Agenda packet, special meeting, first session — Malibu City Council, August 19, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Meeting Agenda
CC_260819_AMENDED AGENDA_.PDF
Item 1A
Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 19-012 (25200 Pacific Coast Highway, APNs 4459-013-021 and 4459-014- 018; Owner, PAR PCH, LLC; Appellant, Jun Hall for Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc.)
CC_260819_ITEM_1A.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

Amended1 Malibu City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, August 19, 2026
2:00 P.M. – CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
City Hall – Multi-Purpose Room
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Zoom Webinar Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87985644870

GUIDE TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS AND DECORUM
ROLE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The presiding officer of the City Council, who shall be the Mayor, shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to ensure that these rules of procedure and decorum are followed at all times. The presiding officer shall maintain control of communication between Councilmembers, between the Council and the public, and chair each meeting in a fair and impartial manner. It shall be the duty of each Councilmember to support the presiding officer in maintaining the order and decorum of Council meetings.

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

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

MEETING PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may participate in-person or remotely via Zoom Webinar.

Remote participation: In order to participate remotely, you must be present in the Zoom Webinar during the item that you would like to speak on and use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak when the Mayor calls the item. When you join the Zoom Webinar you may see a pop-up asking you to enter an email address, but a valid email address is not required. To join by phone: Dial 1-669-444-9171 or 1-669-900-9128 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 879-8564-4870. To raise your hand via a phone-in please press *9 and unmute when you are called on by pressing *6. If you are participating via the web platform or application, please press the raise your hand icon and the unmute button when prompted.
1 See updated meeting room location.

AMENDED City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 2 - August 19, 2026 In-person participation: If you would like to speak in-person, you must complete and submit to the Recording Secretary a Speaker Slip at the meeting prior to the beginning of the item being announced by the Mayor.

When each item is called, the Mayor will announce a final call for Speaker Slips and raised hands.

Speaker Time: Members of the public will have the opportunity to speak on items on the agenda. Remote and in-person participants will have three (3) minutes to speak on each item on the agenda. In-person participants may also surrender their time to speak on an item on the agenda by deferring one (1) minute to another speaker, not to exceed a total of five (5) minutes. Speakers receiving time deferrals may be participating in-person or remotely. The individuals deferring time must be present in Chambers when the item is heard and their slips must be prior to the beginning of the item being announced by the Mayor. Speakers are taken in the order slips are submitted or hands are raised.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: For Public Hearings involving land use appeals/applications the appellant and applicant will be given 15 minutes each to present their position to the City Council, including rebuttal time. Following the initial presentations from the appellant and applicant and public testimony Councilmembers may address questions to any of the speakers, members of the public in attendance, chairpersons or a designated representative of city commissions, boards or committees, city staff or consultants. Following the question period, the appellant and applicant will have the opportunity to present rebuttal before the public hearing is closed.

Any written comments or audiovisual materials for the hearing from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on August 5, 2026. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from members of the public, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted three (3) business days in advance, by 4:00 p.m. on August 14, 2026. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected].

VIEW THE MEETING: The meeting will be live streamed at www.malibucity.org/video, www.youtube.com/CityofMalibu, and via Zoom Webinar.

Two p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order - Mayor
Roll Call - Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance
Report on Posting of Agenda – July 16, 2026; Amended Agenda July 16, 2026 Approval of Agenda

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

A. Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 19-012 (25200 Pacific Coast Highway, APNs 4459-013-021 and 4459-014-018; Owner, PAR PCH, LLC; Appellant, Jun Hall for Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc.) Recommended Action: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-55 denying Appeal (AP) No. 26-007, determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19-012 to construct a new 9,219 AMENDED City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 3 - August 19, 2026 square-foot (sf.), one-story, single-family residence, including a 1,000 square-foot (sf.) subterranean two-car garage, 1,523 sf. basement, 676 sf. gym, swimming pools, spa, driveways, decks, landscape, water features, hardscape, grading, retaining walls, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including Lot Merger (LM) No. 24-002 to consolidate two existing parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) (4459-013-021 and 4459-014-018) into one parcel, and Certificate of Compliance (COC) No. 21-004 to recognize the combined parcel, located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) Zoning District at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (PAR PCH, LLC); or 2) Direct staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

Staff Contact: Community Development Director Bundy, 456-2489, ext. 229 Adjournment
Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business described above are on file in the office of the City Clerk, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California, and are available for public inspection during regular office hours, which are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday. Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California (Government Code Section 54957.5.b.2). Copies of staff reports and written materials may be purchased for $0.10 per page.

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

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Special meeting agendas may be amended up to 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Dated this 16th day of July 2026 at 6:00 p.m.

Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk

Page 1 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

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: July 15, 2026 Meeting date: August 19, 2026 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 19-012 (25200 Pacific Coast Highway, APNs 4459-013-021 and 4459-014-018; Owner, PAR PCH, LLC; Appellant, Jun Hall for Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc.) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-55 (Exhibit A) denying Appeal (AP) No. 26-007 (Exhibit B), determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19-012 to construct a new 9,219 square-foot (sf.), one-story, singlefamily residence, including a 1,000 square-foot (sf.) subterranean two-car garage, 1,523 sf. basement, 676 sf. gym, swimming pools, spa, driveways, decks, landscape, water features, hardscape, grading, retaining walls, and onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), including Lot Merger (LM) No. 24-002 to consolidate two existing parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) (4459-013-021 and 4459-014-018) into one parcel, and Certificate of Compliance (COC) No. 21-004 to recognize the combined parcel, located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) Zoning District at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (PAR PCH, 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 is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CDP No. 19-012, LM No. 24-002, and COC No. 21-004, an application for the construction of a City Council Meeting
08-19-26
Item

1.A.
1

Page 2 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
one-story residence and other associated development. The appellant, Jun Hall for Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc., filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the project. The appellant resides south of the subject parcels.

Project Background
This project was scheduled for review by the Planning Commission several times from 2024 to 2026. The project was scheduled for hearing on May 20, 2024, and continued to a date uncertain. The project was scheduled for hearing on July 21, 2025, and the meeting was cancelled and continued to August 18, 2025. On August 18, 2025, the project was continued to a date uncertain. The project was scheduled for hearing on December 16, 2025, and continued to January 20, 2026 prior to opening the public hearing. The project was heard on January 20, 2026 and continued to February 17, 2026 for the applicant to make changes to the project. Ultimately, the project was approved at the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. All staff reports for hearings held on this item are available at malibucity.org/agendacenter.
1 The video for the hearing regarding the
Commission’s deliberation is available here – Planning Commission February 17, 2026 meeting.

Planning Commission Hearing on January 20, 2026
At its January 20, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission deliberated on the Project, including a discussion of the impacts of the Project on public bluewater views from PCH and the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) requirements to minimize impacts on views from public scenic areas. The Planning Commission continued the item to February 17, 2026, to provide time for the applicant to consider revising the project to further preserve public bluewater views over the subject parcel from PCH.

Planning Commission Hearing on February 17, 2026
At its February 17, 2026 meeting, the Planning Commission deliberated on a revised project that (1) reduced the maximum height elevation of portions of the residence by two feet by lowering the building pad and (2) eliminated a proposed guest house from the design. The Planning Commission received testimony from the public, including the project appellant. The revised project was approved on a 3-2 vote, with the addition of the following conditions to ensure public view protection and address potential adverse effects from grading and earthwork2:
1 The previously published agenda reports for February 17, 2026, January 20, 2026, December 16, 2025, August 18, 2025, and July 21, 2025, are available online in the Agenda Center (https://www.malibucity.org/agendacenter) also in OnBase (malibucity.org/OnBase). 2 The conditions of approval are listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05 (Exhibit C). 2

Page 3 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

PC Condition 35: The development shall not block views of the horizon line of the Pacific Ocean nor views of the western Santa Monica Bay as seen by travelers going westbound, also known as northbound, along Pacific Coast Highway.

