Malibu City Council
May 20, 2026

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Allison Cook, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director

Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: April 9, 2026 Meeting date: May 20, 2026 Subject: Appeals of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 (29329 Heathercliff Road, APN 4468-011-011; Owner, ACS International, LLC; Appellants, Larry Roth and Brian Adams)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-18 (Appendix A) denying Appeal (AP) Nos. 25-002 and 25-003 (Appendices B and C), determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 20-003 to construct a new 4,050 square-foot, twostory, 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 (OWTS), including Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001 for no more than a 50 percent reduction in the front yard setback, located in the Rural Residential, One-Acre (RR-1) zoning district at 29329 Heathercliff Road (ACS International, LLC); or 2) Direct staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: N/A.

DISCUSSION: The matter before the Council is a single project subject to two separate appeals challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of CDP No. 20-003 and MM No. 20-001, an application for the construction of a two-story single-family residence, swimming pool, and associated development. The appellants, Mr. Roth (AP No. 25-002, Appellant 1) and Mr. Adams (AP No. 25-003, Appellant 2), filed appeals of the Planning City Council Meeting
05-20-26
Item

1.B.
1

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Commission’s decision to approve the project. The appellants are both direct neighbors of the Project.

Project Background
This application was originally filed as an Administrative Coastal Development Permit (ACDP) pursuant to LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.13. The application was approved by the Planning Director on May 28, 2024, and was set to be reported to the Planning Commission at its June 3, 2024, meeting. However, in light of public comments submitted in advance of the June 3 meeting that were critical of the project, the applicant requested that the application be converted to a regular CDP. As such, the Planning Director’s decision was rescinded and the application converted to a CDP prior to the June 3, 2024, Planning Commission hearing. The item was initially scheduled for Planning Commission hearing on October 7, 2024, but was continued by the Planning Commission to November 18, 2024. On October 22, 2024, the applicant submitted an updated site slope exhibit and project plans correcting topographical contour lines and making minor adjustments to the retaining wall alignment, stairway, and landing at the southeast corner of the proposed structure to provide adequate fire access around that side of the structure. Prior to the November 18, 2024, meeting, the applicant submitted a written request for the item to be continued to provide more time to respond to additional public comments received the day of the meeting as the applicant could not be in attendance. At its November 18, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item to January 23, 2025. Items originally intended for January 23, 2025, were continued to February 3, 2025, due to the Palisades Fire. At the request of Planning Division staff, the item was continued from February 3, 2025, to February 18, 2025. On February 18, 2025, the applicant’s representative requested that the item be continued to the March 17, 2025, meeting to provide time to discuss easement issues with a neighbor. The Planning Commission continued the item to March 17, 2025.

Planning Commission Hearing on March 17, 2025
At its March 17, 2025, meeting, after receiving evidence and conducting a public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the Project on a 2-1 vote (Peak and Riddick in support, Mazza opposed) with 1 abstention (Leonard) and 1 vacant seat. The terms of the approval are detailed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03 (Appendix D). Council Resolution 26-18 (Appendix A) is drafted in line with the Planning Commission’s action and conditions of approval. Should the Council choose to deny the project and uphold one or both appeals, staff will bring back a resolution matching the findings the Council identifies during the public hearing. The Planning Commission agenda report, in which the Planning Division recommended approval of the project, is included as Appendix E. The Planning Commission agenda report goes into greater detail regarding the project, the evidence, and the findings required. The video regarding the Planning Commission deliberation on the items can be found on the City’s website at https://www.malibucity.org/662/Public-Meeting-Video-Archive 2

Agenda Item # 1.B.

As approved by the Planning Commission, the project includes a split-level design that descends westerly with taller portions of the structure up to 18 feet in height on the eastern portion of the residence nearer to Heathercliff Road. No changes were made at the Planning Commission hearing. The project faces west toward the descending slope.

Hillside residential development standards established in Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Sections 17.40.040(A)(20) and 17.62.070 do not apply to this project as the project is not sited on slopes steeper than 30 percent, and, therefore, does not meet the definition of hillside development pursuant to MMC Section 17.02.0601.

Minor Modification No. 20-001 was also approved to reduce the required front yard setback from 59.4 feet to 29.6 feet, a reduction of 49.8 percent. The applicant requested the reduced front yard setback to allow the residential structure to be sited closer to Heathercliff Road on the east side of the property. This allowed the applicant to avoid steeper slopes and native scrub vegetation on the western part of the property adjacent to PCH. It is anticipated that this will reduce the grading required and be less impactful on the environment.

A prior version of the project included a Site Plan Review (SPR) to request an increase in the building height from the maximum allowed 18 feet to 21.5 feet. Story poles were installed depicting the maximum height of 21.5 feet. However, as a result of discussions with neighboring residents, including those with established Primary View Determinations (PVDs), who raised concerns about the potential for view obstructions caused by the proposed height above 18 feet, the applicant withdrew the SPR request and submitted revised plans lowering the maximum building height to 18 feet. As approved by the Planning Commission, the residence includes varying heights that do not exceed 18 feet.

The Planning Division met and corresponded with Mr. Roth and Mr. Adams, the appellants and neighbors directly adjacent to the subject property, who expressed concerns about the project before the March 17, 2025, Planning Commission hearing. The project plans were discussed and Staff answered questions about view protection, slope of the site, and access easements. Mr. Roth and a representative for Mr. Adams also spoke at the public hearing and raised concerns similar to those cited in the appeals. The Roths own the parcel on the south side of the access driveway easement and the Adams own the parcel on the north side (see Figures 1 and 2 below).

After the Planning Commission hearing, Mr. Adams and Mr. Roth each filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project, Appeal No. 25-002 and Appeal No. 25-003, respectively (Appendices B and C). The applicant subsequently submitted responses to the appeals, which are attached as Appendices F and G. 1 Pursuant to MMC Section 17.02.060, “Hillside residential development” means a residential development occurring on a parcel of land on the inland side of Pacific Coast highway on a proposed development area located on slopes over thirty percent and which will result in grading on slopes over 30 percent. 3

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Project Overview
The subject property is vacant and residentially zoned in the Point Dume area that is bordered by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the northwest and is within an established single-family residential neighborhood. Slopes on the property range from a ratio of 4 to 1 (25 percent slope) in the southeast portion of the property to steep slopes less than 2 to 1 (50 percent slope) near the PCH boundary. The proposed project site would be located on slopes flatter than 4 to 1, which is consistent with LIP Section 4.6.1(A) to protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) within Point Dume. As shown on Figure 2, there are multiple easements recorded on the property for ingress, egress, and utility purposes to other properties in the vicinity, including an easement on adjacent parcels (those of the appellants’) providing access to the property from Heathercliff Road, and an access easement on the parcel to the south of the subject property that borders PCH.

Direct access from PCH is not possible due to physical constraints; as a result, access to the property is via an access easement over Appellant 2’s property, which is also adjacent to Appellant 1’s property.
4

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Figure 1 – Project Area Aerial Map
Source: City of Malibu GIS 2025
As approved by the Planning Commission, the scope of work is as follows:

1. Construction of:
a. 4,050 square-foot, 18 foot-tall, two-story, single-family residence, an attached 320 square-foot roof overhang, and an attached 390-square-foot garage; b. 6,405 square feet of impermeable surface coverage;
c. Retaining walls not to exceed six feet in height;
d. Swimming pool and associated pool equipment;
e. Patios, decks and paving for vehicle and pedestrian access and a fire department turnaround area;
f. Trellis over deck;
g. Installation of an OWTS of 3,634 gallons; and
h. Installation of 5,662 square feet of landscaping.

2. Non-exempt grading of 675 cubic yards.

N
Appellant 1 Parcel
Access Easement
Appellant 2 Parcel
5

Agenda Item # 1.B.

The project plans are included as Exhibit 2, Items (C)(d)(2), (C)(c), and (D) of Appendix E.

APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Mr. Roth (Appellant 1) and Mr. Adams’s representative (Appellant 2) provided written and oral testimony during the public hearing before the Planning Commission. In the appeals, the appellants contend that the findings are not supported by the evidence and that the decision is not supported by the findings. The appellants also state that the project violates LCP policies and provisions.

The specific arguments are summarized below in italics. The full text of the appeal documents can be found in Appendices B and C. A response by the Planning Division is provided following each of the appellants’ arguments, with Appeal No. 24-002 being described first, followed by Appeal No. 24-003.

Appeal No. 25-002 (Roth) (Appellant 1)
Appeal Item 1. The project does not meet the location requirement of the LCP as it is not proposed on the applicant’s property. The appellant states that the Adams (Appellant 2) have adverse possession of their entire parcel, including the area in the easement in favor of the applicant, or at least a prescriptive or irrevocable easement, since the Adams have paid taxes on the parcel and have developed and used the area within the easement. The appellant further states that the applicant must prove ownership of the land, and that court action needed to clear title needs to proceed to conclusion before approval of a disputed CDP easement right.

Staff Response
LIP Section 13.6.2(A)(C) states:

Where the applicant for a Coastal Development Permit is not the owner of a fee interest in the property on which a proposed development is to be located, but can demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development, the City shall not require the holder or owner of any superior interest in the property to join as a coapplicant. All holders or owners of any other interest of record in the affected property shall be notified in writing of the permit application and invited to join as co-applicant.

The applicant submitted recorded Grant Deeds demonstrating an easement for ingress and egress and utility purposes through the neighboring parcels owned by each that runs from Heathercliff Road to the subject property (Easement A in Figure 2). There is another ingress, egress, and utility easement that runs along the rear property lines of the 6

Agenda Item # 1.B.
neighboring parcels owned by each appellant (Easement B in Figure 2). There is also a fire truck turnaround easement for use by the subject property on the vacant parcel immediately south of the subject property and that borders PCH (Easement C in Figure 2).

Figure 2 – Easements
Source: City of Malibu GIS 2025
Legend
A – Area in red is Easement A.

B – Area in blue is Easement B.

C – Area in yellow in Easement C.

The proposed Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) fire truck hammerhead and fire truck turnaround areas, as well as the access driveway to the project site from Heathercliff Road, are within a portion of these easements. Further information on the easements, including diagrams, is in Correspondence Received After Posting of the February 18, 2025, Agenda Report (Letter from Schmitz & Associates, representing the applicant, dated February 14, 2024, and letter from JMBM, representing the applicant, dated February 13, 2025), which is Exhibit 6 of Appendix E.

N
For illustrative purposes.

Easements are approximate
and not to scale.

Subject Property
Appellant 1
Appellant 2
C
B
B
A
7

Agenda Item # 1.B.

The Grant Deeds do not specify if grading and paving are permitted to provide ingress/egress; however ingress/egress easements generally include the right to construct reasonable improvements to needed to allow ingress and egress. A compliant fire department turnaround is necessary pursuant to Fire Department life and safety access requirements if a habitable structure is to be constructed on this parcel.

The applicant and his representatives have coordinated with both appellants regarding the easements. The Adams property, including a pool and pool equipment, would not be affected by the proposed development or improvements. However, a portion of the fence on the Adams property would need to be relocated, with vegetation in that area trimmed or removed. Figure 3 below shows the area on the Adams’ property in the easement where the fence would be moved (rectangle-shaped area to the right of the truck). The full diagram is included as Exhibits 4 and 5 of Appendix E.

Figure 3 – Proposed Fence Area in Easement to Be Moved
Source: Applicant Submittal, 2025
The applicant has provided substantial evidence of the right (by way of the Grant Deeds and recorded easements) to use the easement areas to construct the LACFD hammerhead and turnaround area, and a driveway to the project site from Heathercliff Road. The appellant’s claims are not that the rights were never granted—but rather that they have expired or been terminated through adverse possession. Such claims need to be adjudicated through the courts. The approval of a CDP indicates that the Council has made the required findings in the LIP and MMC. It is not determinative of adverse possession claims. Should a court determine that the easements no longer exist, the 8

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Applicant will need to propose a new project or amend the current CDP (if the Council affirms the PC decision).

In addition, pursuant to LIP Section 13.6.2(C), the Planning Division provided written notice to the three adjacent property owners where there are easements and invited the owners to join as co-applicants on the subject CDP. The City did not receive any requests to join as co-applicants on the subject application. The LIP requirement for a co-applicant has been met, and the applicant has rights to utilize the shared access easement.

Appeal Item 2. The project does not meet fire code requirements. The appellant claims the project cannot meet current Fire Code requirements, and the fire access plan is not officially approved. The appellant further claims that, given recent fires, the Fire Department has stated that it will not be lenient with Code requirements. The appellant notes that the lack of access to the lot, given that a fire truck will not use the access driveway, is a risk to the entire community.

Staff Response
The LACFD provided an official conceptual approval and stamped the applicant’s fire access plan for the project on November 17, 2020. The Planning Division spoke with supervising LACFD staff on October 10, 2024, and confirmed the conceptual approval for fire access was still valid for the project.

On October 24, 2024, the applicant’s civil engineer made minor adjustments to the retaining wall, stairway, and landing at the southeast corner of the proposed structure near the fire truck hammerhead to improve fire access. On December 19, 2024, the applicant obtained an updated conceptual approval from the LACFD of the revised fire access plan with no changes to the originally approved access plan required by the LACFD (Exhibit 2(D) of Appendix E). The revised plan was officially stamped approved by the LACFD. As is standard practice, the final plan review by the LACFD will occur once final project plans are prepared and submitted to the LACFD during the Building Safety plan check phase.

