH ALL APPLICABLE

REOUIREMENTS IN CHAPTER 15 (ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTEC TIONS. POLLUTIONS AND SOLID WASTE).

B.QQUJ..QEf.;
1 ROOF SLOPES ARE SHOWN DIRECTLY ON ROOF PlAN

DRAWING
2 ALL FLAT ROOFS AN D BALCONIES SHALL SLOPE A
MINIMUM OF 1/4'·· 12'· TOWARD DRAINS
3 IN THE ABSENCE OF SLOPES SHOWN

ON STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OR ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS,

ROU GH CARPENTER SHALL PROVIDE REQUIRED SHIMMING

BELOW ROOF SHEATHING TO ALLOW FOR PROPER SLOPE TO
DRAIN

4. NO OBSTACLE SHALL PREVENT
WATER FLOW TOWARD DRAINS OF 2% TOWARD DRAINS
ROOFING MATERIAL·
NOTE- PROVIDE CLASS "A" FIRE-RETARDANT ROOF
COVERING ACCORDING TO CODE.

1. ALL FLAT ROOFS TO BE GAF rMTERIAL CORPORATION

BUILT UP ROOF TO IN CLUDE
GAF FLEXPLY 6 OVER GAF LEATHERBACK ROOF DECK
PROTECTION OVER GAFGlAS #75 BASE SHEET OR APPROVED
EQALU 48·· ROLLED ASPHALT CLASS A
ROOF pENETRATION
, VENTS AT FLAT ROOF AND ROOF STACKS SHALL

PROJECT ABOVE ROOF BY THE MINIMUM DISTANCE

REQUIR ED BY APPLICABLE CODES AND SHALL BE LOCATED IN
AREAS NOT VISIBLE FROM STREET. EXACT LOCATION TO BE
COORDINATED V\IITH ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

2. ALL VENTS AND ROOF STACKS TO HAVE RAIN

PROTECTION CAPS

3. CONTINUOUS WATERPROOFING AT ALL ROOF
PENETRATION SHALL BE PROVIDED VVJTH w.R. GRACE 4000
BITUTHENE WRAPPING AND 24 GA. GALVANIZED METAL
FLASHING AND COUNTER-FLASHING. ALL JOINT AT SHEET

METAL SHALL BE CAULKED

4. COLOR OF ALL EXPOSED VENTS AND ROOF STACKS TO

MATCH ADJACENT ROOF MATERIAL, UNLESS SPECIFIED
OTHERVVlSE BY ARCHITECT
GUTTERS ANp ROOF PRAINS

1. GUTTER SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED OF 24. GA. COPPER
METAL VVlTH 5/8·· EXPANSION JOINTS EVERY 30 FEET

MAXIMUM

2. GUTTERS SKALL SLOPE 1116'· PER FOOT TOWARD
RAIN WATE.R LEADERS

3. UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWlSE. RAIN WATER

LEADERS ARE EXPOSED AND LOCATION IS SHOWN ON ROOF
PLAN.

4. PROVIDE DOME WIRE BASKET AT EACH RAIN WATER
LEADER NOTE: ALL ROOF DRAINS SHALL CONNECT TO

SUBSURFACE DRAINAGE SYSTEM WHICH SHALL DISCHARGE

AT STREET
®
..

Fif]
2718 CLASS '·A'·

ROOF COATING

PRO-GRADE

ACRYLIC ELASTOMRIC
ESR· 2132 OVER
CONCRETE TILES ClASS "A"

ROOF COATING

PRO-GRADE

ACRYLIC ELASTOMRIC
ESR-2132
-680 SQFTCLASS ' A" I ROOF COATING1
_____:~~y~~A~E.....STOMRIC
ESR-2132 OVER

CONCRETE TILES
,, ..'- -­ ' ,~. t;.
,A ", i
"- "" , + ....

H
______~
,
·· · " · :· S: ":~,.,· :c.'.: ;, : ; · · ·:

L
ALL EXTERIOR OPENINGS. VENTS AND CRAWL SPACES SHALL HAVE MESH COVERING OF 1/16" TO 1/9" MAX OPENINGS

VENTS SHALL RESIST THE INTRUSION OF FLAME AND EMBERS
AND FLAME THROUGH THE VENTILATION OPENINGS. VENT OPENINGS SHALL BE PROTECTED ROOF VENTILATION BY CORROSION-RESISTANT, NONCOMBUSTIBLE V\IIRE MESH WITH A MINIMUM 1/16TH INCH <~> tg~~~NV(~~~I~T~~~f~c~HAUST STATIC VENT ROOF AREA: 1795 SQFT OPENINGS AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 116TH INCH VENTS SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED IN EAVES 1/300 =5.98 SQFT OR CORNICES 17 VENTS NEEDED ROOF GUTIERS SHALL BE PROVIDED VV1TH A MEANS TO PREVE NT THE ROOF VALLEY FLASHINGS SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 0.019-INCH (NO. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET GAGE) GREATER THAN 12 5% ACCUMU LATION OF LEAVES AND DEBRIS IN THE GUTlER (RESIDENTIAL CODE CORROSION-RESISTANT METAL INSTALLED OVER A MINIMUM 36-INCH WIDE UNDERLAYMENT 512 R327.1534 AND BUILDING CODE 705A.4) CONSISTING OF ONE LAYER OF NO 72 ASTM CAP SHEET MEETING RUNNING THE FULL LENGTH OF 1072 THE VALLEY. (RESIDENTIAL CODE R327.5.3 AND BUILDING CODE 705A.3) 500 454
838
=4,096 SQFT
LESS THAN 118 112 5%)
928
= 928 SOFT
;;-:::-. ~:
1 8.4'Y ....1/6 slope (12.5%)
... t: QI
~. -:c~·~-~ -~ .- I­
..,
_10 . . ......... ... .... ... . . ..... .. ... ... (0 0 C(,C)

c.. .-
°0
N
Q..cn
Q) Qle:{
~() C) -C ::l ­ CU 1II..c
.., >=
10 III
t: .... ~
CU ...,.