PC Condition 36: The applicant shall incorporate vibration monitoring during construction of the proposed residence if such testing is determined to be beneficial by the City.

PC Condition 150: Any future improvements to the single-family residence and related development authorized by this shall require an additional coastal development permit.

After review by the City Attorney, staff recommends that Planning Commission Condition 150 be revised to avoid conflict with other laws in the event future development is proposed that would be exempt from a CDP (e.g., structure destroyed by a natural disaster). The recommended revised condition is as follows, and has been included in the Resolution (Exhibit A):

Condition 150: Any future improvements to the single-family residence and related development approved under this permit that modify height or mass shall require a CDP.

Project Overview
The subject parcels are vacant and would be 6.36 acres in size once merged (east parcel is APN 4459-014-018 and west parcel is APN 4459-013-021). The parcels are located at the top of a terraced slope on the south side of PCH, north and east of Bayshore Drive, north of Malibu Road, and west of Puerco Canyon Road (Figure 1). The terraced slope is a result of prior grading on the property. The parcels are within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map and confirmed per the definition of Appealable Coastal Development Permit in LIP Section 2.1.
3

Page 4 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

Figure 1 – Project Site and Vicinity Map
Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2026
The parcels are in an area primarily developed with one-story and two-story single-family residences and similarly zoned RR-2 between Malibu Road and PCH. The parcels are bordered on the south, west, and east by single-family residences, and to the north by PCH. North of PCH is comprised of public open space and single-family residences are located to the northeast in the RR-5 zone. A small flag segment of the east parcel is adjacent to Malibu Road.

The applicant has requested a Lot Merger (LM) to consolidate the two parcels into one and a Conditional Certificate of Compliance (COC) to recognize the merged parcel as one. A COC is being processed with the CDP to legalize the single parcel pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act.

The project consists of the construction of a one-story, flat-roofed single-family residence with a gym, basement, subterranean garage, active outdoor spaces (i.e., outdoor kitchen and other rooms, pools/spas, and decks), retaining and freestanding walls, driveways, fences, parking, hardscape, landscape, and an OWTS. The residential development is framed by a permeable driveway and fire access along the northern border of the project site, parallel to PCH, that leads to a subterranean garage and outdoor parking area on the

SUBJECT PARCELS
(to be merged)
APN 4459-014-018 APN 4459-013-021
Puerco Cyn. Rd.
4

Page 5 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
east end of the project site, and a southern grasscrete fire access driveway connecting with the northern driveway on the east.

The merged parcel is a narrow, irregularly shaped lot with 1,692 feet (ft.) of linear frontage along PCH. An earthen berm constructed by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is located along most of the north side of the merged parcel bordering PCH.

Approximately two-thirds of the merged parcel contains slopes flatter than 4 to 1 (25 percent). However, a jurisdictional stream with slopes ranging from 2.5 to 1 (40 percent) to 1 to 1 is in the eastern area of the merged parcel. Slopes with a gradient of 1 to 1 or less are located south of the project site.

The LCP Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Overlay Map delineates a blueline stream within the parcel boundaries. A site-specific biological assessment was prepared for the merged parcel and confirmed most of the vegetation on the project site has been disturbed, except for vegetation in the stream. The proposed development is intentionally sited on the west of the merged parcel and away from the stream. This allows the proposed development, including the required fuel modification area, to be located outside the ESHA stream and 100 ft. ESHA buffer on the east end of the merged parcel.

As such, the ESHA development standards required in LIP Section 4.6 do not apply because no development would occur within the ESHA or 100 ft. ESHA buffer.

The proposed development would be visible from PCH, which is a designated scenic road in the LCP Land Use Plan (LUP). Despite various design revisions to the project to reduce and/or eliminate public bluewater view impacts from PCH, the project would still result in some disruption of public views across the project site due to portions of the residence and gym that would extend above the PCH road grade elevation. As required by LIP Section 6.5(E)(2), a public view corridor must be provided onsite equivalent to a minimum of 20 percent (339 ft.) of the merged parcel’s street frontage on PCH (1,692 ft.). The applicant has proposed a public view corridor of 31 percent (525 ft.) on the easterly portion of the merged parcel in the area containing ESHA, 100 ft. ESHA buffer, and jurisdictional drainage, exceeding the LIP’s minimum width by 186 ft. Note that by eliminating the proposed guest house from the west portion of the merged parcel, approximately 500 linear ft. of additional area would be available for public views of the ocean from PCH, although not contiguous or part of the designated public view corridor.

As designed, the project does not include any discretionary requests for relief from development standards. The project plans approved by the Planning Commission in February 2026 are included as Exhibit D. The proposed site plan is shown in Figure 2 - an overall site plan followed by a detailed site plan.
5

Page 6 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

Figure 2 – Project Site Plans
PCH
Deck (Former
Guest House)
Gym Main Residence
Fire Access Driveways
Septic
System
6

Page 7 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The appellant, Jun Hall for Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc., filed an appeal on February 27, 2026 (Exhibit B). According to information contained in the appeal application, Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road is an organization in the City’s Malibu Beach neighborhood that is directly south and downslope from the merged parcel in the Multi-Family Beachfront (MFBF) zone. Jun Hall provided written testimony and other members of Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc. provided written and oral testimony during the public hearing before the Planning Commission. In the appeal, the appellant contends that the findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence and that the decision is not supported by the findings, as well as that the decision was contrary to law.

In particular, the appellant states that the following are unsupported by evidence:

Appeal Claim 1: The Planning Commission’s findings for issuance of a CDP in LIP Sections 13.9 identified as Findings A.2 and A.3 (in Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05); and the Planning Commission findings relating to scenic and visual resources in LIP Section

6.4(A), identified as Findings B.1 and B.2;
Appeal Claim 2: The Planning Commission’s findings relating to hazards in LIP Section 9.3(A), identified as Findings C.1, C.2, C.5, and C.6; Appeal Claim 3: The Planning Commission’s findings relating to blufftop development in LIP Section 9.3(A), generally;
Appeal Claim 4: The Planning Commission’s findings relating to land divisions in LIP Section 15.2, identified as Findings D.1, D.2, and D.3; and Appeal Claim 5: The Planning Commission’s findings relating to the use of a Class 3 exemption pursuant to CEQA.

The specific appellant claims are summarized below in italics. The full text of the appeal claims can be found in Exhibit B. A response by the Planning Division is provided following each of the appellant’s claims below.

Appeal Item 1. The Planning Commission’s approval of findings A.2 and A.3 (LIP Chapter

13. Coastal Development Permits), and B.1 and B.2 (LIP Chapter 6. Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance) in Commission Resolution No. 26-05 is unsupported by substantial evidence and the Commission’s decision was contrary to law.

The Commission’s deliberations on public view impacts focused on the westbound scenic view of Point Dume and the west end of Santa Monica Bay, not Catalina Island, the Palos Verdes Peninsula, and the Pacific horizon line abutting these natural scenes. Public views of these landmarks are entirely obscured by the project.

The project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative, and there is no substantial evidence to support that there are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and 7

Page 8 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
visual resources. The applicant’s choices to lower the building pad elevation and eliminate the proposed guest house, and the Commission’s Condition of Approval No. 35, fail to mitigate such impacts.

Resolution No. 26-05 and the Commission staff report only analyzed, and determined infeasible, alternatives such as clustering development, relocation of buildings, or substantial slope grading that would set the buildings fully below the PCH grade. Although potential reduction in the total development square footage (TDSF) was considered by the Commission and in the staff report, it was concluded that, even if producing less impact, it would still produce some level of adverse impact (such as reducing but not eliminating the loss of views). However, Section 6.4(A)(4) of the LIP requires that there be, “no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.” Even if adverse impacts cannot be eliminated entirely, it is possible to substantially reduce such impacts through a smaller project size. The Commission ignores the reality of LIP Section 6.4((B) that the project “shall be modified, by special condition, relative to height size, design, or location on the site…to avoid or minimize the adverse scenic impacts of the proposed development.” LIP Section 6.4(B) not only gives the City the express authority to reduce the project’s height and size but mandates it. The City can – and must – require that the project’s footprint is further reduced in a manner that is most protective of Malibu’s scenic and visual resources.