Appeal Item 3. The project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. The appellant states that the project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative because the site is within an ESHA buffer. The appellant notes that a biologist for the California Native Plant Society inspected the property and found several species of native plants, including oak, evergreen cherry, laurel sumac, and coyote brush. The appellant claims that the site is native animal habitat, and the proposed development is not set back by 100 feet from the ESHA.

Staff Response
The subject property and project site are not within an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or ESHA buffer, and there are no project alternatives that would be less 9

Agenda Item # 1.B.
environmentally damaging than what is proposed. The nearest mapped ESHA is approximately 1,180 feet away and is associated with Zuma Creek. Exhibit 2(I) of Appendix E is a memorandum from the City Biologist providing an independent review of the biological resources on the property and project site following a site visit on December 31, 2024. The City Biologist found that the subject property and project site do not contain ESHA. The area where the proposed development would occur is comprised of non-native and ornamental vegetation, while areas further downslope from the project site on the subject property contain native vegetation. The plants that compose the native vegetation are not considered ESHA by the City Biologist. There are no native protected trees on the subject property, and no coast live oaks. A stand of holly leaf cherry and laurel sumac are located immediately adjacent to, but not on, the subject property.

Lastly, as the project is not located on slopes steeper than 4:1, it is compliant with the ESHA protections for Point Dume listed in LIP 4.6.1(A). The proposed single-family residence is 18 feet maximum in height, consistent with LIP Chapter 3.6.

Appeal Item 4. The project does not meet the threshold of development on slopes less than 4 to 1. The appellant states that the project does not meet the threshold to build on a slope less than 4 to 1 in Point Dume. The appellant indicates that the applicant completed illegal grading to lower the upper grade of the property without any excavation permit. The appellant further claims that the applicant removed approximately one to two feet from the top of the slope at both the neighbors’ fence lines, and completed grading on the section of driveway owned by the adjacent neighbors, risking breaking the law to reduce the grade and get as close to the 10 percent required for the fire lane access and attempt to make the lot 4 to 1 when it was always 3 to 1 for decades. The appellant notes that Section

4.6.1(A) of the LIP states, “However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent or steeper.” The appellant contends that areas of the easement are still greater than a 4 to 1 slope.

Staff Response
Members of the public informed the City in late September/early October 2024 that illegal grading had occurred on the subject property to lower the grade of the property. After review of the complaint, City Code Enforcement found the applicant did not conduct illegal grading. In September 2024, the applicant conducted vegetation clearance for fuel modification purposes for neighboring structures as required by the LACFD. City staff visited the site on October 7, 2024, and confirmed that no grading had occurred.

The color-coded slope exhibit provides detailed information on the slopes onsite (Exhibit 2(C)(c) of Appendix E) and shows that the subject property mostly contains slopes of less than a 4 to 1 ratio, followed by slopes of a ratio between 4 to 1 and 2 to 1, and lastly a smaller area of slopes greater than 2 to 1. While portions of the property are steeper than a 4 to 1 slope, the project site, including all graded areas, would occur on slopes less than 10

Agenda Item # 1.B.
4 to 1 (less than a 25 percent slope), consistent with the LIP provisions for the Point Dume area.

Appeal Item 5. The project violates ridgeline standards. The appellant claims that the proposed development is on a ridgeline that is visible from PCH. The appellant indicates that other homes behind this property are barely visible and have no scenic impacts, however this is the only home in the area that will be fully seen from the scenic PCH and built on the ridgeline. Therefore, the appellant claims that a variance is required. The appellant further indicates that new development shall be sited and designed to prohibit construction of structures on a primary and secondary ridgeline, and any structures shall be located a minimum of 300 feet measured from the top of a primary ridgeline. The appellant notes that City LCP Interpretation 16 states, “Parcels in the neighborhoods that are considered largely developed or built out will not be subject to ridgeline standards, unless development of the project site could result in potentially significant impacts on visual resources.”
Staff Response
LIP Chapter 2 defines a primary ridgeline as a hill, ridge or promontory that drops on either side of the top of this landform feature, and includes at least one of the following conditions:
(1) forms a distinct part of the skyline when viewed from a public street or highway; or (2) is seen as a distinct and prominent edge against a backdrop of land at least five hundred feet behind it when viewed from a public street and contains an average slope of at least 3 to 1. In addition, LIP Chapter 6 provides development standards and descriptions on how scenic resources are applied to development on ridgelines and hillsides.

The City’s Planning Division has published an interpretation of the LCP requirements for establishing ridgeline development subject to LIP Chapter 6 regulations, referred to as LIP Interpretation No. 16 (Exhibit 2(C)(d)(5) of Appendix E). This interpretation discusses the differences in ridgeline standards provided in LIP Chapters 2 and 6 and specifically addresses the implementation of the LIP’s protection standards for primary and secondary ridgelines. The City Council concurred with LIP Interpretation No. 16 on October 24, 2005.

In accordance with the Interpretation, the Planning Division analyzed if the ridgeline standards would apply to the proposed project.

The photosimulation of the proposed project (Exhibit 2(C)(d)(4) of Appendix E) shows the residential development located at the top of the hill in a largely built out area near existing residences along Heathercliff Road. The subject property and the parcel just south of the subject parcel (also along PCH) are the only undeveloped parcels in the neighborhood which is made up of a total 23 parcels within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

According to LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) Policy 6.4, ridgeline development standards are not applied to largely developed or built out areas. LIP Interpretation No. 16 notes that if at least 65 percent of the parcels within a neighborhood are developed, an area is considered largely developed or built out for ridgeline standards purposes. Approximately 11

Agenda Item # 1.B.
91 percent of the area parcels are developed or built out (Attachment 6 of Appendix E, Letter from Schmitz & Associates, representing the applicant, dated February 14, 2025).

Additionally, the project would not result in significant adverse impacts to scenic resources.

The development is located on the furthest portion of the property from PCH, which is an LCP-designated scenic road. The development would be located upslope of scrub vegetation on the lower portion of the property adjacent to PCH. The residential structure is expected to only be minimally visible from the Zuma Ridge Trail located across PCH and upslope from the subject site. Additionally, the residence is designed to be stepped into the hillside and not taller than 18 feet in height. Additionally, the conditions of approval include colors and materials to ensure the development blends with the natural environment (City Council Resolution, Appendix A and Planning Commission Resolution, Appendix D).

Appeal Item 6. No basis exists for the front yard setback modification. The appellant states that the slope above 4 to 1 is not a valid reason for a setback reduction. The appellant claims the modification is contrary to law for the following reasons: (1) the applicant proposes to build on a neighbor’s property and not his own; (2) the applicant completed illegal grading to try to reduce the slope of the lot to above 4 to 1; (3) the applicant proposes to build on a ridgeline which cannot be done if it is the only home viewable from PCH; (4) the applicant proposes to build without a protective buffer from ESHA; (5) the proposed project does not pass the Fire Code for road ingress and egress; and (6) areas of the proposed project still affect existing 4 to 1 slopes on Point Dume.

Staff Response
LIP Section 3.6(F)(5) states:

Modifications to required yards/setbacks standards shall be permitted where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources.

LIP Section 4.6.1(A) states:

A. Stream/Riparian
New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation. Where riparian vegetation is not present, the buffer shall be measured from the outer edge of the bank of the subject stream.

However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.

LUP Policy 3.35 states:
12

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Development in the Point Dume area shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.

The LIP considers steep slopes (25 percent or more, or 4 to 1) as ESHA in the Point Dume area, regardless of whether there is a stream or physical ESHA located on or offsite.

The MM requested by the applicant is for a reduction of the required front yard setback.

The required minimum front yard setback for the property is 59.4 feet, while the proposed setback is 29.6 feet (a reduction of 49.8 percent). LIP Section 13.27.2(B)(1) allows a MM for a reduction in the required front yard setback of no more than 50 percent.

The applicant proposes to locate the residence on the flattest part of the property to avoid areas with slopes steeper than 4 to 1, which are located toward PCH. Shifting the building closer to the front property line and away from PCH avoids development on slopes steeper than 4 to 1. It also locates the building closer to other residences along Heathercliff Road and is consistent with the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood. The residential structure and associated development meet the LIP’s total development square feet (TDSF) allowance. The property is located in an area that is developed with one- and two-story single-family residences located close to the front property lines. The MM will enable the project to avoid the sensitive resource of slopes steeper than 4 to 1 in the Point Dume area, consistent with LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP Section 4.6.1(A). LIP Section

13.27.5(B) lists the required findings for a MM, which the Planning Commission made on March 17, 2025 (Appendix D). These are also included in the draft City Council resolution (Appendix A).

Appeal No. 25-003 (Adams) (Appellant 2)
Appeal Item 1. This item is related to an unresolved property line dispute and encroachment issues. The appellant claims that the project improperly includes development on disputed property without the property owner’s consent, in violation of LIP Section 13.6.2(A). This Section states, “…applicants must prove that they own the property which is the subject of the application or provide the City with written consent from the owner for the proposed development...” Section 13.6.2(C) states that where the applicant is not the fee owner, the applicant is to “demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development.” The appellant states that the proposed Fire Department turnaround area encroaches onto the northwestern corner of the Adams property, where ownership and easement rights are actively contested. While the applicant submitted a Grant Deed purporting to include easement rights on the Adams property, the appellant notes that the Adams have filed suit contending that any such rights to the portion of the easement on the Adams’ side of the existing fence have been extinguished pursuant to California’s adverse possession laws.

The appellant states that the Adams have not provided consent for this encroachment, and the alleged easement rights are actively contested in pending litigation. 13

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Staff Response
Refer to the response to Appeal Item 1 (AP No. 25-002 (Roth)), above, which addresses the unresolved property line dispute and encroachment issues.

Appeal Item 2. Improper findings were made for a minor modification of the front yard setback. The appellant states that the Planning Commission’s approval of a 49.8 percent reduction in the required front yard setback (from 59.4 feet to 29.6 feet) is based on legally and factually erroneous findings. The appellant states that the Planning Commission improperly characterized slopes steeper than 4 to 1 as “sensitive resources” requiring protection under LIP Section 3.6(F)(5) and contends that neither the LIP nor the LUP defines steep slopes as “sensitive resources” in the absence of ESHA or other protected habitat. The appellant states that the Planning Commission misapplied LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP Section 4.6.1(A), which only apply to stream habitat protection. Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03 acknowledges that no, “stream or riparian habitats are located on or adjacent to the site,” making these provisions entirely inapplicable. Without proper justification, the appellant states that the Planning Commission cannot legally make the findings for the Minor Modification under LIP Section 13.27.5(B) and, in particular, that the project is consistent with the LCP.

Staff Response
Refer to the response to Appeal Item 6 (AP No. 25-002 (Roth)), above, which addresses the minor modification for the front yard setback, including related issues of slope, sensitive resources, and ESHA.

Appeal Item 3. Improper findings were made regarding LCP consistency. The appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s findings required under the LCP are legally and factually erroneous. The appellant states that Section 3.A.1 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03 finds that, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP, but that this finding is legally flawed given the unresolved property rights dispute and the mischaracterization of slopes as “sensitive resources.” The appellant states that Section 3.B.1 finds that the reduced front yard setback will avoid development on slopes 4 to 1 and steeper, which are considered sensitive resources, but that this finding lacks any legal or factual basis since steep slopes in isolation do not constitute “sensitive resources” under the LCP. The appellant states that Section 3.B.3 finds that the project will comply with all applicable requirements of state and local law, but that this finding is legally improper in light of the unresolved property dispute currently in litigation. Lastly, the appellant states that Section 3.A.2 finds that the project has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative, but that this finding lacks substantial evidence given the project’s reliance on an improper setback reduction and encroachment onto disputed property.

Staff Response
14

Agenda Item # 1.B.

Refer to the response to Appeal Item 1 (AP No. 25-003 (Adams)) regarding the pending lawsuit by the neighbor and the applicant’s legal right to use the easements on the properties as evidenced in the recorded Grant Deeds. Refer to the response to Appeal Item 2 (AP No. 25-003 (Adams)) regarding consideration of steep slopes as sensitive resources.

The full discussion of the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative to the project was provided in the LIP Findings section of the March 17, 2025, Planning Commission agenda report (Appendix E). Shifting the project closer to PCH (to comply with the required minimum front yard setback) would require development to be sited on 4 to 1 and steeper slopes and potentially within native scrub habitat on the steeper slopes, an area protected within LIP Chapter 4 for protection of ESHA within Point Dume. Additionally, disturbance, potentially exceeding the City’s residential grading limits. The MM is requested to site the residence closer to the front property line near existing residences, away from steep slopes, and further away from PCH, an LCP designated scenic road, reducing the potential for public view impacts resulting from the project. Easement disputes and potential litigation may result in the applicant being unable to construct the project—but unless and until a court determines that the underlying grant deeds and easements have been terminated they remain substantial evidence of the right to their use. The applicant and the City have met the requirements of LIP Section 13.6.2(A)(C) for providing documentation as to the right to use the easements and to the right of co-applicant, to which neither appellant responded. No other feasible alternatives would be less environmentally damaging than the proposed project, as the project completely avoids ESHA and significant scenic impacts.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the CEQA, the Planning Division and Planning Commission had analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Division and 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 and categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction. The Planning Division and Planning Commission further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2). Staff recommends that the Council make these same findings if the Project is approved.

Should the City Council choose to uphold the appeal(s) and deny the project, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: Previous correspondence submitted during the Planning Commission hearings is attached as Appendix H. The Planning Division has not received any additional correspondence on this project or the appeal. 15

Agenda Item # 1.B.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On April 16, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and a public notice was mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties within a radius of 500 feet of the subject property (Appendix I).