N
10 >
--@

~~~=-- ~ -@

@
@
........... @
- -- - - - --------€)
L ev'5JOr.Sched ~
' :-~I I·... UPDATED ­
@
PROGRESS - - -- -- .- @
'UlL Do;G """'E. • • """'"
I ~;;"'_·m ~' I ""~." ""'E •• _ 'uU
::-'" ~.::c.'.: .:ii.::"",-= ..._ '-'. ..'-."".~ _
Vantage Point
&
CD 80 (0 o CD 0@ @ @ 24515 Vantage Poin1 Ter
Malibu, CA 90265

ROOF PIAN
~ y
le.-.""!,,e"'!', I A-1.2
L
~ CD MAX ROOF PEAK i ;:,;;¥...:':"''''''
~ 1 3/16" = 1'-0" R'iK[JnliI ~ t _~w...."01.

M .. cl.,,~ .. n. AEA •

A rch;t.",t:

:::: ~.::: ..:.: "~ ;:= .':... .~.::-ll '!:!';4=.; ::" "'.."t ..I . 301
t-l M1\-1 s(..."
S{.D~l\...lZP
~ L
CU ra.Q
At:.t: ' fQ.~ R SELO ...... >=
lO ra
t: ..-~
. ~t# cbN\lENflc) 10
CU '<t
Section 1 root... 5Ti"c.."'1'U~f-. > N
3/16" = 1'-0"
TEMP. $fffi«.[Nb ~ n Ct>~>~"C.T PuoL IF D\ lV~~ 11tE ~~nNG .5LOrE"il> ~i)T A\.-LO vJeD (~) ~'"OC'O" "" I
:::;;;;;_,..~"" 1';.::" 1';;­
UPDATEDPROGRESS
lKl DO<C"""" '" ~."o;",
...SIONU ....e>o .....'".,
Vantage Point
24515 vantage POltlt TSf
Malibu. CA 9-.2..265___,
BUILDING SECn ONS
LOT TRACT NO 30134. LOT 84
NUMBER FEET ABOVE OR BELOW HIGH POINT OF CURB -0.7
CONTROL POINT FOR MAXIMUM HEIGHT MEASUREMENT 105.87
(REPRESENTS THE CE NTER HEIGHT OF EACH PAD, FR OM WHICH THE

MAXIMUM HEIGHT AN D MAXIMUM FINISHED FIRST FLOOR SHALL
BE MEASURED. 105.87' - OJ '" 105.17'
MAXIMUM ROOF HEIGHT FROM CONTROL POINT (+18') = 123,17
MAXIMUM 1ST FLR HEIGHT FROM CONTROL POINT (+3') = 108.11' fODL IfAS t'lv sEf9AQ(
@ fiUXV\ 7UfE ~OGB.
'3' l'ALN 17 ~'p 13"{ $f>IL.
--- ~ f7tL ltt>.2\£ 22 93f~ FO"I'lVEO __ ~ _ ____ -.BQgFDECK cA'lS~ : I 119 -33/16 =~ =~ =~ =~ =~ ~"'__!i*'&*~'M0c:,:>f~ ;;;J;r?t!'M'r-r*WM ._ali",lfJ4!!ll ':r - - - • - - - - - 1~~~ ~~~ ==-=c _ -===-"" ,.,J,= '
TOP OFCU~
t .i .... ·U · Z ...
~ ..••·•·••··•• •.•.••••••••• ·.·.··.· ·· .....
_ 'm . "~1. ; " , .. ,...... .. '..,...............'.' ":": ... ...•....................... : '",";... ,....... ......•. ,,. '",.,., ....-.. ~~................. .

+'
.- ... t: (1)
I0 ... 10 t:tO
'-N
a. 00
D..m
Cl) (1)«
g>u C) ...
t: ::i'
[iij[iJJJ!1! ~l """'1i!1~_"'e1.

M ac: I.,. ,-.. n. AlA .

A ..ch l1: ,;o c t:
".'",, '~'..=, ~.~'." ....~, T" _j
r-;vt{>
- -­ _MAX ~g?~9P3~:' ~
: __ _ ~ -­ --;1' - - - - --­ - - ~ I - - - - ~79~~3D3~;6~~ - ­ - - ~~ ~J6~' ~ ___ ________ N
:e
~
1ST FLOOR LE ~Eo~' ~
TO~~ 16s ' ~~oC~~
A(If'(l./)j.. . ~CALE
r
o 7.5 1
302
303
304
305
306
Exhibit B
307
eo
Geolo~4 - Geotechnical En~ineerin~
~
Z
n
[
~
,5O..,.rt~ Ge o~c ~ p"~. as..ft>.r c,J leAt~5
f('Oru~ ck\lfLlofmen+

PRELIMINARY GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL

ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION

Proposed Single Family Residence

...l
r= t:,t (Pm (Y\eAf5
tv\ .tv\. c. Ne,.r
\ \ 1\4: /2t1 a.-.-­
(( lj (a1es )
24515 Vantage Point Terrace

Malibu, California

for

Eran Eliyahoo

24515 Vantage Point Terrace

Malibu, California 90265

Project 5837

August 11, 2020

Received
03/08/2022
Planning Dept.
www.GeoConceptslnc.com

14428 Hamlin Street, #200, Van Nuys, CA 91401 + (818) 994-8895 Office + (818) 994-8599 Fa x

308
August 11, 2020 Page 1
Project 5837

INTRODUCTION

This report presents the results of a Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation on a portion of the subject property. The purpose of this investigation has been to ascertain the subsurface conditions pertaining to the proposed project. The work performed for the project included reconnaissance mapping, description of earth materials, determining geologic structure, obtaining representative samples of earth materials, laboratory testing, engineering analyses, and preparation of this report. Results of the project include findings, conclusions, and appropriate recommendations.

SCOPE
The scope of this investigation included the following:
• Review of preliminary plans by Amit Apel Designs, Inc. • Review of. siX-test Pit explorations and one seismic trench. Explorations were backfilled with the excava e materials but no compacted.
• Preparation of the enclosed Geologic Map and Cross Section (see Appendix I). • Sampling of representative earth materials, laboratory testing, and engineering analyses (see Appendix II).
• Review of referenced materials, previously prepared reports by this office, and available public reports at the City of Malibu (see Appendix V).
• Presentation of findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the proposed project.

The architect provided the topographic base map and plans utilized in this investigation.

The scope of this investigation is limited to the project area explored as depicted on the Geologic Map. This report has not been prepared for use by other parties or for purposes other than the proposed project. GeoConcepts, Inc. should be consulted to determine if additional work is required when our work is used by others or if the scope of the project has changed. If the project is delayed for more than one year, this office should be contacted to verify the current site conditions and to prepare an update report.

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
It is our understanding that the site will be developed with a one-story single-family residence with a two-car garage, swimming pool, deck and ponds. The proposed development is depicted on the enclosed Geologic Map and Cross Section.

Grading will consist of conventional cut and fill methods. Final plans have not been prepared and await the conclusions and recommendations of this investigation. These plans should be reviewed by GeoConcepts Inc to ensure that our recommendations have been followed . The proposed development will be serviced by a wastewater treatment plant, so an onsite wastewater treatment system is not required.
309
August 11, 2020 Page 2
Project 5837

SITE DESCRIPTION

Location and Description

Access to the property is via Vantage Point Terrace from Malibu Country Drive (see Location Map in Appendix I). The site is vacant and generally unimproved but was originally graded in 1971 .

The pad has a light growth of vegetation consisting of grasses with a tree located at the southeast corner of the lot. Vegetation is light on the descending slopes consisting mainly of grasses.

Adjacent sites are developed with similar residential development. The adjacent site to the northwest is under construction.

Topography
Topographically, the property is situated on the northeast flank of a southeast trending ridge spur within the east-central portion of the Santa Monica Mountains. The property essentially consists of a near-level cut/fill pad with descending slopes to the northeast. Maximum topographic relief on-site is about (20) feet. Descending slo es displa a general gradient of 2:1 or less, (h orizontal to vertical). Details of the topography are depicted on the Loca Ion Map and Geologic Map in Appendix I.

Drainage
Surface water at the site consists of direct precipitation onto the property. Much of this water drains as sheet flow to Vantage Point Terrace.

Groundwater
No active surface groundwater seeps or springs were observed on the subject site. The subsurface exploration did not encounter groundwater. Test Pit TP-4 was excavated to a maximum depth of 18 feet. Due to the elevated nature of the property, groundwater is not anticipated to pose a problem to the proposed project Seasonal fluctuations of groundwater 'levels may occur by varying amounts of rainfall, irrigation and recharge.

FIELD EXPLORATION
The scope of the field exploration was developed based on the preliminary plans of the proposed development available at the time of the exploration and was limited to the area of the proposed development. The locations of the explorations are depicted on the Geologic Map and Cross Section A-A'.

The field exploration of the site was conducted on June 25, 2020. The geotechnical and geologic conditions were mapped by a representative of this office (refer to Exploration Logs).

Subsurface exploration was performed by a conventional backhoe excavating into the 310
.liJL
August 11 , 2020 Page 3
Project 5837
underlying earth materials. Ex lorations were excavated to a m II Down-hole observation of the earth materials expose In the explorations was performed by the project geologist. All explorations were backfilled and tamped upon completion of down-hole observation. However, some settlement within exploration areas should be anticipated.

Detailed descriptions of the geologic materials encountered during the field exploration are provided in the Exploration Logs in Appendix I.