The City could allow the project to retain a TDSF the same or similar as that proposed, but with a condition that further reduces maximum building height. It would not require lowering the building pad further or additional grading or slope encroachment, would not change building locations on the narrow lot, and would not impede designated ESHA or ESHA buffer. Neither this alternative, nor an alternative that would keep the lots separate, were ever meaningfully analyzed in the staff reports or by the Commission.

Staff Response – Appeal Item 1
LIP Section 13.9 requires four findings be made to issue a CDP. The second and third findings referenced in the appeal state:

LIP Section 13.9(B): If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

LIP Section 13.9(C): The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

LIP Section 6.4(A) requires five findings be made for projects that are located along, within, or provide views to or are visible from any scenic area, scenic road, or public viewing area.

The first and second findings referenced in the appeal state:
8

Page 9 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

LIP Section 6.4(A)(1): The project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

LIP Section 6.4(A)(2): The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

Ø Response to Findings A.2 (LIP 13.9(B)), A.3 (LIP 13.9(C)), B.1 (LIP 6.4(A)(1)), and B.2 (LIP 6.4(A)(2)) Claims:

In evaluating alternatives to the project that are the least environmentally damaging, many alternatives were evaluated, including the following factors: biological resources and ESHA, grading and slopes, public scenic views, and site design and location.

The proposed project is sited to avoid impacts to ESHA, ESHA buffer, and sensitive biological resources within a jurisdictional stream on the east portion of the merged parcel, 320 feet from ESHA at its closest point. Since the project will not affect the ESHA or the 100 ft. ESHA buffer, including the required fuel modification, the project complies with LIP Section 4.6.1 to provide vegetation buffers from habitat to new development, and no impacts to biological resources would occur. LIP Section 4.6.4(C) states that the protection of ESHA and public access shall take priority over other development standards and where there is any conflict between general development standards and ESHA and/or public access protection, the standards that are most protective of ESHA and public access shall take precedence. As such the project is sited in its location specifically to avoid ESHA which is the most protected coastal resource identified in the LCP.

To minimize grading to the maximum extent feasible (including environmentally damaging impacts to the hillside), the development is proposed to be sited on the flattest area of the parcel which is generally in the center of the parcel. The project site is relatively flat, consisting mostly of a 4 to 1 slope with a few areas between 4 to 1 to 3 to 1 that are less than 30 percent grade. Other portions of the parcel have steeper slopes (up to 1 to 1). Due to their steepness, these areas were avoided for development.

8.3(E) (Design of Grading), the grading will conform to the natural topography and landforms. There are no less environmentally damaging alternatives to the grading proposed for the project.
9

Page 10 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

Coupled with the design that protects ESHA and significant landform alteration, scenic and visual resource would be protected by lowering portions of the building pad for portions of the residence and removing a proposed detached guest house. Lowering portions of the building pad would necessitate additional grading and impacts to the hillside. The guest house was removed per the Planning Commission’s request, which reduces the amount of grading required. The revised project complies with the grading requirements of LIP Chapter 8 (Grading), including the requirements of Section 8.3 (Development Standards).

LIP Section 6.5(E)(1) requires that where the topography of a project site along the ocean side of PCH descends from the roadway, new development shall be sited and designed to preserve bluewater ocean views over the approved structures. LIP Section 6.5(E)(2) further states that where the topography of the project site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade, new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site. As described further below, it is infeasible to site the project completely below road grade while avoiding significant landform alteration. As a result, and as required by LIP Section 6.5(E)(2), a public view corridor must be provided onsite equivalent to a minimum of 20 percent (339 ft.) of the merged parcel’s street frontage on PCH (1,692 ft.). The applicant has proposed a public view corridor of 31 percent (525 ft.) on the easterly portion of the parcel in the area containing ESHA and an ESHA buffer. The extended public view corridor exceeds the LIP’s minimum width by 11 percent (186 ft.). As designed and conditioned, the project would exceed the minimum public view corridor requirements of LIP Section 6.5(E)(2).

To eliminate all obstructions to public bluewater views, the buildings would need to be lowered to a height that is below the PCH road grade and the adjacent Caltrans earthen berms. That is, the buildings would need to be below approximately three to seven feet in most areas, although could be higher at the eastern end of the project site, where there is up to a 21-foot difference between the development surface and the roadway/berm grade for a small segment. This small segment would be inadequate to site the full building.

The building heights have been reduced twice. As revised, the tallest building heights range from 15 ft., 7 in. to 16 ft., 10 in., while some building portions are as low as 10 ft, 2 in., from the lower of existing/finished grade. Since PCH and the Caltrans berms are at a higher elevation than the project site, approximately 3 ft., 3 in. to 6 ft., 5 in. of building height would encroach into the public’s bluewater view from the PCH road grade, with the remainder of the parcel open to public views.

Page 11 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
the lowered building pad which could not be fully accommodated within the property limits, unless it is expected that the house be subterranean with little access to light and air. To provide light and air in this potential design, which would require substantially more earthwork, the steep hillside would need to be cut, triggering the need for a variance on steep slopes. This alternate design would also likely be considered inconsistent with the LIP (LIP Section 8.3) and MMC standards and policies for minimizing the alteration of landforms. LIP Section 8.3(E) states that grading shall be designed to minimize the alteration of landforms by ensuring that graded slopes blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding area and conform to natural topography.

Alternatives were analyzed and it was determined that there are no other feasible locations on the parcel to accommodate the proposed development that would entirely avoid scenic and visual impacts to public views without encroaching into ESHA and ESHA buffer and/or substantially increasing grading and variances. Amongst the alternatives considered are:
- The applicant considered reconfiguring all buildings on the eastern portion of the project site (i.e., the area of the eastern part of the main residence), where the PCH grade and/or berms are highest and provide the most screening for the development (up to a 21-ft. difference between the project site and PCH grade/berms). However, because the project site is narrow and the area where there is the most potential screening is limited, locating all development in this area is infeasible if an economically viable use is to be provided.
- Another option of locating development in the eastern portion of the property (beyond the proposed project site), which is wider, would result in encroachment into the ESHA, ESHA buffer, and jurisdictional drainage area, and would require grading of steep slopes (over 30 percent), and shifting fuel modification zones offsite, which would be inconsistent with LIP Chapters 4 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) and 8 (Grading) for the protection of ESHA and biological habitat and for grading. The LCP prioritizes the protection of ESHA over other coastal resources, including scenic and visual resources, whereby a proposed development has incorporated design revisions to minimize and/or avoid impacts to the maximum extent feasible so long as the protection of ESHA is maintained.

The total development square footage (TDSF) was reduced from 11,121 sf. to 10,656 sf. with the removal of the guest house. This is below the maximum allowed TDSF for the parcel of 11,172 sf. Of the 6.36-acre parcel (277,041 sf.), the proposed TDSF represents a development area of approximately 3.8 percent of the parcel’s lot size. Reducing the TDSF further would not alone result in a project that further decreases intrusions into bluewater views from PCH as it is the height of the structure, not the size, that affects the bluewater water view. A lower TDSF would not result in a less environmentally damaging project in this case.
11

Page 12 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

The following revisions were made by the applicant and approved by the Planning Commission on February 17, 2026, to reduce and/or avoid the project’s impact on public bluewater views from PCH.
· Residence Height Lowered: Applicant lowered the building pad by 2 ft. in the communal areas (outdoor kitchen, kitchen, family room, living room, dining room, and beneath the subterranean areas).
· Guest House Removed: Applicant removed a proposed 10 ft. tall, 465 sf. detached guest house in the west portion of the project site which eliminated public view impacts across this area of the parcel.
· Wall Height Reduced: Applicant reduced the height of walls near the previously proposed guest house at the west end of the project site from a maximum of 10 ft, 3 in. to 6 ft. As revised, no walls extend into the public’s view.