SUMMARY: Based on information in this report, provided with the agenda reports presented to the Planning Commission, project plans, and other documents, the City Council shall either adopt the attached resolution denying the appeals and approving the project or direct the Planning Division to return with a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

APPENDICES:

A. Resolution No. 26-18
B. Appeal No. 25-002
C. Appeal No. 25-003
D. Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03
E. March 17, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda Report

1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03

2. February 18, 2025 Planning Commission Agenda Report
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03
B. Applicant’s Request for Continuance dated November 18, 2024 C. November 18, 2024, Agenda Report
a. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-64
b. Applicant’s Request for Continuance
c. Revised Project Plans and Summary of Changes
d. October 7, 2024, Agenda Report

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-64

2. Project Plans

3. Department Review Sheets

4. Photosimulation of Project

5. LCP Interpretation No. 16

6. Story Pole Photos

7. Public Hearing Notice

8. Public Correspondence
e. Public Correspondence
D. Revised Fire Access Plan approved by LACFD (dated 12-19-24) E. Public Comments
F. Fuel Modification Plan
G. Letter from applicant’s geotechnical engineer (Leighton), dated 11- 18-24
H. Reissued City Geotechnical Review Sheet, dated 12-12-24 I. Memorandum from the Contract City Biologist, dated 12-31-24

3. Appendix of Easement Area on Topographic and Slope Map 16

Agenda Item # 1.B.

4. Appendix of Easement Area Prior to Moving Fence on Aerial Photo

5. Appendix of Easement Area After Moving Fence on Aerial Photo

6. Correspondence received after the posting of the February 18, 2025 Agenda Report
F. Applicant’s Response to Appeal No. 25-002
G. Applicant’s Response to Appeal No. 25-003
H. Correspondence received after the posting of the March 17, 2025 Agenda Report I. Notice of Public Hearing
17 Appendix A
RESOLUTION NO. 26-18

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, DENYING APPEAL NOS. 25-002 AND 25-003, 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 NO MORE THAN A 50 PERCENT REDUCTION IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, ONE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 29329

HEATHERCLIFF ROAD (ACS INTERNATIONAL, LLC)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On January 9, 2020, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 20- 003 to construct a new single-family residence and associated development was submitted to the Planning Division by ACS International, LLC. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On September 29, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit (CDP) Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On December 14, 2023, the application was deemed complete for processing.

D. On March 15, 2024, the Planning Division determined the application qualified to be processed administratively pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.13.1.

E. On May 24, 2024, the Planning Director approved Administrative Coastal Development Permit (ACDP) No. 20-003, inclusive of Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001.

After considering public comments received by the Planning Director on the ACDP and prior to reporting the item to Planning Commission, the applicant requested that the application be processed as a regular CDP.

F. 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.

G. On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the project item to the November 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting date.
18 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
H. On October 24, 2024, the applicant submitted revised project plans and related application materials to the Planning Division.

I. On November 18, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the project item to the January 23, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date.

J. On December 19, 2024, the applicant submitted a revised fire access plan conceptually approved by LACFD with a date stamp of December 19, 2024.

K. On January 23, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 3, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date due to the Palisades Fire.

L. On February 3, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date at staff’s request.

M. On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item, at the applicant’s request, to the March 17, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date.

N. On March 17, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03 approving the project entitlements.

O. On March 26, 2025, Larry Roth filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action (Appeal No. 25-002).

P. On March 26, 2025, Brian Adams filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action (Appeal No. 25-003).

Q. On April 16, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a radius of 500 feet from the subject property and all interested parties.

R. On May 20, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject appeal, reviewed and considered the agenda report, reviewed and considered written reports including the agenda report for the March 17, 2025, Planning Commission meeting, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposed project. The City Council has found that the 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 Section 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The City Council has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2). 19 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

The appellants contend that the Planning Commission’s findings for approval of the project are not supported by the evidence, and the Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by the findings. Specifically, the appellants contend that the proposed project is inconsistent with the City’s LCP policies and provisions; the applicant does not have the necessary rights in the easements on the two adjacent neighbors’ parcels because the easements have expired or been terminated through adverse possession; the project does not meet Fire Code requirements; the project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative; the project would occur in slopes steeper than a 4 to 1 ratio; no basis exists for the front yard setback modification; and the project violates ridgeline standards.

Based on the evidence in the record, as detailed below, in the May 20, 2026, City Council agenda report, in the Planning Commission agenda reports dated October 7, 2024, November 18, 2024, February 3, 2025, February 18, 2925, and March 17, 2025, and at the hearing on the matter, the City Council has determined that the project conforms to the LCP and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), denying the appeals, and approving the project. The Council finds that the evidence supports the findings and is consistent with the City’s past application of the applicable provisions of the LIP.

1. The applicant submitted recorded Grant Deeds demonstrating easements for ingress and egress on both the Roth (Appellant 1) and Adams (Appellant 2) parcels. The proposed Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) fire truck hammerhead and fire truck turnaround areas, as well as the access driveway to the project site from Heathercliff Road, are within a portion of easements in the recorded Grant Deeds for the subject property. The easements are, "for ingress, egress and utility purposes." The easements are within four assessor parcel numbers (APNs): the subject property, the vacant parcel immediately south of the subject property (bordering PCH), and the two sites with residences fronting Heathercliff Road on each side of the access driveway (the Roth and Adams parcels).

The Grant Deeds do not specify if grading and paving are permitted to provide ingress/egress; however; ingress/egress easements generally include the right to construct reasonable improvements needed to allow ingress and egress. A compliant Fire Department turnaround is necessary pursuant to Fire Department life and safety access requirements if a habitable structure is to be constructed on this parcel.

The applicant has provided substantial evidence of the right by way of Grant Deeds and recorded easements to use the easement areas to construct the hammerhead, turnaround area, and driveway to Heathercliff Road in the locations proposed, as required by the LIP.

2. It is the City’s policy to consider steep slopes (25 percent or more, or 4:1) as sensitive resources in the Point Dume area, regardless of whether there is a stream or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). The Minor Modification (MM) requested by the applicant is for a reduction of the required front yard setback. The required minimum front yard setback for this site is 59.4 feet, while the proposed setback is 29.6 feet (a reduction of 49.8 percent). Section 13.27.2(B)(1) of the LIP allows a Minor Modification for a reduction in the required front yard setback of no more than 50 percent. The applicant proposes to locate the 20 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
residence on the flattest part of the site to avoid areas with slopes 4 to 1 and steeper further toward the PCH. Shifting the building closer to the front property line and away from PCH avoids development on slopes steeper than 4 to 1. It also locates the building closer to other residences along Heathercliff Road and is consistent with the existing pattern of development in the neighborhood. The residential structure and associated development meet the LIP’s total development square feet (TDSF) allowance. The residences in the surrounding neighborhood are one- and two-story structures located close to the front property lines. The MM will enable the project to avoid the sensitive resource of slopes steeper than 4 to 1 in the Point Dume area, which is consistent with LIP Section 4.6.1(A) and LUP Policy 3.35 to protect EHSA within Point Dume.

3. There are no project alternatives that would be less environmentally damaging than what is proposed. The subject property and project site are not within Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or ESHA buffer. As the project is not located on slopes steeper than 4:1, it is compliant with the ESHA protections for Point Dume listed in LIP 4.6.1(A). Shifting the project closer to PCH to comply with the required minimum front yard setback would result in impacts to 4 to 1 slopes and potentially to native scrub habitat on the steeper slopes, although the habitat is not considered ESHA. Development in the steep slopes area would likely result in more grading and earthwork, potentially exceeding the City’s grading limits. The MM is requested to site the residence closer to the front property line near existing residences, away from steep slopes, and further away from PCH, a scenic road, thereby reducing the potential for view impacts from the project. The proposed single-family residence is 18 feet maximum in height, consistent with LIP Chapter 3.6. No discretionary request is being applied for height above 18 feet. No other feasible alternatives would be less environmentally damaging than the proposed project, as the site can only be accessed via the shared easements and the project completely avoids ESHA and significant scenic impacts.

4. The LACFD conceptually approved and stamped the project’s fire access plan on November 17, 2020. City staff spoke with supervising LACFD staff on October 10, 2024, and confirmed the conceptual approval for fire access is still valid. On October 24, 2024, the applicant’s civil engineer made minor adjustments to the retaining wall, stairway, and landing at the southeast corner of the proposed structure near the fire truck hammerhead to improve fire access. On December 19, 2024, the applicant obtained an updated conceptual approval from the LACFD of the revised fire access plan with no changes to the originally approved access plan required by the LACFD. The plan is officially stamped approved by the Fire Department. Final plan review by the LACFD will occur once final project plans are prepared and submitted to the LACFD during the Building Safety plan check phase, as is standard practice.

5. In September 2024, the applicant conducted vegetation clearance on the subject property for fuel modification purposes for neighborhood structures, as required by the LACFD.

City Code Enforcement visited the site on October 7, 2024, and confirmed that no grading had occurred.

6. The color-coded slope exhibit submitted as part of the project application materials provides detailed information on the slopes on-site. While portions of the subject site are steeper than a 4 to 1 slope, the development, including grading, would occur on slopes less than 4 to 1 (25 percent slope), consistent with the LIP provisions for the Point Dume area. 21 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

7. LIP Chapter 2 defines a primary ridgeline as a hill, ridge or promontory which drops on either side of the top of this landform feature, and includes at least one of the following conditions: (1) forms a distinct part of the skyline when viewed from a public street or highway; or (2) is seen as a distinct and prominent edge against a backdrop of land at least five hundred feet behind it when viewed from a public street and contains an average slope of at least 3 to 1. In addition, LIP Chapter 6 provides development standards and descriptions on how scenic resources are applied. Local Implementation Plan Interpretation No. 16 discusses the inconsistent ridgeline standard provided in LIP Chapters 2 and 6 as it relates to how to implement the protection of primary and secondary ridgelines. The City Council concurred with Interpretation No. 16 on October 24, 2005. In accordance with the interpretation, staff analyzed if the ridgeline standards would apply to the proposed project.

The project would not result in significant adverse impacts to scenic resources, given the location of the development on the portion of the site furthest from PCH, a scenic road, buffered by the scrub vegetation on the lower portion of the site, as well as the design of the residence stepped into the hillside, and conditions of approval for colors and materials to blend with the natural environment. Section 6.3 of the LIP provides that ridgeline standards do not apply if the project would not result in potentially significant adverse impacts to scenic resources.

The residential development is located at the top of the hill in a largely built out area near existing residences along Heathercliff Road. According to LUP Section 6.4, ridgeline development standards are not applied to largely developed or built out areas. LIP Interpretation No. 16 notes that if at least 65 percent of the parcels within a neighborhood are developed, an area is considered largely developed or built out for ridgeline standards. Approximately 91 percent of the area parcels within a 500-foot radius of the subject site are developed or built out. Therefore, the project site is not subject to ridgeline standards because it is in a largely developed area and it would not result in significant adverse impacts to scenic resources.

SECTION 4. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record (including the analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions set forth by staff in the May 20, 2026, Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Reports dated October 7, 2024, November 18, 2024, February 3, 2025, February 18, 2925, and March 17, 2025, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and City Council), and pursuant to LIP Section 13.7(B), the City Council adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 20-003 and MM No. 20-001 for the construction of 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 OWTS, including a MM for no more than a 50 percent reduction in the front yard setback.

The City Council finds the project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards. The project, as conditioned and with inclusion of the MM, 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)
22 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

1. The project is in the RR-1 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses, including single-family residences. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Division, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and the 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, including the size, height, and location requirements of the LCP, inclusive of the requested MM.

2. The project is not located between the first public road and the sea.

3. Evidence in the record, including alternatives analysis provided in the agenda report, demonstrates that as conditioned, the project meets the development policies of the LCP, does not result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative. The project would avoid native scrub vegetation on the subject property downslope of the project site and steep slopes.

4. The subject property is not in or adjacent to ESHA. The subject property is not designated ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map, which has been verified through onsite investigation by the City’s Biologist. The closest ESHA is approximately 1,180 feet away and is associated with Zuma Creek. Thus, review by the Environmental Review Board was not required.

B. Minor Modification Findings for Front Yard Setback (LIP Section 13.27)

1. The project proposes a 49.8 percent reduction in the required front yard setback, from the minimum required 59.4 feet to 29.6 feet. The reduced front yard setback will allow the development to avoid slopes 4 to 1 and steeper, considered to be sensitive resources pursuant to LIP Chapter 4. By siting the development in the easterly and flatter area of the property, the remainder of the property is retained as natural open space and provides a buffer between the residence and PCH, an LCP-designated scenic road. Natural vegetation on the westerly portion of the property is also retained. The residence would be sited near neighboring residences, continuing the development pattern of houses upslope of PCH and close to Heathercliff Road.

2. The project’s height and bulk will not adversely affect neighborhood character. The proposed structure complies with the size, height, location, grading and residential development standards of the LCP, consistent with the RR-1 zoning designation, with the inclusion of the MM request. The project is compatible with other development in the adjacent area in that the neighborhood is characterized by one- and two-story residences with similar residence placement near or at the top of the hillside and take access from Heathercliff Road. Based on conformance with development standards, inclusive of the MM, the project is not expected to have an adverse effect on neighborhood character. This is further supported by conditions of approval for the project related to pavement, driveway, and wall materials and colors, characteristics of the proposed project site and building design, and the surrounding topography and existing development character.