Undisturbed and bulk samples representative of the earth materials were obtained and transported to our laboratory. Undisturbed Modified California (MC) samples were obtained within the explorations through the use of a hand-held sampler with successive blows of a slide hammer. MC samples were retained in brass rings of two and one-half inches in diameter and one inch in height. The samples were transported in moisture tight containers. The results of the laboratory testing and a summary of the test procedures are included within Appendix II.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Previous Work
The subject property was graded as part of Tract 30134 circa 1971 and after the County of Los 99 ge Grading Ordinance... The records searched at the City of Malibu were incomplete; therefore, no geology and/or geotechnical reports were found covering original tract grading. A compaction map from Leroy Crandall & Associates was located.

A report by Geosystems, Inc. for the Lot 82, 24531 Vantage Point Terrace prepared September 4, 1987 was reviewed. They discussed a Final Compaction Report by Leroy Crandall & Associates dated April 7, 1972. This report could not be located at the City of Malibu. They also indicated a County of Los Angeles approval of rough grading on January 18, 1973. Leroy Crandall & Associates provided foundation design criteria for the site development. The signed and dated (February 9, 1971) grading plan by Daniel, Mann, Johnson and Mendenhall of the subject site indicates a cut/fill pad with fill slopes in the rear yard at a gradient of 2:1 (see APpend ~(\1e. G~G\'\ for ~~ yrC>(»(lltS ~ Ctiet\1­
GeoConcepts, Inc. (GCI) investigated the adjacent site to the north,Qj523,){antage Point Terrace, for a proposed residence in 2011. They logged two backhoe test pits and a seismic trench to a maximum depth of 18 feet. The investigation encountered certified compacted fill over Sespe Formation sandstone bedrock with local intrusive volcanic rocks (see attached Logs). The materials were very similar to those encountered during this investigation on the subject site. The seismic trench encountered intrusive volcanic rocks at the western side of the pad, but positive evidence of active faulting was not exhibited. Slope stability analyses indicated static and seismic factors of safety in excess of 1.5 and 1 0, respectively. The pad was underlain by certified compacted fill that varied between 4 and more than 18 feet. The upper one to 4.5 feet were weathered. It was recommended to remove and re-co red

In addition it was recommended t the removals in he areas with ess than nine feet f

.compacted fill. to extend to a depth of seven feet below the bottom of the proposed foundations.

In the areas with more than nine feet of compacted fill, the removals were recommended to extend to a depth of three feet below the bottom of the proposed footings. An Update Report was prepared by GCI in December 2014 to address a slightly different development plan. The f. 'l..o.c...{ rroU-7$ VJ~7 dOl'\.t.. fce\J\Ot.\Sl't ~(" ch.ur\": ~(D~-+t. ~L cc.l\d\'t7~S \flOc.t.ld ~~. \(\~vl(e of Gh~ or
c..h~S UMtco.c-~ hov-J ~()(~ vlo..S (e.~. ~"f ~~nt"OJ v-so.S ()U~c;so.(~ ~) .~ e.'~~l-i""\.\" ()t< ooc1"\'\S\Q£ 311
August 11, 2020 Page 4
Project 5837
previous recommendations were reiterated. The reports were reviewed by the City of Malibu.

GCI provided Supplemental Report No.1 to address review comments in August 2016. T..tl§

p.roject was approved by the City of Malibu from a geotechnical perspective in the Coastal

Development Permit Review stage in a Geotechnical Review Sheet dated June 23 , 2017. The

residence is currently under construction. t ch<U\.r I~ Y1£)fYl..t.

A 300-foot geologic research review was performed at the City of Malibu. The searches yielded very little geologic information on adjacent properties. The reviewed reports are listed in the Referenced Section herein.

Stratigraphy <- AH ~oil l~"fU"s tNt ~1\e.("tN\1 '~'lst"a!) 1t~ {irt dtSC(irh~7 The site is underlain by non-marine sedimentary rocks of Miocene time and intrusive volcanic rocks of Upper Miocene time, which are covered by certified compacted fill. The earth materials encountered on the subject property are briefly described below. Approximate depths and more detailed descriptions are given in the enclosed Exploration Logs (see Appendix I).

Certified Fill (Cef)
Certified fill was encountered on the subject site. Certified Fill materials were placed during pad grading. Certified Ei,l l was encountered in all of the test pits and trench ranging from one to more than 18 feet in thickness. The contact between the fill and the underlying bedrock was exposed within the exploratory test pits and trench. Evidence of engineered benches was observed. Certified Fill generally consists of silty sand with occasional rocks that generally range between one and six inches in length. At about 6.5 - 18 feet deep the certified fill is a stiff, clayey sand. The approximate limit of the existing fill is shown on the attached Geologie Map and Cross Section.

Bedrock (Ts and Ti)
Bedrock underlying the certified fill is assigned to the Sespe Formation of Miocene time and Intrusive volcanic rocks of Upper Miocene time. The Sespe Formation generally consists of sandstone with minor siltstone and claystone interbeds and stringers. The sandstone is essentially white to light gray, locally tan and maroon, thick bedded to massive, slightly weathered , poorly fractured, and dense. Siltstone beds are interbedded with the sandstone beds, but are much less common. They are olive, gray and maroon, dense, thin to thick bedded, locally fractured , and slightly to moderately weathered.

The intrusive volcanic bedrock is generally comprised of brownish yellow basalt that is massive, fractured , locally weathered, contains manganese staining, and is damp and dense to very dense. The Sespe Formation bedrock was fractured at the contact with the intrusive volcanics.

Excavation Characteristics
Subsurface exploration was performed through the use of a backhoe excavating into certified fill and bedrock. The bedrock encountered during the exploration consists of volcanic rock and sedimentary rock. At the site, bedrock was observed to be moderately cemented and slightly 312
August 11 , 2020 Page 5
Project 5837
fractured. Although excavation difficulty is considered normal, it should be noted that the bedrock is a layered formation and hard or well cemented bedrock may be encountered.

Extreme d la ers of bedrock were encountered in the ex lorations. Thus, excavatin into [ . the bedrock during const[[J ction wi ll ~ diffic' llL. Typically, the hardness 0 e roc increases with depth . If hard or well cemented bedrock is encountered , coring or the use of heavy jack hammers may be necessary. 1l'ljS \N\l\ (JCGt.tr b€lovl1ht.- Wt~(".., mlfor ~ Geologic Structure {\e,v> (~Sic\fl.Ace.1 w~ce e"'\Sh·... ~~U cUrf'\'\ is < 't ~ The local area has been uplifted and tilted by past tectonic forces forming a northwest trending homocline that is inclined to the northeast. At the site, the bedrock structure is rather consistent and similar to the local structure. It has a general northwest strike and northeast dips ranging between 30 and 57 degrees . A vertical dip was observed at the contact between the sedimentary beds and Intrusive volcanics. No dominant patterns of adversely orientated fractures or joints were observed during the subsurface investigation.

Critical anticipated bedrock structure is depicted on the geologic cross section. Preliminary geologic data indicates the proposed development is favorable from the standpoint of geology and geotechnical engineering , Cross Section A-A', provided the recommendations contained herein are followed and maintained.

Landslides
Landslides are a mass wasting phenomenon in mountainous and hillside areas which include a wide range of movements. In Southern California common slope movements include shallow surficial slumps and flows, deep-seated rotational and translational bedrock failures, and rock falls . Landslides occur when the stability of the slopes change to an unstable condition resulting from a number of factors. Common natural factors include the physical and/or chemical weathering of earth materials, unfavorable geologic structure relative to the slope geometry, erosion at the toe of a slope , and precipitation. These factors may be further aggravated by human activities such as excavations, removal of lateral support at the toe of a slope, surcharge at the top of a slope , clearing of vegetation, alteration of drainage, and the addition of water from irrigation and leaking pipes.