Figure 3 – Proposed View Corridor
By eliminating the proposed guest house from the west portion of the merged parcel, approximately 500 linear ft. of additional area would be available for public views of the ocean from PCH. Additionally, fencing along the front yard near PCH would be 42 in. tall (Guest House
since removed)
12

Page 13 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
and view permeable, and not visible from PCH. The project has been conditioned so that landscaping would not block public views from PCH.

At the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing, Condition No. 35 was added that prohibits the development from blocking views of the horizon line of the Pacific Ocean and views of the western Santa Monica Bay as seen by travelers going westbound (considered northbound to many) along PCH. As such, overall views of the Pacific Ocean are protected.

Additionally, the area of western Santa Monica Bay was specifically identified, as it is understood to represent the most important views over the subject parcel, with the backdrop of the ocean shoreline and Point Dume. The condition was added by the Planning Commission as a protective measure to ensure no significant adverse view impacts would occur but does not change the project design. Therefore, LIP Section

6.4(B), which addresses conditions necessary to make the project conform with the LCP and stipulates that mitigation shall not be permitted to substitute for implementation of a feasible project alternative that would lessen or avoid impacts to scenic and visual resources, does not apply.

As revised and conditioned, the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging alternative in accordance with all the requirements of the LCP. There are no feasible alternatives to the development that would further avoid or substantially lessen impacts on coastal resources. The potential alternatives explored are either infeasible or would create further environmental impacts and/or be inconsistent with the LIP. The project, as proposed and conditioned, will have bluewater impacts to some extent, but will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The last finding of LIP Section 6.4(A) states, “Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse scenic and visual impacts but will eliminate or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.” The project protects ESHA and ESHA buffer and minimizes impacts to landform alteration and scenic and visual resources.

Appeal Item 2. The Planning Commission’s approval of findings C.1, C.2, C.5, and C.6 regarding geological hazards (LIP Chapter 9. Hazards) in Resolution No. 26-05 is unsupported by substantial evidence and the Commission’s decision was contrary to law.

The Commission violated LIP Sections 13.9 (Chapter 13. Coastal Development Permits – required findings) and 9.3 (Chapter 9. Hazards – required findings) as the project as proposed or as conditioned is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. The findings state that the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative and that it will not have any significant adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project design, location, modifications, landscaping, and other conditions. The findings also state that there are not preferable feasible project alternatives to improve site stability or structural integrity beyond that of the proposed project.

The applicant’s geotechnical analyses relied on a factor of safety of 1.5 and assumed soldier pile locations as a stabilization technique that have since been materially altered 13

Page 14 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
and shifted north, thereby leaving critically important slide zones without any kind of support or stabilization. The February 14, 2023, City Geotechnical Review noted that the revised soldier pile locations were not acceptable from a geotechnical perspective and potentially required revised slope stability analyses. Hence, the project does not demonstrate that it would not impact site stability or structural integrity and the project threatens to induce downslope failures directly toward adjacent properties on Malibu Road and Bayshore Drive. The applicant should recalculate and the City review new analyses and studies that calculate geologic stability based on this material alteration of the project’s stabilization system now. The project was approved without this recalculation, with the City geotechnical consultant reviewers indicating in the April 11, 2023 City Geotechnical Review Sheet that the applicant shall recalculate the slope stability analysis for the revised soldier pile locations during the project plan check stage.

Staff Response
While the original project design showed proposed soldier piles and tiebacks on the slope just below the project site, the structural design was revised in 2023 and the soldier piles and tiebacks were relocated to be within the project site, which is northerly and upslope of the prior location. The factors of safety (FOS) were calculated for the original location on the slope and found to meet the requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D) (1.5 static and 1.1 pseudostatic), and the City’s 2013 updated methodology of computing the seismic FOS (1.0). The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers noted that relocating the soldier piles further upslope and into the project site would result in less load that must be retained than the increased loads further downslope. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers approved the project for consistency with the LCP and from a feasibility of development standpoint. During Building Safety plan check, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers will further account for constructability of the project and further assess slope stability. This includes ensuring the project is designed for worst case design assumptions (e.g., lowest shear strength, highest groundwater level, etc.). Further, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers will require that testing be conducted during the initial construction stage by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer to confirm stabilization before the project site can be developed with structures.

The project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the project site and offsite parcels from geologic or flood hazards. The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed. 14

Page 15 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

Moreover, there are no feasible project alternatives to improve site stability or structural integrity beyond that of the proposed project. The development will be located on the flattest portion of the parcel outside of steep slopes and will not be located within a flood hazard area. Retaining walls are consistent with the maximum 6 ft. height requirement.

Appeal Item 3. The Planning Commission’s approval of Resolution No. 26-05 is not supported by the findings, as the Commission failed to make any findings under LIP Chapter 10 (Shoreline and Bluff Development Ordinance) for new blufftop development and the Commission’s decision was contrary to law. The subject property exactly fits the LIP definition for a coastal bluff, as it is on a site that is very steep in vertical extent with a rounded cliff face overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Therefore, findings must be made regarding the development standards and other requirements of LIP Chapter 10. The applicant indicated that other homes located closer to the shoreline than the project have previously not been found to be bluff projects. The applicant’s reliance on homes closer to the shoreline is irrelevant, as those homes were all found to be at lower elevations than the project site.

Staff Response
LIP Chapter 2 (Definitions) provides multiple definitions related to bluffs, including:

BLUFF EDGE - For coastal and canyon bluffs, the bluff edge shall be defined as the upper termination of a bluff, cliff, or seacliff. In cases where the top edge of the cliff is rounded away from the face of the cliff as a result of erosional processes related to the presence of the steep cliff, the bluff edge shall be defined as that point nearest the cliff beyond which the downward gradient of the surface increases more or less continuously until it reaches the general gradient of the cliff. In a case where there is a steplike feature at the top of the cliff face, the landward edge of the topmost riser shall be taken to be the bluff edge. Where a coastal bluff curves landward to become a canyon bluff, the termini of the coastal bluff edge, shall be defined as a point reached by bisecting the angle formed by a line coinciding with the general trend of the coastal bluff line along the seaward face of the bluff, and a line coinciding with the general trend of the bluff line along the canyon facing portion of the bluff. Five hundred feet (500′) shall be the minimum length of bluff line or edge to be used in making these determinations.

CLIFF - any high, very steep to perpendicular or overhanging face of rock, a precipice.

Page 16 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

COASTAL BLUFF - a high bank or bold headland, ten feet (10′) or more in vertical extent, with a broad, precipitous, sometimes rounded cliff face overlooking a body of water.

Considering both “cliff” and “coastal bluff” definitions, a coastal bluff is characterized as a precipice or precipitous, both conveying steepness. Consistent with MMC Section

17.40.040(A)(6)(e), a 1:1 slope (45 degrees or 100 percent slope) is considered to be attributable to a bluff. The slope along the southern edge of the subject parcel has a maximum slope of 1.35:1 (36.5 degrees or 74 percent slope), which would not be classified as a bluff pursuant to the MMC.

The Post-LCP Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map delineates the subject parcel as partially within two CCC appeal zones due to the distance from a beach and stream, but specifically not a coastal bluff. The southern edge of the parcel’s west side is within 300 ft. from the beach, and the eastern end of the parcel is within 100 ft. from a stream. Some parcels are identified as appealable to the CCC due to being identified as a coastal bluff.

However, as the Post-LCP Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map does not identify a coastal bluff on or within the vicinity of the subject parcel, and the slope below the subject parcel is not precipitous, nor subject to wave action, does not meet the definitions of a bluff in either the LCP or MMC definitions and thus it has been determined that project site is not considered a bluff, let alone a coastal bluff. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers have concurred with this determination. Therefore, no further analyses or findings for coastal bluffs in LIP Chapter 10 (Shoreline and Bluff Development Ordinance) are required, and development standards applicable to coastal bluffs do not apply to the project.