3. The project will comply with all applicable requirements of state and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of 23 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
Malibu, including those of the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, City Environmental Health Administrator, WD29, and the LACFD. The project must also be approved by the WD29 and the City’s Building Safety Division prior to issuance of City building permits.

C. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The residential structure will not adversely affect views from PCH, an LCP designated scenic road. The project meets the required development standards of the MMC and LIP, including size, height and location, inclusive of the MM for front yard setback. The residential structure will be located on the flatter portion of the property, upslope from PCH, and adjacent to other residences along Heathercliff Road, leaving the southern portion of the property adjacent to PCH as open space with natural habitat and serving as a visual buffer from the development. The residential structure is expected to only be minimally visible from the Zuma Ridge Trail located across PCH and upslope from the project site. The residence will be stepped into the hillside. The project’s retaining walls are not directly visible from PCH. Nonetheless, the project has been conditioned so that the final design of the retaining walls includes materials and colors to blend with the surrounding earth materials and landscaping. Standard conditions of approval have been included for and pavement colors and materials, and outdoor lighting. Therefore, the project, as proposed and conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts upon scenic roads and public viewing areas.

2. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives will avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources. The residential structure will be sited on the flatter portion of the property furthest from PCH, leaving most of the property and natural scrub vegetation preserved as a buffer between the development and PCH. A condition of approval has been added to ensure retaining walls are treated to blend in with the surrounding natural environment. The project has also been conditioned to include limitations on exterior lighting and colors of exterior finishes used to prevent any visual impacts to scenic areas. Shifting the proposed structure westerly on the property and downhill toward PCH may reduce the obstruction of views from neighbors’ properties, although it is not expected to completely remove the view obstruction. Moving the structure downslope would result in development on steep slopes (steeper than 4 to 1) that are considered sensitive resources in LIP Chapter 4. There is potential this alternate location may also require development in natural scrub vegetation, as well as place the structure nearer to PCH which is uncharacteristic of the pattern of development in the area that is closer to the top of the hill.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Division, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and the LACFD. These specialists determined that the project, with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or flood impacts. The project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the site is within an extreme fire hazard area, and groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. Any special conditions from these departments regarding site stability must be met prior to issuance of a building permit; any special conditions from the City Building Safety Division and the LACFD regarding structural integrity must be met prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore, no 24 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity are required nor available.

2. The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The property is currently subject to wildfire, however, development of a residence and associated development on the subject property will not increase the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire.

The proposed development may actually decrease the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate building materials which will be utilized during construction. The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the State so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Conditions of approval have been included to require compliance with all LACFD development standards. As such, the proposed project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.

3. The project site is not in a liquefaction, landslide, or Alquist Priolo Earthquake Zone. Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. The project plans and associated technical reports have been reviewed by City geotechnical consultant reviewers, the LACFD, the City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental Health Administrator.

These specialists determined that the project, with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or flood impacts. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area.

SECTION 5. City Council Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby approves CDP No. 20-003 and MM No. 20-001, subject to the conditions in Section 6.

SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.

Standard Conditions

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. Construction of:
• 4,050 square-foot, 18 foot-tall, two-story, single-family residence, an attached 320 square-foot roof overhang, and an attached 390 square foot garage; • 6,405 square feet of impermeable surface coverage;
• Retaining walls not to exceed six feet in height;
25 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
• Swimming pool and associated pool equipment;
• Patios, decks and paving for vehicle and pedestrian access and a fire department turnaround area;
• Trellis over deck;
• OWTS of 3,634 gallons; and
• 5,662 square feet of landscaping.
b. Non-exempt grading of 675 cubic yards.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition 2 and depicted on plans on-file with the Planning Division dated October 24, 2024, with a fire access plan conceptually approved by the LACFD and date stamped December 19, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Division 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 Division for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

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

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

9. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Community Development Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the LCP and MMC. 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 26 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
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 permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources

12. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Community Development Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

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

Lighting

14. No outdoor lighting is approved as part of this project. A lighting plan shall be submitted for City approval prior to Building Safety plan check, consistent with City standards, and the following: 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.

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

16. 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. 27 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

17. 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.

18. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

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

20. 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

21. The height of 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.

22. All necessary boundary fencing that encloses more than one-half acre of the parcel shall be open/permeable and non-view obscuring. An open split-rail design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), that is less than 40-inches high with a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

Construction/Framing

23. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Construction Management Plan to the Planning Division. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers and storage of construction material, not within the public right of way. Prior to permit issuance, the Construction Management Plan must be acceptable to the Community Development Director, and, if applicable, to the Building Official and Public Works Director.

24. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to plan check submittal.

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 28 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
volume, velocity and pollutant load of stormwater 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.

28. 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 Division for review and sign off on framing.

29. 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.

Colors and Materials

30. The project is visible from a scenic road, therefore, shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no white or light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and clearly indicated on the building plans.
b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.

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

Fuel Modification

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

Site Specific Conditions
29 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

33. The project shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the LACFD.

Biology/Landscaping

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

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

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

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

17.53). 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 17.53.

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

38. 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).

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

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

41. No development is permitted on slopes steeper than 4 to 1.

42. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from WD29.

43. 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.
30 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

44. 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).

45. Plantings required for fuel modification, except for within irrigated Zone A nearest to approved residential structures, must be native, drought-tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.

46. 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.

47. The landscape and fuel modification plan has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the LCP. 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.

48. 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 Community Development Director.

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 – September 15 will require bird nesting 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 of 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.

52. 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.

53. 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 31 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
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.

Public Works – Grading and Drainage

54. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department prior to the commencement of any work within the public right-of-way. The driveway shall be constructed of either six inches of concrete over four inches of aggregate base, or four inches of asphalt concrete over six inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

55. 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.

56. 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.

57. 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. 32 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

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

59. The non-exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 675 cubic yards, cut and fill.

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.

Public Works – Storm Water

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

62. 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 WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs):
b. Source Control BMPs;
33 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
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.

63. 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.

64. The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including stormwater runoff, directly into the ASBS. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the stormwater runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e., no additional pollutant loading).
34 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

Geology

65. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical consultant reviewers 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.

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

Swimming Pool/Spa/Water Feature

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

68. 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).

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

70. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides, or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries)

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

72. 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.

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

Environmental Health/OWTS
35 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

74. OWTS on Architectural and Grading Plans: The final Architectural Site Plan (Sheet A-0.1) and Grading Plans must show the OWTS, including the treatment tank(s), present/future seepage pits, and all lines of connection to the residence.

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

76. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS.

77. All plans and reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by the project Geologist, Coastal Engineer, and Structural Engineer as applicable.

The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s signature, professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).

78. The final OWTS design submittal shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. The model and capacity of the treatment tank(s) must be discussed in the final OWTS report and clearly shown on the final OWTS plans.
b. Confirm cap depth for seepage pit at LBA-5 on OWTS plan. c. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design. d. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). e. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems.
f. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and 36 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics.
g. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space than is available on the 11” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by Building Safety Division and the Planning Department.

79. Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. The final floor plans must show all bedrooms and drainage fixtures in the proposed residence.

80. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

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

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

83. Advanced OWTS Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office.

Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving the subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of Environmental Health Administrator. The applicant shall submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder.

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

85. City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 37 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

86. City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu consulting geotechnical reviewers' final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

87. City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Division final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.

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

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

Water Quality/Water Service

90. 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 Division indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service.

91. Prior to final inspection (or project sign-off, as applicable) by the Planning Division, the applicant shall demonstrate that all requirements of WD29 have been met, including installation of a meter, if applicable.

92. A USC approved backflow device is required for this property and is to be installed and maintained by the property owner.

Deed Restrictions

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

94. Prior to final Planning Division approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition No. 15. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final Planning approval.
38 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________

95. The garage area shall be limited to accessory use as defined by the City of Malibu LCP. Other than a future accessory dwelling unit (ADU) use compliant with State law, the garage area cannot be converted into habitable space at any time in the future. Prior to issuance of building permits, the application is required to execute and record a deed restriction to this effect.

Prior to Occupancy

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

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

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

Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

99. The applicant shall request a final Planning Division inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Division has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Community Development 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.
100. 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.

Fixed Conditions
101. This coastal development permit amendment shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
102. 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.
39 Resolution No. 26-18

______________________
SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of May 2026. __________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 40 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California • 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

NOTICE OF APPEAL CHECKLIST
REC�IVED
MAR 2 6 2025
PLANNING DEPT:

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

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

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

Part I. Project Information

1. What is the file number of the Coastal Development Permit you are appealing? GvP 2.o-co3 � c.-i>f 2-0--ooi 2,.°t3..2l-t Lf-El\-n-n.-'l'<c:...i.-tt=-P 12-h ·25-())

2. On what date was the decision made which you are appealing? y\,\,ttft.c..l:f 11 . 2.0 "2.. s

3. Who made the decision you are appealing?
□ Planning Director )6 Planning Commission

4. What is the address of the project site at issue?
4; 'i 3 A 'i t teh 7+ G /l..C:...t- t P-P- � tfl,t� �I.A- ; CA- q O 2..fu SPage 1 of4 P:\Fonns\COUNTER FORMS\PLN Appeal Checklist_ CDP_ 220518.docx Appendix B 41 42
43 44
45 46
I _ . i ===-
,<f''
M .1£C"t i-i•
C. City of Malibu
23825 Stua11 Ranch Road • M alibu, Cal ifornia • 90265-486 1 Phone (310) 456-2489 • Fax (3 10) 456-3356 • www.mal ibucity.org

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

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

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

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

Part I. Project Information

1. What is the file number of the Coastal Development Permit you are appealing? CDP 2,0-003; Minor Modification 20-001

2. On what date was the decision made which you are appealing? March 17, 2025

3. Who made the decision you are appealing?
D Planning Director (81 Planning Commission

4. What is the address of the project site at issue?
29329 Heathercliff Road (APN 4468-011-01 1)
Page I of 4
P:\Fonns\COUNTER FORMS\rLN Appeal Checklist_ CDP _2205 18.docx ij&©~TIW~i
r~ MAR 2 a 202s lID
BY: ______ __ ______ _
Appendix C
47 Part II. Appeal Summary

1. Indicate your interest in the decision by checking the appropriate box. 0 I am the Applicant for the project
~ I am the neighbor
D Other (describe)

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

ACS International, LLC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. C8l Mailing Labels and Radius Maps for Public Notice to Property Owners and Occupants Public Notice of an appeal must conform to the manner in which the original notice was given. The notice radius for appealable CDPs and non-appealable CDPs that do not require a public hearing is 100 feet for property owners and residents. The notice radius for non-appealable CDPs that require a public hearing is 300 feet for property owners and 100 feet for residents.

The mailing labels and radius map must be certified by the preparer (a form is available at the public counter): certification may not be more than six months prior to the date of submittal; the radius map must be provided on an 8½" x 11" paper; the mailing labels must be printed on 8½" x 11" paper, 3 columns, 10 rows (e.g. Avery 5160).

Page3of4
49 Part IV. · Signature and Appellant Information
I hereby Certify that the appeal submittal contains all of the above items. I understand that If any of the items are missing or otherwise deffcten~ the appeal Is Ineffective and the ff/Ing tee may be returned. IN ORDER TO PERFECT AN APPEAL, ALL APPEAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE COMPLETE BY THE DEADLINE. NO EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR APPELLANTS WHO ONLY PART/ALLY COMPLY WrTH THESE REQUIREMENTS AS OF THE DEADLINE. IF AN APPEAL IS NOT PERFECTED BY THE DEADLINE, THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL.

TELEPHONYUMBER
.. -
3/2s-!25
DME /
OFFICE use ONL v A(PP n9 vtt \ a+
Action Appealed: {J:VP /Jo ,JO ··ODJ
Appeal Period: {n{j/ JC h If? - Olt:t/113 1f ~ 2. ,'XO ai;- ' - ~ / Date Appeal Form and requ'.red d
0 ocuments submitted: . • , , ~ Receiv~ by: / , tt,{/r . ~ Appeal Completion Date: '3 I :J. 6 / '2 S by: un ~l'\ J "'1,n ddn • k /i>li i17urf- (Name, Ti le)
Page4 of 4
50 ATTACHMENT A

TO COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPEAL SUBMITTAL
I. PROJECT INFORMATION
On March 17, 2025, the City of Malibu (the "City") Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 25-03, approving Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 and Minor Modification No. 20-001 for prope1ty located at 29329 Heathercliff Road (the "Property") (approvals collectively referred to as "Project Approvals").

The Project Approvals authorize the construction of a new 4,050 square-foot, split-level, 18-foot tall. two-story single-family residence with an attached 390 square-foot garage, a swimming pool. landscaping, hardscape, retaining walls, grading, and installation of a new wastewater treatment system at the Property, including Minor Modification No. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback" located in the Rural Residential One Acre' (RR1) zoning district (the "Project"). Because the Project constitutes a completely new development, it must conform to the policies and standards of the City's Local Coastal Program ("LCP"), which consist of a Land Use Plan ("LUP") and a Local Implementation Plan ("LIP").

However, the Project violates the LCP as detailed below.

II. APPEAL SUMMARY
Despite various revisions, the Project continues to be inconsistent with and, in some instances, directly contradicts various LCP policies and provisions, including those related to property ownership requirements, sensitive resource designations, and required findings.

The Project Approvals improperly include development on the neighboring property located at 29327 Heathercliff Road (the "Adams Property") for which the applicant has not demonstrated clear legal rights, mischaracterize steep slopes as "sensitive resources" under the LCP to justify a significant front yard setback reduction, and fail to make findings supported by substantial evidence.