Ancient or recent bedrock landslides were not observed on the Also, no recent Seismic Hazards
Earthquake Faults
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning (AP) Act was passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake. The intent of the Act is to increase public safety by reducing the siting of most structures for human occupancy across an active fault. The Act only addresses the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards. The property is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The general locations of major faults within Southern California are depicted on a fault map provided by the USGS in Appendix I.
313
August 11, 2020 Page 15
Project 5837

5. Based upon field observations, laboratory testing and analysis, the bedrock and existing compacted fill found in the exploratory test pits has sufficient strength to support the proposed new compacted fill for the residence and pool.

6. The upper one to two feet of certified compacted fill have been disturbed by rodent burrows and weathering during the last (40) years since the fill was placed. In addition, the western portion of the lot is capped by one to two feet of fill whereas the eastern portion of the lot contains more than 18 feet of fill.
tA~\" dQ.~ 11Cl.. .si~ , t').~rf- .fot;t.r\D~ /)q , ~t . (O.~ <2'" J...- RECOMMENDATIONS \!" ~\t)~ e~\~'~ 8 To create a niform building pad the u er two feet of the existin fill should be moved

\ to competen e roc or competent certified compacted fill .and replaced as certified C(to:\--a..$ Q compacted fill. In addition, in the areas of the pad where there is less t . t f

~C- ilt.l existing certified fill. the proposed removals should extend a minimum of seven feet elow U(\t'nJ(~.I the proposed foundations. In the areas of the pad where there is more t an n e feet of Cil;\\&.. ~\~~ xistin g certified compacted fill, the proposed removals should extend a minimum ot hree ~J. ~\ovJl below the proposed foundations (see attached Cross Section A-A'). Grading s \10~C)Ltl qoo be performed as outlined the Grading and Earthwork section below. (...../ \;f +O+A\

2. The proposed residence, deck and ponds should be supported on foundations en\bedded clLrth into certified fill. Foundations should be designed as outlined the Foundations section "eiovJ below. eGo

3. The foundations for the residence adjacent to the pool should be deepened a minimum of two feet below the pool Jsee Cross Section A-A').(tJof ex~~ -+v occ.v.'t' ntor' t\o(-t\ ('roY.l~)

4. The proposed swimming pool should be supported entirely on certified fill if no infinity edge. The swimming pool should be designed as outlined in the Pool section below. If any portion of the proposed pool is designed with an infin -edge..it should go on a grade _beam and pile foundation system into bedrock. L 0(" ~~s. (l.r:rt- 'na.~ CecoO"lrf\errdeJ

5. The soils chemistry results should be incorporated into the design of the proposed project. 3'.sd~k

6. The property owner shall maintain the site as outlined in the Drainage and Maintenanc~ Section. ~ Of-l-., ~ci.'lt..,..

Building Setbacks
The construction of buildings and structures on or adjacent to slopes steeper than 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) in gradient shall be setback from the slopes in accordance with the requirements of the applicable governmental agency.

In general, all foundations on or adjacent to a descending slope shall be located a distance of one-third of the vertical height of the slope (H/3) to provide vertical and lateral support for the foundation . This distance is measured horizontally from the face of the foundation to the face of the bearing material. This horizontal distance does not need to exceed 40 feet. Where the slope is steeper than 1: 1 (horizontal to vertical), the required setback shall be measured from an imaginary plane at 45 degrees to the horizontal, projected upward from the toe of the slope. \t ~ 2J I (V\t)..~
l-\ ("!J:: l' 'h do..yl~ht ~ill. bQ,\o~..c..utdt)..-b~(lS mAC"' {'N.. e4¢,{ slof>e I ll\dv..d-\"l; 't'H ~oL c..u.("~JJ ~J. ~la~01ef\-r O,!S "'Dt t'(.-\eI\J bt't~c::l-hf eJqt e#s-n~ ~ope.. . 314 Occu..(~ rl\cc:ksH'1 1Jr. t\or~ sic!t.( ~\urfl t\-= W-);' rrlo..A • • .!- I... (' August 11, 2020 . ' tv'\,,, Se,.'\ \oQ.(. ~ .::. '2.5 <5 (t.c.~1 fCO~. ~ ~ Page 16 Project 5837 ~
In general, buildings and structures on or adjacent to an ascending slope shall be located a distance of one-half of the vertical height of the slope (H/2) to provide sufficient protection from slope drainage, erosion, and shallow failures. This distance is measured horizontally from the face of the building/structure to the toe of the slope. This horizontal distance does not need to exceed 15 feet. Where the slope is steeper than 1:1 (horizontal to vertical), the toe is considered to be at the intersection of a horizontal plane from the top of the foundation and an imaginary plane tangent to the slope at 45 degrees to the horizontal.

Q
The construction of swimming pools on or adjacent to slopes shall maintain setback distances equal to one-half of the setback distances for buildings and foundations . .§.wimming pools on or §!..diacent to a descending slope shall be located a distance of one-sixth of the vertical height ,of tbe 5i QP~ (HIS) This horizontal distance does not need to exceed 20 feet. Swimming pools on or adjacent to an ascending slope shall be located a distance of one-fourth of the vertical height of the slope (H/4). This horizontal distance does not need to exceed (7~) feet.

I..L~l ~' M~ ~/' ::!J' mill ~+~ frtJ,." ivp of storz..., D' pro(1o~cl.. ~ Drainage and Maintenance : . -r~ eDo\ ~~D"ld- be. 6~~1'....ed IN~ caic;~o/m:ak zkt~''''n~ tzilt , . ("cc..p./d:~ -+.-0 soils: f't.9DCk limite\.nDI"\.S) Maintenance of propertIes must be perfoNfleu to mInimIze the cnance of serious lj ama e and/or instability to improvements. Most problems are associated with or triggered by water.

Therefore, a comprehensive drainage system should be designed and incorporated into the final plans. In addition, pad areas should be maintained and planted in a way that will allow this drainage system to function as intended. The property owner shall be fully responsible for dampness or water accumulation caused by alteration in grading, irrigation or installatio n of improper drainage system, and failure to maintain drain systems. The following are specific drainage, maintenance, and landscaping recommendations. Reductions in these recommendations will reduce their effectiveness and may lead to damage and/or instability to the improvements. It is the responsibility of the property owner to ensure that improvements , structures and drainage devices are maintained in accordance with the following recommendations and the requirements of all applicable government agencies.

Drainage
Positive pad drainage should be incorporated into the final plans, The pad should slope away from the footings at a minimum five percent slope for a horizontal distance of ten feet. In areas where there is insufficient space for the recommended ten foot horizontal distance concrete or other impermeable surface should be provided for a minimum of three feet adjacent the structure. Pad drainage should be at a minimum of two percent slope where water flow over lawn or other planted areas. Drainage swales should be provided with area drains about every fifteen feet. Area drains should be provided in the rear and side yards to collect drainage. All drainage from the pad should be directed so that water does not pond adjacent to the foundations or flow toward them. Roof gutters and downspouts are required for the proposed structures and should be connected into a buried area drain system. All drainage from the site should be collected and directed via non-erosive devices to a location approved by the building official. Area drains, subdrains, weep holes, roof gutters and downspouts should be inspected periodically to ensure that they are not clogged with debris or damaged. If they are clogged or damaged, they should be cleaned out or repaired ,
t:~' StlYlJ '>r(la.ll J'topt ()I\ ooMn 9i~ I ~ ~CDf~d -+0 (~"'~ I o.rd will 5~ wo.,W fL.lf)~ Qi.(ut11 ~otVn~ '('Jt~ hlhAS-t. (StzA. ('jt)~/$r)I.A~ c("~s 5e.c:nOf)<7 4,£1, &, Ml s~-bA~l A?:Z..)
315
August 11, 2020 Page 17
Project 5837 {hzz"" lt 41 n \i\4,1'1 ~c (J/) / f)wl\Af' <to .f"novJ in I~ ~C- - Landscapinq (Plantinq)