Appeal Item 4. The Planning Commission’s approval of findings D.1, D.2, and D.3 (LIP Chapter 15. Land Division) in Resolution No. 26-05 is unsupported by substantial evidence and the Commission’s decision was contrary to law. The finding that the project, as conditioned, is safe from flooding, erosion, geologic, and extreme fire hazards is unsupported for the reasons stated in Appeal Item 2 above. The finding that the project site enables impacts to visual resources, including bluewater views, to be minimized to the extent feasible and that the lot merger is consistent with all policies and standards of the LCP that protect ESHA or visual resources of the coastal zone are also unsupported for the reasons stated in Appeal Item #1. The project failed to adequately analyze the development alternative of keeping the two lots separate and denying the lot merger.

Smaller lots have the potential to allow smaller, safer homes on each parcel, reduced grading and stabilization demands, greater open space retention, and greater preservation of bluewater views, and greater escape or egress during an emergency.

Staff Response
The appellant suggests that the property be kept as two separate parcels, claiming that allowing for one residential development per parcel would reduce impacts to public 16

Page 17 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
bluewater views and other coastal resources. However, two lots could result in more density and disruptions to the ESHA on the eastern lot. This project was designed to minimize impacts on coastal resources. It also meets the requirements for a lot merger.

The project is consistent with LUP Chapter 5 (New Development), Section C. “Land Use Policies, Item 8 Land Division.” LUP Policy 5.33 defines land divisions as including lot mergers. LUP Policy 5.37 reads:

Land Divisions shall be designed to cluster development, including building pads, if any, in order to minimize site disturbance, landform alteration, and removal of native vegetation, to minimize fuel modification, and to maximize open space.

The claim that development of two residences, one on each parcel, is preferable environmentally or otherwise, is speculative and unsupported by evidence since the specific design of each residence and development site is unknown. It is possible that two residences could result in more impacts to public bluewater views, geologic issues, grading and slope stabilization, less open space, and the same or less effective emergency evacuation, and would require two onsite wastewater treatment systems.

Once the parcels are merged, the development of one residence clustered on the merged parcel would allow a design that avoids various development constraints, such as steep slopes. It also allows development to be sited in an area to protect priority coastal resources (ESHA) to the maximum extent available, while minimizing impacts to other coastal resources such as scenic and visual resources and landform alteration. Should development occur on both parcels, it is anticipated that development on the eastern parcel would result in encroachment into ESHA, ESHA buffer, and steep slopes.

As listed in LIP Section 15.4.1(B), the LM must be consistent with any policy or standard of the LCP that protects ESHA and/or visual resources of the coastal zone (Findings D.1, D.2, and D.3 referenced by the appellant). As described above in the staff response to Appeal Item 1, the findings for LIP Chapter 6 (Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance) can be supported as the project prioritizes protection of ESHA above all other coastal resources, and as revised in its design, the project would be consistent with the scenic and visual resource requirements to the maximum extent feasible. The subject parcel was determined to accommodate development, including fuel modification, outside of the ESHA and ESHA buffer. Fuel modification Zone C, which is 200 feet east of the main residence, would terminate 20 feet from the ESHA buffer at its nearest point. Therefore, the main residence is 220 feet from the required 100 ft. ESHA buffer and 320 feet from ESHA at its closest point.

As described in the staff response to Appeal Item 2, the project is considered the least environmentally damaging alternative from a geologic/geotechnical hazard standpoint, and the findings for LIP Chapter 9 (Hazards) can be supported. The City geotechnical 17

Page 18 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
consultant reviewers have approved the project, with recommendations and conditions to be implemented in final design during building plan check and construction. The proposed project site provides for development that avoids any work within slopes steeper than 3.3 to 1 (30 percent). The project site can accommodate adequate roads for fire access and, as conditioned, development is safe from flooding, erosion, geologic, and extreme fire hazards. The project site is served by adequate public services and can accommodate an OWTS. Development of the subject parcel can occur in a manner that minimizes grading and alteration of natural landforms, and that will be landscaped with native species to minimize erosion. Clustering of development can be accommodated on the center to westerly half of the parcel to minimize site disturbance and maximize open space on the eastern side of the parcel within ESHA, the jurisdictional drainage, and steep slopes.

Appeal Item 5. The Planning Commission’s decision was contrary to law because the Commission approved a legally unsupported exemption of the project from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA is inappropriate. The project’s TDSF renders it completely outside the scope of the Class 3 exemption. An analysis of the unusual circumstances exception, as well as the location exception and the scenic highways exception, preclude the project’s reliance on Class 3.

The project’s massive size and unstable landslide location constitute unusual circumstances that distinguish it from other projects that have relied upon its exemption.

Staff and the project geotechnical engineer have stated that the applicant’s slope stability improvements help the project meet the appropriate factor of safety threshold. These improvements are mitigation measures constituting conditions of approval that are imposed to mitigate the significant effects and make the project quality for an exemption.

This is contrary to the language that exemptions should be provided to projects that are “determined to not have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300). Mitigation measures cannot be the basis for a categorical exemption and must instead be evaluated through proper environmental review. The location exception and scenic highways exception apply. The project is located in an environmentally sensitive area in which public views, as environmental resources of public importance, will be impacted by the project. PCH has been designated in the LUP as a protected scenic road and will face significant adverse impacts to public bluewater views.

Staff Response
The project was determined to qualify for a CEQA Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CE) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a), which reads in part:

Class 3 consists of construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure. The numbers of structures described in this section are the 18

Page 19 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
maximum allowable on any legal parcel. Examples of this exemption include but are not limited to:
(a) One single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences may be constructed or converted under this exemption.
…
(e) Accessory (appurtenant) structures including garages, carports, patios, swimming pools, and fences.

The project consists of one single-family residence in a residential zone. The Class 3 CE does not define the size of a residence, nor does it impose a size limit and has been used by hundreds of single-family residential development projects within Malibu’s history where there is no significant environmental impact. There are no unusual circumstances or a reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect, and none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, which would render CE 15303(a) inapplicable, as listed below, were found to apply.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 reads:
(a) Location. Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located--a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact on the environment may in a particularly sensitive environment be significant. Therefore, these classes are considered to apply in all instances, except where the project may impact on an environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern where designated, precisely mapped, and officially adopted pursuant to law by federal, state, or local agencies. (b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. (d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, within a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR.
(e) Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code.
19

Page 20 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.
(f) Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The only item listed above that could even be considered is subsection (d) of the above.

All the other criteria are inapplicable, including subsection (c) which was evaluated by the substantial evidence listed earlier. The project would not result in significant adverse scenic resource impacts per the discussion of Finding B.1 in Appeal Item No. 1. The project, along with any other project in the City where applicable, is required to implement the design and view criteria in LIP Section 6.5(E)(2) to protect scenic and visual resources.

As the development is proposed on a parcel identified in the General Plan and LCP for residential use and would be limited to one single-family residence, there would be no cumulative impacts from the development. The parcel is not a hazardous waste site and the parcel does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, a historical resource.

While portions of public bluewater views over the parcel would be obstructed, other portions of the parcel would have no view obstruction, including the western end of the parcel and within a 31 percent designed view corridor on the eastern part of the parcel. As outlined in staff’s response to Appeal Item 1, the project is consistent with LIP Chapter 6 (Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance) and identified impacts to public scenic views were avoided and/or minimized by design revisions and conditions.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the CEQA, the Planning Division and Planning Commission 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).

Should the City Council choose to uphold the appeal 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: Correspondence submitted through the January 2026 meeting are attached to previous agenda reports. The applicant’s response to the appeal is attached hereto as Exhibit E and correspondence submitted for the February 17, 2026 meeting are attached hereto as Exhibit F.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On July 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 ft. of the subject parcel (Exhibit G).
20

Page 21 of 21 ends

Agenda Item # 1.A.

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.