III. BASIS FOR APPEAL
The Project fails to conform to several provisions of the Malibu LCP, as detailed below.

A. Unresolved Property Line Dispute and Encroachment Issues The Project improperly includes development on disputed property without the prope1ty owner's consent, in violation of LIP§ 13.6.2. Specifically:
l. The fire department turnaround area encroaches onto the northwestern corner of the Adams' Property where ownership and easement rights are actively contested.

2. While the applicant submitted a grant deed purporting to include easement rights on the Adams Prope1ty, the Adams have filed suit contending that any such rights to the po1tion 51 ,., .....
of the easement on the Adams' side of the existing fence have been extinguished pursuant to California's adverse possession laws.

3. LIP § 13 .6.2(A) explicitly requires that "applicants must prove that they own the prope11y which is the subject of the application or provide the City with written consent from the owner." Where the applicant is not the fee owner, LIP§ 13.6.2(C) requires the applicant to "demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development."

4. The Adams have not provided consent for this encroachment, and the alleged easement rights are actively contested in pending litigation.

5. Recent case law confirms the City cannot simply ignore or avoid third party legal claims that would render it impossible for City decisionmakers to make the required findings or that would otherwise result in an unlawful entitlement:
a) In Cave Landing, LLC v. California Coastal Com. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 654 ("Cave Landing") reh'g denied (Sept. 5, 2023), review denied (Nov. 15, 2023), the Court of Appeal made clear that easement agreements, and even potential prescriptive rights, can serve as an appropriate basis for denying a land use application. In Cave Landing, the Com1 of Appeal upheld the Coastal Commission's denial of a permit that would have allowed property owners to move an easement for a hiking trail to another parcel. The Court of Appeal relied in part on the Commission's determination that the public "very likely" acquired a prescriptive right to use the existing trail. (Id. at 660.) Having analyzed the easement grant at issue, the Court of Appeal also determined that "[t]he express words of the easement grant limit the movement of the Trail to the McCarthy parcel." (Id.) Accordingly, " [t]he [Appellants] have no right to move the easement from their parcel or to interfere with the public use of the Trail on their land." (Id.) As such, the Commission correctly denied the permit. (Id.) b) In JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara (2025) 328 Cal.Rptr.3d 828, 830, review denied and ordered not to be officially published (Mar. 19, 2025), the court of appeal found that the County improperly granted a CUP (and could not make the findings for a CUP) where the sole means of access was over an easement, and where the easement agreement precluded the use contemplated by the CUP.

B. Improper Findings for Minor Modification of Front Yard Setback The Planning Commission's approval of a 49.8% reduction in the required front yard setback (from 59.4 feet to 29.6 feet) is based on legally and factually erroneous findings:

1. The Commission improperly characterized slopes steeper than 4: 1 as "sensitive resources" requiring protection under LIP § 3 .6(F)(5). 52 2. Neither the LIP nor the LUP defines steep slopes as "sensitive resources" in the absence of ESHA or other protected habitat.

3. The Commission misapplied LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP§ 4.6.l(A), which only apply to stream habitat protection. Resolution No. 25-03 itself acknowledges that "no streams or riparian habitats are located on or adjacent to the site" (p. 9), making these provisions entirely inapplicable.

4. Without proper justification, the Planning Commission cannot legally make the findings for the Minor Modification under LIP§ 13.27.5(B), particularly that the project is consistent with the LCP.

C. Improper Findings Regarding LCP Consistency
The Planning Commission's findings required under the LCP are legally and factually erroneous, particularly:

1. Section 3.A.1 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that "the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP," but this finding is legally flawed given the unresolved property rights dispute and the mischaracterization of slopes as "sensitive resources."

2. Section 3.B.1 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that "the reduced front yard setback will avoid development on slopes 4 to 1 and steeper, considered sensitive resources," but this finding lacks any legal or factual basis since steep slopes in isolation do not constitute "sensitive resources" under the LCP.

3. Section 3.B.3 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that "the project will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law," but this finding is legally improper in light of the unresolved property dispute currently in litigation.

4. Section 3.A.2 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that the project "has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative," but this finding lacks substantial evidence given the project's reliance on an improper setback reduction and encroachment onto disputed property.

IV. CONCLUSION
As detailed above, the Project, as approved by the Planning Commission, violates numerous LCP policies and provisions. The findings are clearly unsupported by evidence, and the City Council should deny the Project as proposed or, at minimum, continue the matter until the property dispute is resolved and the project is redesigned to comply with all applicable LCP standards.
53 CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 25-03
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. 20—003 TO CONSTRUCTANEW 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, LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL-ONE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 29329 HEATHERCLIFF ROAD (ACS INTERNATIONAL, LLC) The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION l. Recitals.

A. On January 9, 2020, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 20- 003 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development was submitted to the Planning Department by ACS International, LLC. The application was routed to the City Biologist City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Publid Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On September 29, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subj ect property.

C. On December 14, 2023, the application was deemed complete for processing.

D. On March 15, 2024, Planning Department staff determined the application qualified to be processed administratively pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 1313.1.

E. On May 24, 2024, the Planning Director approved Administrative Coastal Development Permit (ACDP) No. 20—003, inclusive of Minor Modification (MM) No. 20—001. After considering public comments received by the Planning Director on the ACDP and prior to reporting the item to Planning Commission, the applicant requested that the application be processed as a regular CDP.

F. 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. 54 Appendix D
Resolution N0. 25—03

G. On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the project item to the November 18, 2024” Planning Commission meeting date.

H. On October 243 2024, the applicant submitted revised project plans and related application materials to the Planning Department.

I. On November l8, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the project item to the January 23, 2025. Planning Commission meeting date.

J. On December 19, 2024, the applicant submitted a revised fire access plan conceptually approved by the County Fire Department with a date stamp of December 19, 2024.

K. On January 23, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 3, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date due to the Palisades Fire.

L. On February 3, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item t0 the February l8, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date at staff’s request.

M. On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the March 17, 2025. Planning Commission meeting date at the applicant’s request.

N. On March 17. 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

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 proj ect is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proj ect is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) and (e) — New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. 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 and pursuant to the LCP LIP, including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact. and approves CDP N0. 20-003 for construction of a new 4,050 square-foot, split-level, 18—foot tall. two-story single— family residence with an attached 390 square—foot garage, a swimming pool. landscaping, hardscape, retaining walls, grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system 55 ReSOIution N0. 25—03

(OWTS), including MM N0. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction 0f the front yard setback” located in the Rural Residential One Acre (RR-1) zoning district at 29329 Heathercliff Road.

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR~1 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses, including single-family residences. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, WD29, and the 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, including the size, height, and location requirements of the LCP, inclusive of the requested MM.

2. Evidence in the record, including detailed alternatives analysis provided in the agenda report, demonstrates that as conditioned, the project meets the development policies of the LCP, does not result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

B. Minor Modification Findings for Front Yard Setback (LIP Section 13.27) l. The project proposes a 49.8 percent reduction in the required front yard setback, from the minimum required 59.4 feet to 29.6 feet. The reduced front yard setback will avoid development on slopes 4 to 1 and steeper, considered sensitive resources. By siting the development in the easterly and flatter area of the property, the remainder of the site is retained as natural open space and provides a buffer from the residence to the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), a scenic road. Natural vegetation on the westerly portion of the site is also retained. The residence would be sited near neighboring residences, continuing the development pattern of houses upslope of PCH and close to Heathercliff Road.

2. The project’s height and bulk will not adversely affect neighborhood character. The proposed structure complies with the size, height, location, grading and residential development standards of the LCP and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), consistent with the RR—l zoning designation, with the inclusion of the MM request. The project is compatible with other development in the adjacent area in that the neighborhood is characterized by one— and two-story residences with similar residence placement near or at the top ofthe hillside and orientation parallel to PCH. Based on conformance with development standards, inclusive of the MM, project conditions for building, driveway, wall materials and colors, the particular proposed site and building design characteristics, the surrounding topography, and surrounding existing development, the project is not expected to have an adverse effect on neighborhood character. 56 Resolution N0. 25—03

3. The project will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of Malibu, including those of the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers City Public Works Department, City Environmental Health Administraton WD29 and the LACFD The proj ect must also be approved by the WD29 and the City of Malibu Building Safety/Environmental Sustainability Department prior t0 issuance of City building permits.

C. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The residential structure will not adversely affect views from PCH, a scenic road The project meets the required development standards ofthe MMC and LIP, including size height and location, inclusive of the MM for front yard setback. The residential structure will be located on the flatter portion of the site, upslope from PCH, and adjacent to other residences along Heathercliff Road, leaving the southern portion ofthe site along the scenic road as open space with natural habitat and serving as a visual buffer from the development. The residential structure is expected to be only minimally visible from the Zuma Ridge Trail located across PCH and upslope from the project site. The residence will be stepped into the hillside. The project’s retaining walls are not directly visible from PCH. Nonetheless, the project has been conditioned so that the final design of the retaining walls includes veneers, textures and colors to blend with the surrounding earth materials and landscaping. Standard conditions of approval have been included for building and pavement colors, materials, and lighting. Therefore, the project, as proposed and conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts upon scenic roads and public viewing areas.

2. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives will avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources. The structures will be sited on the flatter portion of the site furthest from the PCH, leaving most of the site and natural scrub vegetation preserved as a buffer between the development and the PCH. A condition of approval has been added to ensure retaining walls are treated to blend in with the surrounding natural environment. The project has also been conditioned to include limitations on exterior lighting and colors of exterior finishes used to prevent any visual impacts to scenic areas. Shifting the proposed structure westerly on the site and downhill toward the PCH may reduce the obstruction of views from neighbors’ properties, although it is not expected to completely remove the View obstruction. Moving the structure downslope would result in development of steep slopes (steeper than 4 to 1) that are considered sensitive resources and natural scrub vegetation, as well as place the structure nearer to PCH, which is uncharacteristic of the pattern of development in the area that is closer to the top of the hill.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical review consultants, WD29, and the LACFD. These specialists determined that the project. with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or 57 Resolution N0. 25—03

flood impacts. The pr0j€ct is not located in a hazard zone, except that the site is within an extreme fire hazard area, and groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. Any special conditions from these departments regarding site stability must be met prior to issuance of a building permit; any special conditions from the City Building Safety Department and the LACFD regarding structural integrity must be met prior to issuance of a building permit. Therefore, no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity are required nor available.

2. The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone The property is currently subject to wildfire, however, development of a residence and associated development on the subject property will not increase the site’s susceptibility to wildfire. The proposed development may actually decrease the site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate building materials which will be utilized during construction. The City is served by the LACFDa as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the State so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Conditions of approval have been included to require compliance with all LACFD development standards. As such, the proposed project as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subj ect to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.

3. The project site is not in a liquefaction. landslide or Alquist Priolo Earthquake Zone Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. The proj ect plans and associated technical reports have been reviewed by City geotechnical review consultants, the LACFD, the City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental Health Administrator These specialists determined that the project, with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or flood impacts. It has been determined that the proj ect is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 20—003 and MM No. 20—001, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions ofApproval.

Standard Conditions

1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any ofthe City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole 58 ReSOlution N0. 25—03

right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this project.

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. Construction of:
o 4,050 square—foot, 18 foot-tall, two-story, single—family residence, an attached 320 square-foot roof overhang, and an attached 390 square foot garage; 0 6,405 square feet of impermeable surface coverage; o Retaining walls not to exceed six feet in height; 0 Swimming pool and associated pool equipment; o Patios” decks and paving for vehicle and pedestrian access and a flre department turnaround area; o Trellis over deck;
o OWTS; and
0 5,662 square feet of landscaping
b. Non-exempt grading of 675 cubic yards;

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of worki as described in Condition 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department dated October 24, 2024, with a fire access plan conceptually approved by the LACFD and date stamped December l9, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. ln the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.182, 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.

6. The CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit unless a time extension has been granted. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three—year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request. ln 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 59 Resolution N0. 25-03

Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29 and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured, Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the 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. ll. The property owner must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources
l2. 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 II and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

I3. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 ofthe California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Lighting

14. No outdoor lighting is approved as part ofthis project. A lighting plan shall be submitted for City approval prior to Building Safety plan check, consistent with City standards. and the following: 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);
60 Resolution N0. 25-03

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.

15. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited. l6. 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.

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.

String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin. l7.
l8.
l9. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes after activation. 20, 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

21. The height of 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.

22. All necessary boundary fencing that encloses more than one-half acre of the parcel shall be open/permeable and non—view obscuring. A split—rail design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire). that is less than 40-inches high with a space greater than l4-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

Conslruclion/Fmming

23. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Construction Management Plan to the Planning Department. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers and storage of construction material, not within the public right of way. Prior to permit issuance, the Construction Management Plan must be acceptable to the Planning Director, and, if applicable, to the Building Official and Public Works Director. 61 Resolution N0. 25-03

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

25. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 am. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 stormwater 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

Colors and Materials

30. The project is visible from a scenic road. therefore, shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no 62 Resolution N0. 25-03

white 01‘ light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the building plans. b. The use ofhighly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible. c. All windows shall be comprised ofnon-glare glass.

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

Fuel Modification

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

Site Specific Conditions

33. The project shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the LACFD.

Biology/Landscaping

34. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP policies 3. 1 8 and 3.20, throughout the City of Malibu, development that involves the use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any other similar toxic chemical substances, shall be prohibited in cases where the application of such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife. Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

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

36. 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 17.53). 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 17.53. 63 Resolution N0. 25—03

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

38. 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).