The property owner is advised not to develop planter areas between patios, sidewalk and structures. Planters placed immediately adjacent to the structures are not recommended. pranters are proposed immediately adjacent to structures, impervious above-grade or bel6wgrade planter boxes with solid bottoms and drainage pipes away from the structure are suggested. All slopes should be maintained with a dense growth of plants, ground-covering vegetation , shrubs and trees that possess dense, deep root structures and require a minimum of irrigation. Plants surrounding the development should be of a variety that requires a minimum of watering. It is recommended that a landscape architect be consulted regarding planting adjacent to improvements. It will be the responsibility of the property owner to maintain the planting. Alterations of planting schemes should be reviewed by the landscape architect.

Irrigation
An adequate irrigation system is required to sustain landscaping. Over-watering resulting in runoff and/or ground saturation must be avoided. Irrigation systems must be adjusted to account for natural rainfall conditions. Any leaks or defective sprinklers must be repaired immediately. To mitigate erosion and saturation, automatic sprinkling systems must be adjusted for rainy seasons. A landscape architect should be consulted to determine the best times for landscape watering and the proper usage.

Pools/Plumbing
Leakage from a swimming pool or plumbing can produce a perched groundwater condition that may cause instability or damage to improvements. Therefore, all plumbing should be leak-free.

Grading and Earthwork
Bemedial grad ing is...recommended to create a Ilniform b1lild ing pad. The upper two feet of the existing fill should be removed to competent bedrock or competent certified compacted fill and replaced as certified compacted fill. In addition, in the areas of the pad where there is less than l nine feet of existing certified fill, the proposed removals should extend a minimum of seven feet e.'f<tt --) below the proposed foundations. In the areas of the pad where there is more than nine feet of , existing certified compacted fill, the proposed removals should extend a minimum of three feet ef.)'1 .... ..Qelow the proposed foundations (see attached Cross Section A-A'). The over-excavation . . should extend a mini 0 fiv fe t b yo d buildin erimeters and to an extent equal to the depth of fill e ow the new ounda Ions. f the proposed structure incorporates exterior columns (suc ~ as for an overhang) the over-excavation should also encompass these areas. l' 9 Ve(ncLi\.\ CLlt d\(e.c+fv f1e~ 10 oor~ pfD~-h., )(~-X- Following the completion of the over-exca tion : the subgrade soils should be evafua ted by the QrQject geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to support the structural fill as well as to support the foundation loads of the proposed development. This evaluation may include probing and proof-rolling to identify any soft, loose or otherwise unstable soils that must be removed. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials or dry, loose, porous or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of the overexcavation. • L .
*-f R~ t<. dt~ cu~ld pOSSib{1 as M\.lC..V, c:-~ q) rtq~ Uf ttj(;t("lS1­ he~t e(O~~ It., e., w'tlel'(, fC"V p()s.t.d k\tl-~ vJl~' oUc..t.rs. .

'TlArtf. .f~Ofi~ ~1/ s~\)..Jd fro"i~~*ei:!~r::G _Z (oill,s' ~+b4C~ ~M~) 316 ~
~om(YlU\d -t-o
August 11, 2020 . Page 18
Project 5837 &l.dd "Oe(~V! DDn~
Remedial Grading acl~ttJTt ov->f'I rrof¥f.~ e.('$ .. d
-
of eig ht mE1T­belo.w
Remova s s ould extend outside

1. Prior to commencement of work, a pre-grading meeting shall be held . Participants at this meeting will consist of the contra , . resentative, and the soils engineer.

The u ee ·n void misunderstandin f the recommendations set forth in this report that might cause delays In ~

2. Prior to placement of fill , all vegetation , rubbish, and other deleterious material should be disposed of offsite. The proposed structures should be staked out in the field by a surveyor.

This staking should, as a minimum, include areas for overexcavation, toes of slopes, tops of cuts, setbacks, and easements. All staking shall be offset from the proposed grading area at least five feet (5'). Line and grade verification is not provided by GeoConcepts, Inc. the
The
existin
proposed
g gra
construction
de ro osed
areas
grade,
should
whichever
be excavated
is greater.
down ~
the buildin line five feet. c.,,~licts rfh (UD mmLndo.;ne.r)<> 6Pf'I I rz -:

3. The natural ground, that is determined to be satisfactory for the support of the filled ground, shall then be scarified to a depth of at least six inches (6") and moistened as required. The scarified ground should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density.

4. The fill soils shall consist of materials approved by the project Soils Engineer or his representative. I hese materials may be obtained from the excavation areas and any other approved sources, and by blending soils from one or more sources. The material used shall be free from organic vegetable matter and other deleterious substances, and shall not contain rocks greater than eight inches (8") in diameter nor of a quantity sufficient to make compaction difficult. _____ 510w ~-a'c..e-~$, l'XC~-VA.-b"., ->;11 - o p_Q../\ at leo.s.+ ()~ ~A7 ~ roved fill material shall be praced In approximately level la er inches (6") thic ~ and moistened as required. Each layer shall be thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of moisture in each layer. The moisture content of the fill should be a minimum of 2-3% over the optimum moisture content. The soil's moisture should be maintained up till the foundations are constructed, if moisture is less than the required moisture by our report, the footings should be presoaked.

Each layer of fill material shall be compacted to a minimum of (90) percent of the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D 1557, using approved compaction equipment. Where cohesion less soil having less than (15) percent finer than (0.005) millimeters is used for fill, the fill material shall be compacted to a minimum of (95) percent of the maximum dry density.

Review of the fill placement should be provided by the Soils Engineer or his representative during the progress of grading. In general, density tests will be made at intervals n...Qt xceed g two feet (2') of fill height or every 500 cubic yards of fill placed. r~iJf- z t?uom~ -em~ S~O('I~~ at,,,~ no(...f'n (.$DtA:th (t11c:l. e"'M ea~t .J,·dt.S I(sl{)pe.)-h> . J ACCOMCd-,..(c-f\-\; ~ pro~ > $. .. 7. During the inclement part of the year, or during periods when rain is threatening, all fill that has been spread and awaits compaction shall be compacted before stopping work for the day or before stopping because of inclement weather. These fills, once compacted, shall have the surfaces sloped to drain to one area where water may be removed.

Work may start again, after the rainy period, once the site has been reviewed by the Soils Engineer and he has given his authorization to resume . Loose materials not compacted prior 317
318
319
320
321
322
660 S Figueroa St, Suite 1780, Los Angeles CA, 90017
310-838-0180
HowardRobinson.net
December 11, 2024

VIA EMAIL
Drew Leonard, Chairman
Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
RE: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 and Site Plan Review No. 24-013 Dear Chairman Leonard and Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

Howard Robinson & Associates (HR&A) represents the applicant, 24515 Vantage Point Syndication, LLC, the owner of the subject property seeking Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22-009 and Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 24-013. HR&A has been retained to respond to the factual errors and mischaracterizations regarding the subject project outlined in the November 15, 2024 letter submitted by Weaver Land Law on behalf of their client, Dr.

Alistair Saeghi, owner of the adjoining property located at 24523 Vantage Point Terrace.

The Commission is likely familiar with the neighboring property as it was granted CDP No. 12-063 on June 2, 2014. That property was later issued a building permit on November 18, 2019. As such, Saeghi’s home - one of the newest structures on the project block and a recent precedent - was required to go through the same process as the subject project and the same circumstances apply in both cases. This background helps to provide context with regard to a number of claims made in the Nov. 15 letter, although Saeghi’s representative failed to acknowledge this precedential background.