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 26-55
B. Appeal No. 26-007
C. Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05
D. Project Plans Approved by Planning Commission
E. Applicant’s Response to Appeal
F. Correspondence
G. Notice of Public Hearing
The previously published agenda reports for February 17, 2026, January 20, 2026, December 16, 2025, August 18, 2025, and July 21, 2025, are available online in the Agenda Center (https://www.malibucity.org/agendacenter). All meeting materials including staff reports, correspondence, and presentations are available in OnBase (malibucity.org/onbase).
21 Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 26-55

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, DENYING APPEAL NO. 26-007, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
NO. 19-012 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 9,219 SQUARE FOOT, ONE-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING A 1,000 SQUARE-FOOT
SUBTERRANEAN TWO-CAR GARAGE, 1,523 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 676 SQUARE FOOT GYM, SWIMMING POOLS, SPA, DRIVEWAYS, DECKS,

LANDSCAPE, WATER FEATURES, HARDSCAPE, GRADING, RETAINING

WALLS, AND ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM,
INCLUDING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 19-009 TO RECOGNIZE AN ILLEGALLY CREATED LOT CONSISTING OF TWO ASSESSOR’S
PARCEL NUMBERS (4459-013-021 AND 4459-014-018), AND LOT MERGER NO. 24-002 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO EXISTING PARCELS INTO ONE

PARCEL, LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TWO-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 25200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (PAR PCH LLC)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On March 7, 2019, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19- 012, Certificate of Compliance (COC) No. 19-009, and Lot Merger (LM) No. 24-002 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development was submitted to the Planning Division by PAR PCH LLC for development on property identified as APNs 4459-013-021 and 4459-014- 018. 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 25, 2023, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On December 11, 2023, the application was deemed complete.

D. On April 18, 2024, the Planning Division visited the site and documented the story pole installation.

E. On April 25, 2024, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

F. In April 2024, Planning Division staff received concerns from several community members related to impacts to bluewater views and potential outdoor lighting G. On May 20, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain. 22 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 2 of 47 ends

______________________
H. On May 23, 2025, Planning Division staff visited the site and documented installation of the updated story poles.

I. On July 10, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

J. On July 21, 2025, the Planning Commission meeting was cancelled due to a lack of quorum, and a Notice of Cancellation and Notice of Continuance was issued, with the project continued to the August 18, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting.

K. On August 18, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain at the request of staff.

L. On November 20, 2025, 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 and all interested parties.

M. On December 16, 2025, the Commission continued the item to the January 20, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

N. On January 20, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, and reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record, and continued the item to the February 17, 2026, Regular Planning Commission meeting to provide time for the applicant to make project revisions to further preserve public bluewater views through the subject property from Pacific Coast Highway. The applicant offered to lower the building pad for portions of the main residence by two feet, thereby reducing the maximum height elevation of the residence, and eliminate the proposed guest house from the design.

O. On February 17, 2026, 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. 25-05 approving the project entitlements with additional conditions.

P. On February 27, 2026, Jun Hall for Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc. filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action (Appeal No. 26-007).

Q. On July 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 August 19, 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 February 17, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, public testimony, and other information in the record.
23 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 3 of 47 ends

______________________
SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission 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) – 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). PCH is not an officially designated state scenic highway in the area. This project, along with any other project in the City, is required to implement the criteria in Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 6.5(E)(2) to protect scenic and visual resources. There are no impacts to biological resources because the limits of project development, including required fuel modification activities and grading, do not encroach into identified environmentally sensitive habitat area in compliance with LIP Section 4.6.1. The project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards because the project is required to comply with the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and the City and County regulations, including compliance with development standards listed in LIP Section 9.4. The property is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 for hazardous materials and no historical resources are located on or adjacent to the property.

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

The appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence and that the Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by the findings, as well as that the decision was contrary to law. In particular, the appellant states that the following are unsupported by evidence: findings of LIP Sections 13.9(A) and 13.9(C); findings A.2 and A.3 of Resolution No. 26-05; and the Commission findings relating to scenic and visual resources (LIP Chapter 6), hazards (LIP Chapter 9), blufftop development (LIP Chapter 10), and land divisions (LIP Chapter 15).

Based on the evidence in the record, as detailed below, in the August 19, 2026, City Council agenda report, in the Planning Commission agenda reports dated July 21,2025, August 18, 2025, December 16, 2025, January 20, 2026, and February 17, 2026, 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 appeal and approving the project. The Council finds that the evidence supports the findings and is consistent with the City’s past application of the applicable provisions of the LIP.

SECTION 4. Findings Denying the Appeal.

A. Least Environmentally Damaging Alternative
The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and there is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of development beyond that of the proposed project. In evaluating alternatives to the project that are the least environmentally damaging, the following 24 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 4 of 47 ends

______________________
factors were considered: biological resources Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), grading and slopes, public scenic views, and site design and location. These findings are supported by facts in the City Council and Planning Commission staff reports and resolutions as described below.

The proposed project is sited to avoid impacts to ESHA, ESHA buffer, and sensitive biological resources within a jurisdictional stream on the east portion of the merged parcel, 320 feet from ESHA at its closest point. Since the project would not affect the ESHA or 100 ft. ESHA buffer, including the required fuel modification, the project complies with LIP Section 4.6.1 to provide vegetation buffers from habitat to new development, and no impacts to biological resources would occur. LIP Section 4.6.4(C) states that the protection of ESHA and public access shall take priority over other development standards and where there is any conflict between general development standards and ESHA and/or public access protection, the standards that are most protective of ESHA and public access shall take precedence. As such the project is sited in its location specifically to avoid ESHA which is the most protected coastal resource identified in the LCP.

Since the project will not affect the ESHA or 100 ft. ESHA buffer, including the required fuel modification, the project complies with LIP Section 4.6.1 to provide vegetation buffers from habitat to new development, and no impacts to biological resources would occur. The City’s Biological Consultant reviewed the site-specific biological assessment and conceptually approved the project for consistency with the relevant provisions of the LIP related to biological resources.

As designed and sited, the project does not require compliance with the ESHA development standards in LIP Section 4.7.1.

To minimize grading to the maximum extent feasible, proposed development will be sited on the flattest area of the parcel which is generally in the center of the parcel. The project site is relatively flat, consisting mostly of a 4 to 1 slope with a few areas between 4 to 1 to 3 to 1 that are less than 30 percent grade. Other portions of the parcel have steeper slopes up to 1 to 1. Due to their steepness, these areas were avoided for development.

The LIP allows the placement of structures on slopes 3 to 1 (33 percent) or flatter for residential development. The project is consistent with the LIP Chapter 8 (Grading Ordinance) grading standards and would not exceed the maximum quantities of non-exempt grading allowed by the LIP. The project involves 742 cubic yards of non-exempt grading, less than the maximum 1,000 cubic yards permitted. Consistent with LIP Section 8.3(E) (Design of Grading), the grading will conform to the natural topography and landforms. There are no less environmentally damaging alternatives to the grading proposed for the project.

Scenic and visual resource will be protected to the maximum extent feasible by lowering portions of the building pad for portions of the residence and removing a proposed detached guest house.

However, lowering portions of the building pad would necessitate additional grading, whereas removing the guest house would reduce the amount of grading required. As revised, the total amount of grading increased from 6,688 cubic yards (c.y.) to 10,341 c.y., while the non-exempt grading decreased from 979 c.y. to 742 c.y., which is below the 1,000 c.y. maximum allowed in LIP Section 8.3 for development on a residential parcel. The revised project complies with the grading requirements of LIP Chapter 8 (Grading), including the requirements of Section 8.3 (Development Standards).
25 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 5 of 47 ends

______________________
LIP Section 6.5(E)(1) requires that where the topography of a project site along the ocean side of PCH descends from the roadway, new development shall be sited and designed to preserve bluewater ocean views over the approved structures. LIP Section 6.5(E)(2) further states that where the topography of the project site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade, new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site. As described further below, it is infeasible to site the project completely below road grade while avoiding significant landform alteration. As a result, and as required by LIP Section 6.5(E)(2), a public view corridor must be provided onsite equivalent to a minimum of 20 percent (339 ft.) of the merged parcel’s street frontage on PCH (1,692 ft.). The applicant has proposed a public view corridor of 31 percent (525 ft.) on the easterly portion of the parcel in the area containing ESHA and an ESHA buffer. The extended public view corridor exceeds the LIP’s minimum width by 11 percent (186 ft.). As designed and conditioned, the project would exceed the minimum public view corridor requirements of LIP Section 6.5(E)(2).