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

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

41. No development is permitted on slopes steeper than 4 to l.

42. 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.

43. 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 of42 inches. Three violations ofthis condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

44. 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).

45. Plantings required for fuel modification, except for within irrigated Zone A nearest to approved residential structures, must be native, drought—tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.

46. Grading shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 — October 3 l. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November l March 3 1 , 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.

47. The landscape and fuel modification plan has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the LCP. 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.

48. 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 ofthe Planning Director. 64 Resolution N0. 25-03

49. Native species of the Santa Monica Mountains, characteristic ofthe local habitat, shall be used on graded slopes or where slope plantings are required for slope stabilizationa 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.

50. 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.

51. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 September 15 will require bird nesting 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 ofno 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.

52. 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. 53 . The use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark. pine needles, and altificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use offlammable 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.

Public Works — Grading and Drainage

54. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department prior to the commencement of any work within the public right-of—way. The driveway shall be constructed of either six inches of concrete over four inches of aggregate base, or four inches of asphalt concrete over six inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

55. 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. 65 Resolution N0. 25-03

56. 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.

57. 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 ifrequired 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.

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 ofgrading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, postconstruction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

59. The non-exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 675 cubic yards, cut and fill,

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. 66 Resolution N0. 25—03
Pagc 14 0f21
Public Works — Storm Water

61. 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:

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

62. 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 WQMP shall meet all the requirements ofthe City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:

Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs): Source Control BMPs; Treatment Control BMPs that retain on—site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDV). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-sitet the project must bioflltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on—site; Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring 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 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
67 Resolution N0. 25—03

measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Depamnent 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 ofthe Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance ofthe certificate of occupancy.

63. 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.

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

Geology

65. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnica] engineer and/or the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations. grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final 68 Resolution No. 25—03

plans shall be reviawed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

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

Swimming Pool/Spa/Water Feature

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

68. 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).

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

70. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides, or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected usrng ozonation; b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries)

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

72. 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.

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

Environmental Health/()WTS

74. OWTS on Architectural and Grading Plans: The final Architectural Site Plan (Sheet A-0.1) and Grading Plans must show the OWTS, including the treatment tank(s), present/future seepage pits, and all lines of connection to the residence. 69 Resolution N0. 25-03

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

76. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS.

77. All plans and reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by the project Geologist, Coastal Engineer, and Structural Engineer as applicable. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s signature. professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).

78. The final OWTS design submittal shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above). a. The model and capacity of the treatment tank(s) must be discussed in the final OWTS report and clearly shown on the final OWTS plans. b. Confinn cap depth for seepage pit at LBA—S on OWTS plan. c. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms offlow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity. even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design.

Sewage and effiuent pump design calculations (as applicable). e. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection. etc); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for ”package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems.
f. Specifications, supporting geology information. and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effiuent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate 70 Resolution N0. 25—03

the results of soils analysis or percolation/inf]ltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow. reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effiuent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics. g. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale ofthe plan is such that more space than is available on the 1 l” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of l 8 inch by 22 inch. for review by Environmental Health). Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by Building Safety Division and the Planning Department.

79. Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. The final floor plans must show all bedrooms and drainage fixtures in the proposed residence.

80. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

81. Operations and Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the propeity owner and maintenance provider of the proposed OWTS.

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

83. Advanced OWTS Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office.

Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving the subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of Environmental Health Administrator. The applicant shall submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder.

84. Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
71 Resolution N0. 25—03
Pag€ 19 0f21

85. City 0f Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

86. City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu consulting geotechnical reviewers' final approval ofthe OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

87. City of Malibu Planning Approval: City ofMalibu Planning Department f1nal approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.

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

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

Waler Quality/Water Service

90. 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.

91. 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.

92. A USC approved backflow device is required for this property and is to be installed and maintained by the property owner.

Deed Resirictions

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

94. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition No. l5. The 72 Resolution N0. 25-03

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

95. The garage area shall be limited to accessory use as defmed by the City of Malibu LCP. The garage area cannot be converted into habitable space at any time in the future. Prior to issuance of building permits, the application is required to execute and record a deed restriction to this effect.

Prior 10 Occupancy

96. 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 offby the Building Safety Division.

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

98. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department. Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

99. 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. 100. 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.

Fixed Conditions
101. This coastal development permit amendment shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
102. Violation of any of the conditions ofthis approval may be cause for revocation ofthis permit and termination of all rights granted there under. 73 Resolution No. 25-03

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17m day ofMarch 2025.

SKYEAR %4tkPEAK, Planhing ValCommission Chair
ATTEST:

REBECCA 6mm,EVANS,QWRecording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 1320.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucityorg, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 246.

Any action challenging the flnal 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 1.12.01 0 ofthe MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 25-03 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 17‘“ day of March 2025 by the following vote:

REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
AYES: 2 Commissioners: Peak and Riddick NOES: 1 Commissioner: Mazza ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 1 Commissioner: Leonard
74

Atta5
Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Allison Cook, AICP, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Raneika Brooks, AICP, Principal Planner
Approved by: Maureen Tamuri, AIA, AICP, Interim Planning Director Date prepared: March 6, 2025 Meeting date: March 17, 2025 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 and Minor Modification No. 20-001 – An application for a new two-story single-family residence and associated development (Continued from February 18, 2025) Location: 29329 Heathercliff Road, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4468-011-011
Owner: ACS International, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03 (Exhibit 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 20-003 to construct a new 4,050 square-foot, two-story, split-level single-family residence of 18 feet tall, with an attached 390 square-foot garage, a swimming pool, landscaping, hardscape, retaining walls, grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction in the front yard setback, located in the Rural Residential, One-Acre (RR-1) Zoning District at 29329 Heathercliff Road (ACS International, LLC)
DISCUSSION: The subject item was originally scheduled for the October 7, 2024, Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting, the applicant submitted a written request for the item to be continued to provide additional time to respond to public comments. At its October 7, 2024, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item to November 18, 2024 prior to opening the public hearing. Prior to the November 18, 2024, meeting, the applicant submitted a written request for the item to be continued to provide more time to respond to additional public comments received the day of the meeting and because the applicant could not be in attendance. On November 18, 2024, the Planning Planning Commission
Meeting
03-17-25
Item

4.A.

Appendix 12
75

Commission continued the item to January 23, 2025 prior to opening the public hearing.

On January 15, 2025, the January 23, 2025, meeting was adjourned and continued to February 3, 2025 due to the Palisades Fire. At the February 3, 2025, meeting, the Planning Commission continued the Item to the February 18, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing at the request of staff. On February 18, 2025, the applicant’s representative requested that the item be continued to the March 17, 2025, Regular Planning Commission meeting to provide time to discuss easement issues with a neighbor. At the February 18, 2025 meeting, the Planning Commission continued the item to the March 17, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

This agenda report provides an addendum to the February 18, 2025, Planning Commission agenda report (Exhibit 2), and addresses easement information provided to the neighbor and changes to the project conditions of approval requested by the applicant.

Easement Areas on Neighboring Property
Written public comments on the proposed project include concerns from the neighbor at 29327 Heathercliff Road regarding use of easements on that property. A discussion of these easements and the applicant’s rights to them for ingress/egress purposes, has been provided in the February 18, 2025, November 18, 2024, and October 7, 2024, agenda staff reports (Exhibit 2). Since the Commission meeting on February 18, 2025, the applicant and his representatives have provided additional information and exhibits to the neighbor to further clarify the portion of the fence and vegetation to be removed/trimmed, noting that the neighbor’s pool and pool equipment would not be affected. The exhibits, which are provided as Exhibits 3, 4, and 5, depict the location of the easements, fencing, and pool/pool equipment, and show the proposed relocation of the fence. No changes to the project are proposed.

Conditions of Approval
After the applicant team reviewed the February 18, 2025 Planning Commission agenda report, the team requested specific project conditions of approval be removed, citing the conditions do not apply to the project site. The original conditions are listed in the draft resolution attached to the February 18, 2025 , agenda report. Resolution No. 25-03 reflects the changes described below.

Staff recommends that former Condition No. 52 be deleted. It reads, “Construction fencing shall be placed within five feet of the 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.” This condition was not specifically required by the City Biologist nor the City Public Works Department, and since the site does not contain an environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA), staff does not believe it is required.
76

Original Conditions Nos. 46 and 57 both address grading during the rainy season between November 1 – March 31, but are inconsistent because the latter is specific to properties with ESHA and slopes steeper than 4 to 1, while the former is a general prohibition of grading in the rainy season. Accordingly, staff recommends removing Condition No.57 and retaining Condition No. 46.

The applicant has requested that Condition No. 22 be removed, which addresses boundary fencing, indicating that there is no sensitive habitat onsite. However, staff suggests the condition be revised to reflect the following changes to be consistent with the LIP and to remove the requirement for wildlife-friendly design parameters since the LIP does not identify the project site as being within a wildlife corridor, and General Plan Conservation Element Figure CO-3 shows no wildlife corridor in the Point Dume area:

All necessary boundary fencing that encloses more than one-half acre of the parcel shall be open/permeable and non-view obscuring. shall be of a A open split-rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be that is less than 40-inches high, and have with a space greater than 14 inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

Exhibits:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03

2. February 18, 2025, Agenda Report (including November 18, 2024, Agenda Report and October 7, 2024, Agenda Report as attachments)
A. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03
B. Applicant’s Request for Continuance dated November 18, 2024 C. November 18, 2024, Agenda Report
a. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-64
b. Applicant’s Request for Continuance
c. Revised Project Plans and Summary of Changes
d. October 7, 2024, Agenda Report

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-64

2. Project Plans

3. Department Review Sheets

4. Photosimulation of Project

5. LCP Interpretation No. 16

6. Story Pole Photos

7. Public Hearing Notice

8. Public Correspondence
e. Public Correspondence
D. Revised Fire Access Plan approved by LACFD (dated 12-19-24) E. Public Comments
77

F. Fuel Modification Plan
G. Letter from applicant’s geotechnical engineer (Leighton), dated 11-18-24.

H. Reissued City Geotechnical Review Sheet, dated 12-12-24.

I. Memorandum from the Contract City Biologist, dated 12-31-24.

3. Exhibit of Easement Area on Topographic and Slope Map

4. Exhibit of Easement Area Prior to Moving Fence on Aerial Photo

5. Exhibit of Easement Area After Moving Fence on Aerial Photo

6. Correspondence received after the posting of the February 18, 2025 Agenda Report 78 EXHIBIT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 25-03

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. 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,

LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL-ONE ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 29329 HEATHERCLIFF ROAD (ACS INTERNATIONAL, LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On January 9, 2020, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 20- 003 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development was submitted to the Planning Department by ACS International, LLC. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On September 29, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On December 14, 2023, the application was deemed complete for processing.

D. On March 15, 2024, Planning Department staff determined the application qualified to be processed administratively pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.13.1.

E. On May 24, 2024, the Planning Director approved Administrative Coastal Development Permit (ACDP) No. 20-003, inclusive of Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001.

After considering public comments received by the Planning Director on the ACDP and prior to reporting the item to Planning Commission, the applicant requested that the application be processed as a regular CDP.

F. 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. 79 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
G. On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the project item to the November 18, 2024, Planning Commission meeting date.

H. On October 24, 2024, the applicant submitted revised project plans and related application materials to the Planning Department.

I. On November 18, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the project item to the January 23, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date.

J. On December 19, 2024, the applicant submitted a revised fire access plan conceptually approved by the County Fire Department with a date stamp of December 19, 2024.

K. On January 23, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 3, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date due to the Palisades Fire.

L. On February 3, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 18, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date at staff’s request.

M. On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the March 17, 2025, Planning Commission meeting date at the applicant’s request.

N. On March 17, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

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 Section 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. 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 and pursuant to the LCP LIP, including Sections

13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 20-003 for construction of a new 4,050 square-foot, split-level, 18-foot tall, two-story singlefamily residence with an attached 390 square-foot garage, a swimming pool, landscaping, hardscape, retaining walls, grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system 80 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
(OWTS), including MM No. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback, located in the Rural Residential–One Acre (RR-1) zoning district at 29329 Heathercliff Road.

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR-1 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses, including single-family residences. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, WD29, and the 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, including the size, height, and location requirements of the LCP, inclusive of the requested MM.

2. Evidence in the record, including detailed alternatives analysis provided in the agenda report, demonstrates that as conditioned, the project meets the development policies of the LCP, does not result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

B. Minor Modification Findings for Front Yard Setback (LIP Section 13.27)

1. The project proposes a 49.8 percent reduction in the required front yard setback, from the minimum required 59.4 feet to 29.6 feet. The reduced front yard setback will avoid development on slopes 4 to 1 and steeper, considered sensitive resources. By siting the development in the easterly and flatter area of the property, the remainder of the site is retained as natural open space and provides a buffer from the residence to the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), a scenic road. Natural vegetation on the westerly portion of the site is also retained. The residence would be sited near neighboring residences, continuing the development pattern of houses upslope of PCH and close to Heathercliff Road.

2. The project’s height and bulk will not adversely affect neighborhood character. The proposed structure complies with the size, height, location, grading and residential development standards of the LCP and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), consistent with the RR-1 zoning designation, with the inclusion of the MM request. The project is compatible with other development in the adjacent area in that the neighborhood is characterized by one- and two-story residences with similar residence placement near or at the top of the hillside and orientation parallel to PCH. Based on conformance with development standards, inclusive of the MM, project conditions for building, driveway, wall materials and colors, the particular proposed site and building design characteristics, the surrounding topography, and surrounding existing development, the project is not expected to have an adverse effect on neighborhood character. 81 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

3. The project will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of Malibu, including those of the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, City Environmental Health Administrator, WD29 and the LACFD. The project must also be approved by the WD29 and the City of Malibu Building Safety/Environmental Sustainability Department prior to issuance of City building permits.

C. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The residential structure will not adversely affect views from PCH, a scenic road.

The project meets the required development standards of the MMC and LIP, including size, height and location, inclusive of the MM for front yard setback. The residential structure will be located on the flatter portion of the site, upslope from PCH, and adjacent to other residences along Heathercliff Road, leaving the southern portion of the site along the scenic road as open space with natural habitat and serving as a visual buffer from the development. The residential structure is expected to be only minimally visible from the Zuma Ridge Trail located across PCH and upslope from the project site. The residence will be stepped into the hillside. The project’s retaining walls are not directly visible from PCH. Nonetheless, the project has been conditioned so that the final design of the retaining walls includes veneers, textures and colors to blend with the surrounding earth materials and landscaping. Standard conditions of approval have been included for building and pavement colors, materials, and lighting. Therefore, the project, as proposed and conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts upon scenic roads and public viewing areas.

2. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives will avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources. The structures will be sited on the flatter portion of the site furthest from the PCH, leaving most of the site and natural scrub vegetation preserved as a buffer between the development and the PCH. A condition of approval has been added to ensure retaining walls are treated to blend in with the surrounding natural environment. The project has also been conditioned to include limitations on exterior lighting and colors of exterior finishes used to prevent any visual impacts to scenic areas. Shifting the proposed structure westerly on the site and downhill toward the PCH may reduce the obstruction of views from neighbors’ properties, although it is not expected to completely remove the view obstruction. Moving the structure downslope would result in development of steep slopes (steeper than 4 to 1) that are considered sensitive resources and natural scrub vegetation, as well as place the structure nearer to PCH, which is uncharacteristic of the pattern of development in the area that is closer to the top of the hill.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical review consultants, WD29, and the LACFD. These specialists determined that the project, with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or 82 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
flood impacts. The project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the site is within an extreme fire hazard area, and groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. Any special conditions from these departments regarding site stability must be met prior to issuance of a building permit; any special conditions from the City Building Safety Department and the LACFD regarding structural integrity must be met prior to issuance of a building permit.

Therefore, no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity are required nor available.

2. The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The property is currently subject to wildfire, however, development of a residence and associated development on the subject property will not increase the site’s susceptibility to wildfire. The proposed development may actually decrease the site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate building materials which will be utilized during construction. The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the State so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Conditions of approval have been included to require compliance with all LACFD development standards. As such, the proposed project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.

3. The project site is not in a liquefaction, landslide or Alquist Priolo Earthquake Zone.

Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. The project plans and associated technical reports have been reviewed by City geotechnical review consultants, the LACFD, the City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental Health Administrator.

These specialists determined that the project, with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or flood impacts. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 20-003 and MM No. 20-001, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

Standard Conditions

1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole 83 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this project.

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. Construction of:
 4,050 square-foot, 18 foot-tall, two-story, single-family residence, an attached 320 square-foot roof overhang, and an attached 390 square foot garage;  6,405 square feet of impermeable surface coverage;
 Retaining walls not to exceed six feet in height;
 Swimming pool and associated pool equipment;
 Patios, decks and paving for vehicle and pedestrian access and a fire department turnaround area;
 Trellis over deck;
 OWTS; and
 5,662 square feet of landscaping
b. Non-exempt grading of 675 cubic yards;

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department dated October 24, 2024, with a fire access plan conceptually approved by the LACFD and date stamped December 19, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs 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.

6. The CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit unless a time extension has been granted. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request. 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 84 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, 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 permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources

12. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

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

Lighting

14. No outdoor lighting is approved as part of this project. A lighting plan shall be submitted for City approval prior to Building Safety plan check, consistent with City standards, and the following: 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);
85 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
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.

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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

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

20. 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

21. The height of 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.

22. All necessary boundary fencing that encloses more than one-half acre of the parcel shall be open/permeable and non-view obscuring. A split-rail design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), that is less than 40-inches high with a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

Construction/Framing

23. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Construction Management Plan to the Planning Department. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers and storage of construction material, not within the public right of way. Prior to permit issuance, the Construction Management Plan must be acceptable to the Planning Director, and, if applicable, to the Building Official and Public Works Director.
86 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 stormwater 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

Colors and Materials

30. The project is visible from a scenic road, therefore, shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no 87 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
white or light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director and clearly indicated on the building plans. b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.

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

Fuel Modification

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

Site Specific Conditions

33. The project shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the LACFD.

Biology/Landscaping

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

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

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

36. 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 17.53). 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 17.53.
88 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

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

38. 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).

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

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

41. No development is permitted on slopes steeper than 4 to 1.

42. 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.

43. 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.

44. 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).

45. Plantings required for fuel modification, except for within irrigated Zone A nearest to approved residential structures, must be native, drought-tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.

46. 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.

47. The landscape and fuel modification plan has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the LCP. 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.

48. 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.
89 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

49. 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.

50. 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.

51. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 – September 15 will require bird nesting 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 of 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.

52. 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.

53. 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.

Public Works – Grading and Drainage

54. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department prior to the commencement of any work within the public right-of-way. The driveway shall be constructed of either six inches of concrete over four inches of aggregate base, or four inches of asphalt concrete over six inches of aggregate base. The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

55. 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.
90 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

56. 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.

57. 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.

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

59. The non-exempt grading for the project shall not exceed a total of 675 cubic yards, cut and fill.

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.

Public Works – Storm Water
91 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

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

62. 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 WQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
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
92 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
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.

63. 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.

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

Geology

65. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical consultant reviewers 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.
93 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

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

Swimming Pool/Spa/Water Feature

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

68. 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).

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

70. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides, or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected using ozonation;
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion; and c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries)

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

72. 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.

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

Environmental Health/OWTS

74. OWTS on Architectural and Grading Plans: The final Architectural Site Plan (Sheet A-0.1) and Grading Plans must show the OWTS, including the treatment tank(s), present/future seepage pits, and all lines of connection to the residence.

75. Final OWTS Plot Plan: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed 94 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11 inch by 17 inch sheet leaving a five inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

76. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: A final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS.

77. All plans and reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by the project Geologist, Coastal Engineer, and Structural Engineer as applicable.

The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s signature, professional registration number, and stamp (if applicable).

78. The final OWTS design submittal shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. The model and capacity of the treatment tank(s) must be discussed in the final OWTS report and clearly shown on the final OWTS plans.
b. Confirm cap depth for seepage pit at LBA-5 on OWTS plan. c. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design. d. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). e. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems.
f. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance 95 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics.
g. All OWTS design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space than is available on the 11” x 17” plot plan is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note: For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by Building Safety Division and the Planning Department.

79. Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. The final floor plans must show all bedrooms and drainage fixtures in the proposed residence.

80. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

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

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

83. Advanced OWTS Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the City of Malibu Recorder’s Office.

Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving the subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of Environmental Health Administrator. The applicant shall submit a certified copy issued by the City of Malibu Recorder.

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

85. City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator. 96 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

86. City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu consulting geotechnical reviewers' final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

87. City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Department final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.

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

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

Water Quality/Water Service

90. 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.

91. 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.

92. A USC approved backflow device is required for this property and is to be installed and maintained by the property owner.

Deed Restrictions

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

94. Prior to final Planning Department approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition No. 15. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Department prior to final Planning Department approval.

95. The garage area shall be limited to accessory use as defined by the City of Malibu LCP. The 97 Resolution No. 25-03

______________________
garage area cannot be converted into habitable space at any time in the future. Prior to issuance of building permits, the application is required to execute and record a deed restriction to this effect.

Prior to Occupancy

96. 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.

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

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

Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

99. 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. 100. 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.

Fixed Conditions
101. This coastal development permit amendment shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
102. 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.
98 Resolution No. 25-03

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of March 2025. __________________________________
KRAIG HILL, 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. 246.

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

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 25-03 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 17th day of March 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
99

5 Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Smith and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Allison Cook, AICP, Contract Planner
Approved by: Maureen Tamuri, AIA, AICP, Interim Planning Director Reviewed by: Salvador Lopez Jr., Interim Assistant Planning Director Date prepared: February 6, 2025 Meeting date: February 18, 2025 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 and Minor Modification No. 20-001 – An application for a new two-story single-family residence and associated development (Continued from February 3, 2025) Location: 29329 Heathercliff Road, not within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4468-011-011
Owner: ACS International, LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03 (Attachment A) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 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 (OWTS); including Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction in the front yard setback, located in the Rural Residential, One-Acre (RR-1) Zoning District at 29329 Heathercliff Road (ACS International, LLC)
DISCUSSION: The subject item was originally scheduled for the October 7, 2024, Regular Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting, the applicant submitted a written request for the item to be continued to provide additional time to respond to public comments. On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the item to November 18, 2024. Prior to the November 18, 2024 meeting, the applicant submitted a written request for the item to be continued to provide more time to respond to additional public comments received the day of the meeting and because the applicant could not be in attendance (Attachment B). On November 18, 2024 the Commission continued the item Planning Commission
Meeting
02-18-25
Item

4.A.

EXHIBIT 2
100

to January 23, 2025 prior to opening the public hearing. On January 15, 2025, the January 23, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting was adjourned and continued to February 3, 2025 due to the Palisades Fire. On February 3, 2025 the Commission continued the item to February 18, 2025 at the request of staff.

This agenda report provides an addendum to the November 18, 2024 Planning Commission agenda report (Attachment C) and addresses recent Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) fire access approval and responses to public correspondence received after the last agenda report was published.

Revised Fire Access Plan
The LACFD conceptually approved the project’s fire access plan on November 17, 2020, with the final approval pending during the Building Safety plan check review. City staff spoke with supervising LACFD staff on October 10, 2024, and confirmed the conceptual approval for fire access is still valid. Please also see the discussion of the fire access plan and LACFD review in the November 18, 2024, Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment C).

On October 24, 2024, the applicant’s civil engineer made minor adjustments to the retaining wall, stairway, and landing at the southeast corner of the proposed structure near the fire truck hammerhead to improve fire access. These changes were reflected on the architectural, civil, and landscape plans as part of the November 18, 2024, Planning Commission Agenda Report. On December 19, 2024, the applicant obtained an updated conceptual approval from the LACFD for the revised fire access plan as proposed by the applicant with no changes required by the LACFD (Attachment D).

Fuel Modification Plan
Attachment F is the conceptual Fuel Modification Plan approved by the LACFD Fuel Modification Unit, on July 12, 2023. This sheet was inadvertently omitted from the project plan set included as part of the October 7, 2024 Agenda Report. It is hereby included as part of the project plan set.

Public Comments
Public correspondence received after the November 18, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report was distributed is included in Attachment E. The following discussion addresses these public comments.

Biological Resources and ESHA
Public comments include that the site has a native plant alliance composed of coyote brush/holly-leafed cherry/giant wild rye, which is indicative of an Environmentally Sensitive 101

Habitat Area (EHSA), and the site contains native laurel sumac and oak. The public comments note that it is “highly probable the ESHA extended throughout much of the parcel prior to grading due to soil texture, slope gradient, and lack of prior development of the site.” The public comments indicate that grading and other disturbance of the site has occurred and that the project development will “take” additional native habitat. Public comments also stated that there are many bird species living and breeding on the property.

In response, Attachment I is a memorandum from the City Biologist providing an independent review of the biological resources on the project site, following a site visit on December 31, 2024. The City Biologist indicates that the site does not contain ESHA. The area where the proposed development is to occur is comprised of non-native and ornamental vegetation, while areas further downslope from the development area contain native vegetation. The plants that compose the native vegetation are not especially rare or valuable within the Malibu area. There are no native protected trees, including coast live oaks onsite. A stand of holly leaf cherry and laurel sumac are located immediately adjacent to, but not on, the project site.

Easements
Public comments indicate there is a current legal dispute regarding the easements required for this project, and that the applicant does not have permission to access his property. Moreover, public comments indicate that the hammerhead driveway is proposed on a second lot for which there is no application.

In response, the proposed hammerhead, which provides ingress/egress to the subject site, and the required fire truck turnaround area are within a portion of what is referred to as, "Parcel 3" and "Parcel 4" in the recorded Grant Deeds for the project site. Each of these "parcels" is an easement, "for ingress, egress and utility purposes." The two easements are within four assessor parcel numbers (APNs): the subject site, the vacant site immediately south of the subject site, and the two sites with residences fronting Heathercliff Road on each side of the easement. The Grant Deeds do not specify if grading and paving are permitted to provide ingress/egress. However, the City Attorney has indicated that, based on past practice, ingress/egress easements include the right to construct reasonable improvements to effect the ingress/egress, and, based on past practice, the City’s obligation is to determine that there is evidence to support the property owner’s right to build on the location, not to make a definitive determination on the rights.

Pursuant to LIP Section 13.6.2(C), the Planning Department notified in writing the owners of the three parcels where there are easements and included invitations to join as coapplicants on the subject CDP application. To date, the City has not received any requests to join as co-applicants on the subject application. The City Attorney has indicated that the co-applicant notification and invitation process is sufficient for the easement and ingress/egress issue, as the owners have been provided notice and an opportunity to 102

participate in the application and hearing process. Therefore, it is not required that the parcels/properties with easements be included as part of the project application.