In the letter, Saeghi opposes the subject application for several reasons, including potential privacy impacts, purported inconsistency with the Malibu Local Coastal Program, and environmental concerns. This response discusses each of these points and explains why these concerns are unwarranted, given the factual record.

As such, staff has not erred in their analysis contained within their Commission Agenda Report, dated November 7, 2024.

1. Privacy and Protected Views
The Saeghi letter alleges that the project will infringes on “Dr. Saeghi’s privacy and protected views.” This is incorrect
Privacy
The proposed home is a modest one-story 3,963 sq ft home, 18 ft. in height and located in a fully developed neighborhood. It provides greater than required setbacks 323
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
2 on three sides and complies with the 5 ft. setback requirement on the north side yard.

The subject project will include a pool and deck, as many homes in the neighborhood enjoy, and similar to the adjacent neighbor Saeghi.

The proposed project has a roof top deck of 928 sq. ft. primarily located within the center of the roof. Only a stretch of approximately 19 linear feet abuts the northern side of the proposed home, the portion which would be closest to the Saeghi property. The distance between the two homes would be approximately 12.25 feet, as Saeghi’s 2014 CDP granted a 7.25 ft. side yard setback.

Additionally, Saeghi’s home is setback just 18 ft. from the front property line, while the proposed home is setback 36 ft. 2 in., with the roof deck area set back approximately 70 ft. from the front property line. As such, the roof deck is set back significantly from any of Saeghi’s living area.

Further, Saeghi’s allegation is hypocritical and inherently asserts that his privacy is somehow superior to the privacy of surrounding properties, including the subject property. This is because Saeghi’s home, which is upslope from the subject property, also features a roof deck, as seen in the plans approved for his home, provided below (roof deck area outlined in red). An additional aerial image of Saeghi’s home while under construction shows the deck (also outlined in red), with the subject property visible at left.

Roof plan showing location of Saeghi’s roof deck.
324
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
3 Aerial photo of Saeghi’s home and subject property (vacant lot) at left. Roof deck outlined in red.

As is visible in the photo above, Saeghi’s own roof deck looms over and has views directly into the subject property. It is worth asking why Saeghi thinks he has the right to such a roof deck, but the applicant in this case does not.

Protected Views
The Coastal Act does not protect private views, only public views of protected coastal resources. The proposed project does not impact any protected public views, as noted in the Nov. 7 Commission Agenda Report, which correctly states:
“the subject property is located within a developed residential neighborhood. The proposed project consists of the construction of a single-family residence that is compatible with the surrounding residences. The proposed remedial grading will result in the creation of a building with an elevation that is consistent with the requirements of the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District. It is not expected that the proposed project will result in negative impacts to existing public views.”
The Commission Agenda Report goes on to state that:
“[the] Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those CDP applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road, or scenic public viewing. View protection is provided 325
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
4 through the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District development standards. Based on visual analysis, staff has determined that the subject property is not visible from a designated scenic roadway (PCH) or the beach.”
Additionally, while the Malibu Municipal Code does seek to protect some private views, this protection is limited to a “primary view” from the “main viewing area”, terms which are defined within MMC Sec. 17.40.040(A)(17).

Per MMC Sec. 17.40.040(A)(17):
"’Primary view’ means visually impressive scenes of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, the Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines shall,” and 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.”
As noted in the Nov. 7 Commission Agenda Report, staff received correspondence from Saeghi’s on October 2, 2024 who expressed concerns related to visual impacts on his property from the proposed residence. The report states:
“On October 7, 2024, staff conducted a visual analysis to better understand the concerns. The analysis concluded that, from the adjoining patio on the ground floor at 24523 Vantage Point Terrace, no scenically impressive views of the Pacific Ocean, offshore islands, the Santa Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys, or ravines exist.” Staff’s correct analysis is based upon the code’s criteria for what constitutes the “main viewing area” of Saeghi’s property. The Nov. 15 letter provides the following image as documentation of purported view impacts.

This Area Has Been Intentionally Left Blank
326
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
5 View from 24523 Vantage Point Terrace of a Pepperdine University parking lot.

This image is captioned “Figure III-2 [View from Yard 24523 Vantage Point Terrace Looking at Remaining Story Poles]” and highlights two flaws within Saeghi’s argument.
• First, this is not a visually impressive view of any protected coastal resource.

It is a view of a parking lot.
• Second, Saeghi’s “yard” is not part of his “main viewing area” as defined in the MMC.

As such, there are no valid view impacts in this case. The project as designed preserves protected public views and has no impacts on Saeghi’s “main viewing area.”

2. Malibu Local Coastal Program and Malibu Municipal Code Compliance The Saeghi letter asserts that the project as proposed and conditioned does not conform to the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code.

This is incorrect.
327
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
6 The proposed project is seeking approval of Site Plan Review to allow for remedial grading. As discussed in the Commission Agenda Report, all required findings to support the SPR request can be made in the affirmative, including consistency with the Malibu LCP and all applicable local laws.

LCP Compliance
The project conforms to all applicable aspects of the Malibu LCP. Saeghi’s letter makes several assertions, all of which are incorrect.
a) CDP Findings – Least Environmentally Damaging Alternative Saeghi’s letter misrepresents staff’s analysis by stating that “the staff report itself notes the possibility of a smaller project, since the current project is nearly 2,000 square feet over the minimum building footprint required by the District.”
The Commission Agenda Report’s full statement is as follows:
“A smaller project could be proposed on the project site. However, the project as proposed meets the maximum allowable TDSF and other development standards, inclusive of the requested SPR. The structure would be below 18 feet in height. The project site does not contain ESHA and does not result in any significant adverse impacts to sensitive coastal resources. It is not anticipated that a smaller project would offer significant environmental advantages. The project could not be relocated to another location on the subject parcel because the overlay standards require the residence to be sited on the existing building pad.

The project as proposed is sited on a relatively flat portion of the parcel, thereby minimizing landform alteration. Relocating the residential structure would either cause the structure to be built on a slope greater than 3:1, which is not in compliance with the MMC, or it would further encroach into the native tree protection zone, as discussed in LIP Findings Section 3. It is anticipated that relocating the proposed project would not offer significant environmental advantages, given no significant environmental impacts are anticipated from the proposed project.” Again, it is worth noting the consistent hypocrisy within Saeghi’s opposition. Building Permit No. 19-2325, issued November 18, 2019, for his home, describes the development as follows:

NSFR W/ ATTACHED GARAGE – 4375 SQ. FT. MAIN FLOOR – 3743 SQ. FT., ATTACHED GARAGE – 632 SQ. FT. ROOF DECK – 250 SQ. FT.

As such, Saeghi’s home is more than double the minimum 2,000 sq. ft. requirement. Given that Saeghi’s home was approved at a larger size and 328
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
7 scale, why is this proposed smaller home somehow environmentally damaging in a way his own home was not? As noted in the Commission Agenda Report, “The proposed project has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.”
b) Hazards
Saeghi’s letter asserts that the proposed development “does not conform to the LIP based on the slope analysis because it lacks a sufficient safety factor.”
As discussed in the Commission Agenda Report:
“Analysis of the project for hazards included a review of a preliminary geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation of the project site dated August 11, 2020 with supplement reports dated July 14, 2022 and October 17, 2022. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers determined that the
proposed project is not anticipated to result in potential adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity…”
Again, it is worth noting that the project site exists within the same geological context as the Saeghi property. Given that his home is larger in area and also features a pool, the fact that no impacts on slope stability, nor any other environmental impacts, have resulted from its construction is strong evidence that staff’s analysis is correct in this case as well.

ESHA Considerations
Saeghi’s letter makes an odd assertion that, while the subject property is not located in a designated ESHA Overlay Zone, because the subject site is within 100 ft. of Pepperdine University, ESHA protections should apply.

Specifically, the letter states that “the 830-acre Pepperdine University Campus… qualifies as an ESHA due to the continuous and relatively abundant presence of Mountain Lions.”
While all Californians are concerned about our mountain lion populations, it is not reasonable to assert that a fully developed land use such as Pepperdine University should qualify as an ESHA. Indeed, Saeghi’s own letter quotes the California Coastal Commission with regard to ESHA areas within the Santa Monica Mountains, stating “…areas of undeveloped native habitat in the Santa Monica Mountains that are large and relatively unfragmented may meet the definition of ESHA by virtue of their valuable roles in that ecosystem, regardless of their relative rarity throughout the state.”
329
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
8 Again, Pepperdine University does not constitute “undeveloped native habitat.” Therefore, this argument is not valid. Staff’s determination that the subject property does not contain ESHA, nor is located within 100 ft. of an ESHA buffer, is correct. As such, as stated in the Commission Agenda Report “the findings of LIP Chapter 4 are not applicable.” Furthermore, Saeghi’s home was granted a CDP in 2014 and similarly was determined to not be located in any ESHA.

Project Consistency with Neighborhood Character
The Saeghi letter raises the same privacy concerns previously addressed when asserting that the proposed project is inconsistent with neighborhood character.

Indeed, the letter states, “Almost none of the other buildings’ decks in the area do not similarly loom over their neighbor’s yards.” In addition to being a double negative, there is no analysis of building decks provided to back up the assertion that the project is inconsistent with neighborhood character.

Further, Saeghi has a roof deck on his own property that has direct visual access to the subject property. Again, it is worth pointing out the hypocrisy in this argument.

Why does Saeghi get to have a “looming” roof deck, located upslope from the subject property? By this argument, Saeghi should remove his own roof deck. And, as noted earlier, the proposed roof deck is set back approximately 70 ft. from the front property line, which places it behind most of Saeghi’s home.

With regard to the actual character of the neighborhood, the Commission Agenda Report is correct in its statement that “the project is compatible with other development in the adjacent area in that the neighborhood is residentially developed.” Indeed, the proposed project is very similar in scale and mass to Saeghi’s own home, including the proposed roof deck and pool location. As such, this argument is not valid.

Project Compliance with Local Laws
Saeghi’s letter asserts that the proposed project does not comply with local laws and, therefore, the requested SPR should be rejected by the Commission.

However, as detailed in the Commission Agenda Report, the project is in full compliance with all applicable local laws. As stated above, the project has no impact on protected views, nor any impacts on slope stability.

The proposed project also complies with MMC 3.4.1(D)(10)(a) which limits flat roofs to 20% of the total roof area. The project is proposing a roof deck of 928 sq. ft., which is 18.4% of the total roof area of 5,024 sq. ft.

Lastly, regarding the story poles located on site, said poles are required as part of Chapter 6 “Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance” within the 330
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
9 Malibu Local Implementation Plan. As noted in the Commission Agenda Report, this chapter “governs those CDP applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road, or scenic public viewing.” As such, the story poles are used to determine whether the proposed project impacts any such protected scenic areas.

As discussed earlier, per staff’s analysis, “the subject property is not visible from a designated scenic roadway (PCH) or the beach. Therefore, the scenic, visual and hillside resource protection findings contained in LIP Chapter 6 are not applicable.” Saeghi’s letter omits the section of LIP Chapter 6 that states “Where applicable, proposed structures shall be accurately indicated as to footprint, height and rooflines by story poles with flags.” This omission implies that this requirement applies to all CDP applications, which it does not. Nonetheless, story poles have been provided and have been maintained at the project site.

As such, the proposed project does indeed comply with all applicable local laws, including the Malibu LCP and the Malibu Municipal Code.

3. Shoring Analysis
Although previously discussed, Saeghi’s letter repeats itself in Sec. V, again asserting that project should be rejected over “insufficient shoring analysis.” This assertion is based on two factors: 1) the project’s proximity to Saeghi’s home, and 2) the location of the proposed pool next to the hillside.

The remedial grading requested as part of the SPR is necessary for the proposed home to be constructed on the existing building pad as required by for the Malibu Country Estates Overlay.

The Malibu Country Estates was established approximately 50 years ago and at that time each parcel was designated a building pad and that building pad was graded to a specific elevation. The proposed grading will not result in landform alteration or an increase in the elevation of the building pad.

As discussed earlier, the Commission Agenda Report states:
“Analysis of the project for hazards included a review of a preliminary geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation of the project site dated August 11, 2020 with supplement reports dated July 14, 2022 and October 17, 2022. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers determined that the proposed project is not anticipated to result in potential adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity…” 331
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
10 Furthermore, the existing pattern of development – including the site planning of Saeghi’s own property – contradicts the assertions made in his letter. The following image shows the subject property and surrounding development:

Aerial photo showing location of pools adjacent to hillside slope.

All homes with pools along this side of Vantage Point Terrace locate those pools at the edge of the building pad, adjacent to the slope of the hillside. As such, it is reasonable to conclude that there will be no impacts on slope stability resulting from the proposed development.

4. CEQA Analysis