The tallest building heights range from 15 ft., 7 in. to 16 ft., 10 in., while some building portions are as low as 10 ft, 2 in., from the lower of existing/finished grade. Since PCH and the Caltrans berms are at a higher elevation than the project site, approximately 3 ft., 3 in. to 6 ft., 5 in. of building height would encroach into the public’s bluewater view from the PCH road grade, with the remainder of the parcel open to public views.

Lowering building pad elevations further as a means to reducing visible building height would require substantial earthwork, resulting in non-exempt grading beyond the LIP’s maximum allowed 1,000 cubic yards (c.y.) and more retaining walls that could exceed the 6 ft. height maximum. As designed, the project does not include any discretionary requests for relief from development standards. To lower the building pad elevations with shorter retaining walls, or without walls, would require an increase in development at the edges of the lowered building pad and grading beyond the property boundaries unless it is expected that the house be subterranean with little access to light and air. To provide light and air in this potential design, which would require substantially more earthwork, the steep hillside would need to be cut, triggering the need for a variance on steep slopes. This alternate design would also likely be considered inconsistent with the LIP (LIP Section 8.3) and MMC standards and policies for minimizing the alteration of landforms. LIP Section 8.3(E) states that grading shall be designed to minimize the alteration of landforms by ensuring that graded slopes blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding area and conform to natural topography.

There are no other feasible locations on the parcel to accommodate the proposed development that would entirely avoid scenic and visual impacts to public views without encroaching into ESHA and ESHA buffer and/or substantially increasing grading. Alternatives were analyzed and it was determined that there are no other feasible locations on the parcel to accommodate the proposed development that would entirely avoid scenic and visual impacts to public views without encroaching into ESHA and ESHA buffer and/or substantially increasing grading and variances. 26 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 6 of 47 ends

______________________
The total development square footage (TDSF) was reduced from 11,121 sf. to 10,656 sf. with the removal of the guest house. This is below the maximum allowed TDSF for the parcel of 11,172 sf.

Of the 6.36-acre parcel (277,0411 sf.), the proposed TDSF represents a development area of approximately 3.8 percent of the parcel’s lot size. Reducing the TDSF further would not necessarily result in a project that further decreases intrusions into bluewater views from PCH.

This is because the amount of development captured by TDSF does not necessarily equate to building height. The proposed impermeable coverage would be 21,294 sf. and the project meet the maximum allowable impermeable coverage of 25,000 sf. pursuant to LIP Section 3.6(I)(1).

As conditioned, the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging alternative in accordance with the findings of LIP Sections 13.9(C) and 6.4(A). There are no feasible alternatives to the development that would further avoid or substantially lessen impacts to coastal resources. The potential alternatives explored are either infeasible or would create further environmental impacts and/or be inconsistent with the LIP. The project, as proposed and conditioned, will have bluewater impacts to some extent, but will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The last finding of LIP Section 6.4(A) states, “Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse scenic and visual impacts but will eliminate or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.” The project protects ESHA and ESHA buffer and minimizes impacts to landform alteration and scenic and visual resources.

B. Scenic and Visual Impacts
The project will not have a significant adverse scenic or visual impact. Through several design iterations, the project has been revised to minimize the potential for public bluewater view impacts from PCH, an LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) scenic roadway, by lowering building heights and the building pad elevation, and eliminating the 10-foot-high detached guest house. The project was originally proposed with a maximum building height of 18 feet and two stories. The applicant has reduced the number of stories to one and has lowered the building height and/or the building pad elevation multiple times to reduce potential public view impacts as seen from PCH.

Pursuant to LIP Section 6.2, the policies, standards, and provisions of the Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance apply because the project site is located along PCH, which is a designated scenic road in the LUP. The upper portions of certain building walls and roofs would be visible from PCH, with most of the development situated below the road grade and adjacent Caltrans berms. Even at the lower heights proposed, portions of the buildings extending above the road grade would block some existing public bluewater views from PCH, triggering the requirement for the public view corridor. LIP Section 6.5(E)(1) requires that where the topography of a project site along the ocean side of PCH descends from the roadway, new development shall be sited and designed to preserve bluewater ocean views over the approved structures. LIP Section

6.5(E)(2) further states that where the topography of the project site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade, new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site. As required by LIP Section 6.5(E)(2), a public view corridor must be provided onsite equivalent to a minimum of 20 percent (339 ft.) of the merged parcel’s street frontage on PCH (1,692 ft.). The applicant has proposed a public view corridor of 31 percent (525 ft.) on the easterly portion of the parcel in the area containing ESHA and an ESHA buffer. The extended public view corridor exceeds the LIP’s minimum width by 11 percent (186 ft.). As 27 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 7 of 47 ends

______________________
designed and conditioned, the project would exceed the minimum public view corridor requirements of LIP Section 6.5(E)(2).

Earlier iterations of the project application included a variance (VAR) and site plan review (SPR).

The VAR was for construction of retaining walls exceeding the maximum allowed height of six ft. for a single wall. The retaining walls were intended to accommodate a required fire lane north of and parallel to the proposed residence. To avoid the VAR request, an alternate design was incorporated into the project that realigned the driveway closer to the residence, resulting in single retaining walls that comply with the LIP’s height allowance. The SPR was for construction of freestanding walls onsite that were originally proposed to allow for a maximum height of 10 ft., 3 inches (in.). To avoid the SPR request, an alternate design was incorporated into the project that lowered the wall height, resulting in freestanding walls that comply with the LIP’s maximum 6 ft. allowance within a setback. Earlier iterations of the residence proposed taller buildings, in some cases reaching up to 18 ft. in height. The building heights have been reduced twice to improve views from PCH. The tallest building heights are at the main residence and range from 15 ft., 7 in. to 16 ft., 10 in. from the lower of existing/finished grade. The heights of other portions of the main residence are as low as 10 feet and two inches and the gym height is 12 feet. Since PCH and the adjacent Caltrans berms are at a higher elevation than the project site, approximately 3 ft., 3 in. to 6 ft., 5 in. of building height would encroach into the public’s bluewater view from the PCH road grade, with the remainder of the parcel open to public views. The retaining walls and freestanding walls will not be visible from the PCH roadway grade and would not block public bluewater views from PCH due to the lower heights incorporated into the design.

To eliminate all obstructions to public bluewater views, the proposed buildings would need to be lowered even further, to a height that is below the PCH road grade and the adjacent Caltrans berms.

These further reductions to height are considered infeasible as the building height would need to be below approximately 3 ft. to 7 ft. in most areas. To lower the building pad elevations with shorter retaining walls, or without walls, would require an increase in development at the edges of the lowered building pad, unless it is expected that the house be subterranean with little access to light and air. To provide light and air in this potential design, which would require substantially more earthwork, the steep hillside would need to be cut, triggering the need for a variance on steep slopes.

The project minimizes and substantially reduces adverse public view impacts through lowering of building heights and the building pad and therefore the amount of building protrusion above the PCH grade and Caltrans berms adjacent to the property, removal of the guest house, provision of a view corridor exceeding that required by the LIP, and compliance with the above-noted Planning Commission condition of approval. As such, impacts to public and scenic views will not be significant.

C. Geotechnical Review
While the original project design showed proposed soldier piles and tiebacks on the slope just below the project site, the structural design was revised in 2023 and the soldier piles and tiebacks were relocated to be within the project site, which is northerly and upslope of the prior location.