Access Driveway
Public comments indicate that the applicant does not have permission to access his site, and that the access must be 20 feet wide or 26 feet wide in some cases.

In response, the proposed project is the only new residence being considered by the LACFD at this time, as there are no pending applications on the other parcels that hold access rights to the easements in question. Therefore, the applicable standards for the proposed driveway are sufficient to serve the proposed residence. The LACFD has conceptually approved the fire access plan for the project (December 18, 2024). As stated above, the LACFD will conduct a detailed review of the project during the Building Safety plan check phase, prior to building permit issuance.

The ingress/egress easement (i.e., “driveway”) that connects the subject site to Heathercliff Road is noted in the Grant Deed as being 15 feet wide. The Grant Deed shows that the 15-foot-wide easement overlaps the two residential properties on either side of the proposed driveway. The applicant has indicated that vegetation on these two properties and a fence segment located on one of the properties, all of which are within the access easement, would need to be adjusted to provide the full 15-foot width indicated in the Grant Deed and as required by LACFD. The project would not include removing other existing development on either residential property, including any walls, pool, or other structures, as these are not shown as being within the access easement.

Grading on the Site
Public comments state that the applicant completed illegal grading on the site to lower the grade of the property.

In response, the applicant has indicated that recent work on the site in September 2024 consisted of vegetation clearance for fuel modification purposes. City Code Enforcement, Building Safety, and Planning Department staff visited the site on October 7, 2024, and confirmed that no grading had occurred. Please refer to the November 18, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report (Attachment C) for further discussion.

Development on Steep Slopes
Public comments state that the project plans show a much less steep grade for the project site than exists.

In response, the color-coded slope analysis that is part of the project plans indicates that all elements of the proposed development project would occur in slopes of less than 4 to1. 103

The applicant reassessed project slopes and updated the civil plan set on October 24, 2024. Please refer to the November 18, 2024, staff report (Attachment C) and Exhibit D of that report, which is the October 7, 2024 staff report, for additional discussion of slopes.

Proposed Pool
Public comments state that the proposed pool “would require retaining walls in the unstable ESHA cliffside and is also encroaching on the ridgeline as well as the neighbor’s property.”
In response, the proposed pool does not require a retaining wall as evidenced in the project civil plan set. The project development, including pool, have been considered by the project geotechnical engineer, and the City geotechnical consultant reviewers have issued a preliminary approval of the project from a geotechnical perspective (Attachment H). Please see “Ridgeline” below for a discussion of the project site in relation to ridgelines.

The pool would be located entirely within the subject site according to the project plans.

The yard setback from the pool to the nearest property line is shown as approximately 15 feet on the project plans.

Slope Stability
Public comments state that the general area of the site has slope instability.

In response, the project geotechnical engineer, Leighton and Associates, Inc., provided a letter dated November 18, 2024, stating that the results of the slope stability analysis indicate that the proposed development will not increase a hazard for slope instability within or beyond the property limits (Attachment G). Please also refer to the discussion in the October 7, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report (Exhibit D of Attachment C).

City Geotechnical Consultant Reviewers
Public comments state that the City geotechnical consultant Department Review Sheet indicates a structure with a basement, although the project is a two-story residence with no basement.

In response, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers considered the current project design and approved it on a preliminary basis on October 25, 2024. When the application was originally submitted, it was labeled a one-story residence with a basement and this project description was provided on the Department Review Sheets when the project was routed for review. The project description should have been corrected to ensure all reviewers had the most current project description. Regrettably, this update was not made, and the Department Review Sheets included a one-story residence with basement in the scope of work, rather than a two-story residence.
104

The City geotechnical consultant reviewer confirmed that the project geotechnical consultant and the City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers assessed the current version of the project with two stories. To provide clarity in the record, the City Geotechnical Review Sheet has been reissued with the current project scope reflecting a two-story residence without a basement (Attachment H).

Ridgeline
Public comments indicate that the project would be “built on a ridgeline that is “EXTREMELY viewable from PCH.”
In response, the City’s ridgeline standards would not apply to this project pursuant to Interpretation No. 16 with which the City Council concurred on October 24, 2005. The project would not result in significant adverse impacts to scenic resources, and the project would be located in a largely built out area with existing residences along Heathercliff Road located at the top of the hill. A full discussion of Interpretation No.16, ridgelines, and the project site is provided in Exhibit D (October 7, 2024 staff report) of Attachment C of this report.

Front Yard Setback Minor Modification
Public comments indicate opposition to the project because it cannot meet the required front yard setback.

In response, the MM requested by the applicant is for a reduction of the required front yard setback. The required minimum front yard setback for this site is 59.4 feet, while the proposed setback is 29.6 feet (a reduction of 49.8 percent). The MM request would enable the project to avoid 4 to 1 slopes, which are prohibited for development pursuant to LIP Section 4.6.1(A). A full discussion of the MM request for the front yard setback is provided in the October 7, 2024 Planning Commission Agenda Report.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-03
B. Applicant’s Request for Continuance dated November 18, 2024 C. November 18, 2024, Agenda Report
a. Draft Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-64
b. Applicant’s Request for Continuance
c. Revised Project Plans and Summary of Changes
d. October 7, 2024, Agenda Report

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-64

2. Project Plans

3. Department Review Sheets

4. Photosimulation of Project
105

5. LCP Interpretation No. 16

6. Story Pole Photos

7. Public Hearing Notice

8. Public Correspondence
e. Public Correspondence
D. Revised Fire Access Plan approved by LACFD (dated 12-19-24) E. Public Comments
F. Fuel Modification Plan
G. Letter from applicant’s geotechnical engineer (Leighton), dated 11-18-24.

H. Reissued City Geotechnical Review Sheet, dated 12-12-24.

I. Memorandum from the Contract City Biologist, dated 12-31-24. 106

ATTACHMENT A

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 25-03

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. 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,

LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, ONE-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 29329 HEATHERCLIFF ROAD (ACS INTERNATIONAL, LLC)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On January 9, 2020, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 20- 003 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development was submitted to the Planning Department by ACS International, LLC. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review.

B. On September 29, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On December 14, 2023, the application was deemed complete for processing.

D. On March 15, 2024, Planning Department staff determined the application qualified to be processed administratively pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.13.1.

E. On May 24, 2024, the Planning Director approved Administrative Coastal Development Permit (ACDP) No. 20-003, inclusive of Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001.

After considering public comments received by the Planning Director on the ACDP and prior to reporting the item to the Planning Commission, the applicant requested that the application be processed as a regular CDP.

F. 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.

DRAFT 107
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

G. On October 7, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the item to the November 18, 2024, Regular Planning Commission meeting.

H. On October 24, 2024, the applicant submitted revised project plans and related application materials to the Planning Department.

I. On November 18, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the item to the January 23, 2025, Regular Planning Commission meeting.

J. On December 19, 2024, the applicant submitted a revised fire access plan conceptually approved by the LACFD with a date stamp of December 19, 2024.

K. On January 15, 2025, the January 23, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting was adjourned and continued to February 3, 2025 due to the Palisades Fire.

L. On February 3, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to February 18, 2025 at staff’s request.

M. On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

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 Section 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. 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 and pursuant to the LCP LIP, including Sections

13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 20-003 for construction of a new 4,050 square-foot, 18-foot tall, 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 (OWTS), including MM No. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback, located in the Rural Residential, One-Acre (RR-1) zoning district at 29329 Heathercliff Road.

DRAFT 108
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

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

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The project is located in the RR-1 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses, including single-family residences. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical staff, WD29, and the 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, including the size, height, and location requirements of the LCP, inclusive of the requested MM.

2. Evidence in the record, including detailed alternatives analysis provided in the agenda report, demonstrates that as conditioned, the project meets the development policies of the LCP, does not result in adverse impacts on coastal resources and has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

B. Minor Modification Findings for Front Yard Setback (LIP Section 13.27)

1. The project proposes a 49.8 percent reduction in the required front yard setback, from the minimum required 59.4 feet to 29.6 feet. The reduced front yard setback will avoid development on slopes 4 to 1 and steeper, considered sensitive resources. By siting the development in the easterly and flatter area of the property, the remainder of the site is retained as natural open space and provides a buffer from the residence to the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), a scenic road. Natural vegetation on the westerly portion of the site is also retained. The residence would be sited near neighboring residences, continuing the development pattern of houses upslope of PCH and close to Heathercliff Road.

2. The project’s height and bulk will not adversely affect neighborhood character. The proposed structure complies with the size, height, location, grading and residential development standards of the LCP and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), consistent with the RR-1 zoning designation, with the inclusion of the MM request. The project is compatible with other development in the adjacent area in that the neighborhood is characterized by one- and two-story residences with similar residence placement near or at the top of the hillside and orientation parallel to PCH. Based on conformance with development standards, inclusive of the MM, project conditions for building, driveway, wall materials and colors, the particular proposed site and building design characteristics, the surrounding topography, and surrounding existing development, the project is not expected to have an adverse effect on neighborhood character.

3. The project will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law, and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of DRAFT 109
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

Malibu, including those of the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, City Environmental Health Administrator, WD29 and the LACFD. The project must also be approved by the WD29 and the City of Malibu Building Safety/Environmental Sustainability Department prior to issuance of City building permits.

C. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The residential structure will not adversely affect views from PCH, a scenic road.

The project meets the required development standards of the MMC and LIP, including size, height and location, inclusive of the MM for front yard setback. The residential structure will be located on the flatter portion of the site, upslope from PCH, and adjacent to other residences along Heathercliff Road, leaving the southern portion of the site along the scenic road as open space with natural habitat and serving as a visual buffer from the development. The residential structure is expected to be only minimally visible from the Zuma Ridge Trail located across PCH and upslope from the project site. The residence will be stepped into the hillside. The project’s retaining walls are not directly visible from PCH. Nonetheless, the project has been conditioned so that the final design of the retaining walls includes veneers, textures and colors to blend with the surrounding earth materials and landscaping. Standard conditions of approval have been included for building and pavement colors, materials, and lighting. Therefore, the project, as proposed and conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts upon scenic roads and public viewing areas.

2. The project, as designed and conditioned, will not adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives will avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources. The structures will be sited on the flatter portion of the site furthest from the PCH, leaving most of the site and natural scrub vegetation preserved as a buffer between the development and the PCH. A condition of approval has been added to ensure retaining walls are treated to blend in with the surrounding natural environment. The project has also been conditioned to include limitations on exterior lighting and colors of exterior finishes used to prevent any visual impacts to scenic areas. Shifting the proposed structure westerly on the site and downhill toward the PCH may reduce the obstruction of views from neighbors’ properties, although it is not expected to completely remove the view obstruction. Moving the structure downslope would result in development of steep slopes (steeper than 4 to 1) that are considered sensitive resources and natural scrub vegetation, as well as place the structure nearer to PCH, which is uncharacteristic of the pattern of development in the area that is closer to the top of the hill.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical review consultants, WD29, and the LACFD. These specialists determined that the project, with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or flood impacts. The project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the site is within an extreme fire hazard area, and groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. Any DRAFT 110
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

special conditions from these departments regarding site stability must be met prior to issuance of a building permit; any special conditions from the City Building Safety Department and the LACFD regarding structural integrity must be met prior to issuance of a building permit.

Therefore, no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity are required nor available.

2. The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

The property is currently subject to wildfire, however, development of a residence and associated development on the subject property will not increase the site’s susceptibility to wildfire. The proposed development may actually decrease the site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate building materials which will be utilized during construction. The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the State so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Conditions of approval have been included to require compliance with all LACFD development standards. As such, the proposed project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.

3. The project site is not in a liquefaction, landslide or Alquist Priolo Earthquake Zone.

Groundwater is not expected to be encountered during construction. The project plans and associated technical reports have been reviewed by City geotechnical review consultants, the LACFD, the City Public Works Department, and the City Environmental Health Administrator.

These specialists determined that the project, with conditions, would not result in adverse geologic or flood impacts. It has been determined that the project is not located in a hazard zone, except that the project site is located within an extreme fire hazard area.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 20-003 and MM No. 20-001, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

Standard Conditions

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

DRAFT 111
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the following:
a. Construction of:
 A new 4,050 square-foot, 18 foot-tall, two-story, single-family residence, an attached 320 square-foot roof overhang, and an attached 390 square foot garage;  6,405 square feet of impermeable surface coverage;
 Retaining walls not to exceed six feet in height;
 Swimming pool and associated pool equipment;
 Patios, decks and paving for vehicle and pedestrian access and a fire department turnaround area;
 Trellis over deck;
 OWTS
 5,662 square feet of landscaping; and
b. Non-exempt grading of 675 cubic yards.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department dated October 24, 2024, with a fire access plan conceptually approved by the LACFD and date stamped December 19, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs 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.

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

DRAFT 112
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, 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 permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources

12. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

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

Lighting

14. No outdoor lighting is approved as part of this project. A lighting plan shall be submitted for City approval prior to Building Safety plan check, consistent with City standards, and the following: 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:

DRAFT 113
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

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.

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

16. 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.

17. 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.

18. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

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

20. 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

21. The height of 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.

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

Construction/Framing

23. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of the Construction Management Plan to the Planning Department. The Construction Management Plan shall DRAFT 114
Resolution No. 25-03

______________________

include a dedicated parking location for construction workers and storage of construction material, not within the public right of way. Prior to permit issuance, the Construction Management Plan must be acceptable to the Planning Director, and, if applicable, to the Building Official and Public Works Director.

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

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. 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 stormwater 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.

28. 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.

29. 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.

DRAFT 115
Resolution No. 25-03