The Saeghi letter asserts that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) should be prepared for the proposed project due the project could result in “significant impacts on the environment,” “unusual circumstances,” “cumulative impacts,” and the proposed pool.

As discussed in the November 7 Commission Agenda Report:
332
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
11 “the Planning Director has 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 and categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a) and (e) - New Construction.”
The Planning Director further determined that none of the exceptions to a Categorical Exemption (CE) determination apply in this case.

The proposed project is located on a vacant lot within an existing, developed singlefamily neighborhood. There is nothing unique or unusual about the subject property.

Indeed, the proposed development is very similar to Saeghi’s own home, which was approved by the Commission under CDP No. 12-063 and received the same CE as the proposed project.

It is unreasonable to argue that a 3,963 sq. ft. home (including garage) requires a full EIR in order to be approved. There are no unique circumstances regarding this project, nor the project location. The project features no unusual components that would significantly impact the environment. There is no cumulative impact that could result from the construction of a single-family home on this parcel, given its location within a fully developed residential neighborhood. Lastly, the pool has been factored into staff’s review of the project, so there is no piecemealing.

As such, this argument is not valid.

5. Publicly Available Project Information
The Saeghi letter asserts that the public did not have access to legally mandated information and, therefore, the Commission should reject the project.

First, the letter states that the Biology Review Referral Sheet and Public Works Review Referral Sheet included with the project materials available online were for an unrelated project. This appears to have been a clerical error. Given that the project has been continued and the proper Referral Sheets have been provided, this argument is no longer relevant.

Second, the letter states that the story poles are in disrepair and, therefore, it “renders impossible a meaningful evaluation of the project by the public.” As discussed above, the story poles are required as part of Malibu LCP Chapter 6 “Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protect Ordinance.” Per staff’s analysis, “the subject property is not visible from a designated scenic roadway (PCH) or the beach.

Therefore, the scenic, visual and hillside resource protection findings contained in LIP Chapter 6 are not applicable.”
333
CDP No. 22-009 and SPR No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared by Howard Robinson & Associates
660 S. Figueroa St., Suite 1780
Los Angeles, CA 90017
12 As such, story poles are not “legally mandated required information” and, as such, this argument is not valid.

Conclusion
As discussed in detail above, none of the claims raised in Saeghi’s November 15 letter warrant disapproval of the proposed project. The proposed development is:
- Fully complaint with the Malibu LCP;
- Fully compliant with the Malibu Municipal Code;
- Eligible for a Categorical Exemption from CEQA;
- Compatible with the neighborhood context; and
- Geologically and geotechnically sound.

The project would not affect protected views, nor is out of scale and character in the existing neighborhood. The neighborhood is fully developed and there are no unaltered landforms on the project site. The proposed project is fully-code compliant and has no unique circumstances that would trigger additional CEQA analysis.

In fact, the proposed project is similar to Saeghi’s own home, which was only recently constructed and should be used as a precedent case. Saeghi’s home has not resulted in any of the potential impacts raised in the November 15 letter, and it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed project will similarly have no impacts.

For these reasons, we request that the Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-46 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 to construct a new onestory, 3,963 square foot single-family residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, swimming pool and spa, roof deck, and associated development; including Site Plan Review No. 24-013 for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading at 24515 Vantage Point Terrace (24515 Vantage Point Syndication, LLC).

Sincerely,
Susan Steinberg
Howard Robinson & Associates, Principal
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009
Site Plan Review No. 24-013
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
March 3, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting
Item No. 4.B.
1 343
Aerial Map
2 344
Project Description
• Construction of a new 3,963 square foot, one-story, single-family residence, including a 414 square foot attached garage; • 928 square foot roof deck;
• New driveway;
• Landscaping;
• Swimming pool, spa, and associated equipment;
• 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading; and,
• Fencing.

Discretionary Request
• SPR No. 24-013 for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading. 3 345
Site Plan
4 346
North and East Elevations
5 347
South and West Elevations
6 348
View of proposed residence looking west from Vantage Point Terrace 349
View of proposed proposed residence adjacent to concerned neighbor 350
Original Roof Plan
9 351
Updated Roof Plan
10 352
Rendering
11 353
Correspondence

1. Proposed Roof Deck and Privacy Concerns

2. Primary View Protection

3. Slope Stability and Shoring Analysis

4. ESHA Determination

5. Environmental Review Under CEQA
12 354
Recommendation
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-02, as
amended, approving Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 13 355
24515 Vantage Point Terrace
Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009
and Site Plan Review No. 24- 013
Owner: 24515 Vantage Point Syndication, LLC
Representative: Susan Steinberg, Howard
Robinson & Associates
Architect: Luke Tarr, Amit Apel Design Inc.
1 356
North
2 357
3 358
36’-2” FY Setback
63’-1” FY Setback
4 359
5 360
Original Roof Deck
Stairs to roof deck
6 361
Revised Roof Deck
Stairs to roof deck
887 SQFT
7 362
8 363

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public hearings on WEDNESDAY, May 20, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the projects identified below.

APPEAL NO. 25-001 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-02 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 to construct a new one-story, 3,963 square foot single-family residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, swimming pool and spa, roof deck, and associated development; including Site Plan Review No. 24-013 for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading
Location: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace
APN: 4458-033-005
Zoning: Single-Family Medium (SFM) and Malibu Country Estates Overlay District
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e)
Applicant: Amit Apel Design Inc.

Owner: 24515 Vantage Point Syndication LLC
Appellant: Alistair Saeghi
Application Filed: March 8, 2022
Appeal Filed: March 12, 2025
Case Planner: Fletcher Allen, Senior Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 233
[email protected]
APPEAL NOS. 25-002 and 25-003 - Appeals of Planning Commission Resolution No 25-03 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 to construct a new 4,050 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with an attached 390 square-foot garage, swimming pool, landscaping, hardscape, retaining walls, grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system, including Minor Modification No. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction in the front yard setback
Location: 29329 Heathercliff Road
APN: 4468-011-011
Zoning: Rural Residential, One-Acre (RR-1)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e)
Applicant: Schmitz and Associates, Inc.

Owner: ACS International LLC
Appellants: Brian Adams and Larry Roth
Application Filed: January 9, 2020
Appeals Filed: March 26, 2025
Case Planner: Allison Cook, Contract Planner
(805) 415-1991
[email protected]
Exhibit 5
364
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 May 6, 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 May 15, 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.

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: April 16, 2026
365