Page 8 of 47 ends

______________________
reviewers noted that relocating the soldier piles further upslope and into the project site would result in less load that must be retained than the increased loads further downslope. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers approved the project for consistency with the LCP and from a feasibility of development standpoint. During Building Safety plan check, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers will further account for constructability of the project and further assess slope stability. This includes ensuring the project is designed for worst case design assumptions (e.g., lowest shear strength, highest groundwater level, etc.). Further, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers will require that testing be conducted during the initial construction stage by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer to confirm stabilization before the project site can be developed with structures.

As described in the staff response to Appeal Item 1, the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. As revised and conditioned, the project is also considered the least environmentally damaging alternative from a geotechnical standpoint because soldier piles and tiebacks often require a smaller excavation footprint. Based on review of the project plans and associated project geotechnical and other reports by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site and offsite parcels related to the proposed development are not expected. The project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the project site and offsite parcels from geologic or flood hazards. The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

The soldier piles and other geotechnical slope stabilization measures to be employed will ensure the safety of the slope that is south of the subject parcel. Conditions of approval require that all recommendations contained in the geotechnical reports and conditions required by the City geotechnical review consultants are incorporated into the project. Moreover, there are no feasible project alternatives to improve site stability or structural integrity beyond that of the proposed project. The development will be located on the flattest portion of the parcel outside of steep slopes and would not be located within a flood hazard area. Retaining walls are consistent with the maximum 6 ft. height requirement.

D. Bluff Classification
Considering both “cliff” and “coastal bluff” definitions in the LIP, a coastal bluff is characterized as a precipice or precipitous, both conveying steepness. Consistent with MMC Section

17.40.040(A)(6)(e), a 1:1 slope (45 degrees or 100 percent slope) is considered to be attributable to a bluff. The slope along the southern edge of the subject parcel has a maximum slope of 1:35:1 (36.5 degrees or 74 percent slope), which would not be classified as a bluff pursuant to the MMC.

The Post-LCP Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map delineates the subject parcel as partially within two California Coastal Commission (CCC) appeal zones due to the distance from a beach and stream, but specifically not a coastal bluff. The southern edge of the parcel’s west side is within 300 ft. from the beach and the eastern end of the parcel is within 100 ft. from a stream. Some parcels are identified as appealable to the CCC due to being identified as a coastal bluff. However, as the Post-LCP Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map does not identify a coastal bluff on or within the vicinity of the subject parcel, and the slope below the subject parcel is not precipitous, nor subject to wave action, does not meet the definitions of a bluff in either the LCP or MMC 29 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 9 of 47 ends

______________________
definitions and thus it has been determined that project site is not considered a bluff, let alone a coastal bluff. Therefore, no further analyses or findings for coastal bluffs in LIP Chapter 10 (Shoreline and Bluff Development Ordinance) are required, and development standards applicable to coastal bluffs do not apply to the project.

E. Lot Merger
The project is consistent with LUP Chapter 5 (New Development), Section C. “Land Use Policies, Item 8 Land Division.” LUP Policy 5.33 defines land divisions as including lot mergers. LUP Policy 5.37 reads:

The claim that development of two residences, one on each parcel, is preferable environmentally or otherwise, is speculative since the specific design of each residence and development site is unknown. It is possible that two residences could result in more impacts to public bluewater views, geologic issues, grading and slope stabilization, less open space, and the same or less effective emergency evacuation, and would require two onsite wastewater treatment systems.

As listed in LIP Section 15.4.1(B), the LM must be consistent with any policy or standard of the LCP that protects ESHA and/or visual resources of the coastal zone (Findings D.1, D.2, and D.3 referenced by the appellant). The findings for LIP Chapter 6 (Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance) can be supported as the project prioritizes protection of ESHA above all other coastal resources, and as revised in its design, the project would be consistent with the scenic and visual resource requirements to the maximum extent feasible. The subject parcel was determined to accommodate development, including fuel modification, outside of the ESHA and ESHA buffer. Fuel modification Zone C, which is 200 feet east of the main residence, would terminate 20 feet from the ESHA buffer at its nearest point. Therefore, the main residence is 220 feet from the required 100 ft. ESHA buffer and 320 feet from ESHA at its closest point.

F. CEQA Exemption
The project qualifies for a CEQA Class 3 Categorical Exemption (CE) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a). The project consists of one single-family residence in a residential zone. The project consists of one single-family residence in a residential zone. The Class 3 CE does not define the size of a residence nor does it impose a size limit and has been used by hundreds of singlefamily residential development projects within Malibu’s history where there is no significant environmental impact. There are no unusual circumstances or a reasonable possibility of a 30 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 10 of 47 ends

______________________
significant environmental effect, and none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, which would render CE 15303(a) inapplicable, as listed below, were found to apply.

The only item listed above that could even be considered is subsection (d) of the above. All the other criteria are inapplicable, including subsection (c) which was evaluated by the substantial evidence listed earlier. The project would not result in significant adverse scenic resource impacts per the discussion of Finding B.1 in Appeal Item No. 1. The project, along with any other project in the City where applicable, is required to implement the design and view criteria in LIP Section

6.5(E)(2) to protect scenic and visual resources. As the development is proposed on a parcel identified in the General Plan and LCP for residential use and would be limited to one singlefamily residence, there would be no cumulative impacts from the development. The parcel is not a hazardous waste site and the parcel does not contain, nor is it adjacent to, a historical resource.

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 August 19, 2026 Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Reports July 21 2025, August 18, 2025, November 20, 2025, December 16, 2025, January 20, 2026, and February 17, 2026, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and City Council), and pursuant to LIP Section 13.7(B) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the MMC, the City Council makes the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 19-012 for construction of a 9,219 square-foot single-family residence, 1,000 square-foot subterranean garage, 1,523 square-foot basement, 676 square-foot gym, swimming pools and spa, driveways, decks, landscape, water features, hardscape, grading, retaining walls, and an onsite wastewater treatment system located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway.

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 COC and LM, the project has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.

SECTION 5. Findings Approving the Project.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.
31 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 11 of 47 ends

______________________
The project is in the RR-2 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses and typically developed with 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, Waterworks District 29 (WD29), and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis, and site investigation by the Planning Division, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards, inclusive of the requested COC and LM. As described further herein, the project also meets the required LIP standards for scenic and visual resource protection (LIP Chapter 8), hazards (LIP Chapter 9), and land division (LIP Chapter 15).

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

The subject property is located along PCH. There are two roadways south and downslope of the property, Bayshore Drive and Malibu Road, that are parallel to the shoreline. Since the subject property does not have access to the shoreline, the proposed development will not interfere with public access to the shoreline and along the coast. Nearby Malibu Road provides direct public access to the shoreline.

3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative and there is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of development beyond that of the proposed project. In evaluating alternatives to the project that are the least environmentally damaging, the following factors were considered: biological resources and ESHA, grading and slopes, public scenic views, and site design and location. These findings are supported by facts in the City Council and Planning Commission staff reports and resolutions as described below.

The proposed project, including required fuel modification, avoids impacts to ESHA, ESHA buffer, and sensitive biological resources within a jurisdictional drainage on the east portion of the merged parcel. Fuel modification Zone C, which is 200 feet east of the main residence, would terminate 20 feet from the ESHA buffer at its nearest point. Therefore, the main residence is 220 feet from the required 100 ft. ESHA buffer and 320 feet from ESHA at its closest point.

As designed and sited, the project does not require compliance with the ESHA development standards in LIP Section 4.7.1.

Page 12 of 47 ends

______________________
flat, consisting mostly of a 4 to 1 slope with a few areas between 4 to 1 to 3 to 1 that are less than 30 percent grade. Other portions of the parcel have steeper slopes up to 1 to 1 (100 percent). Due to their steepness, these areas were avoided for development.

Scenic and visual resource would be protected to the maximum extent feasible by lowering portions of the building pad for portions of the residence and removing a proposed detached guest house. However, lowering portions of the building pad would necessitate additional grading, whereas removing the guest house would reduce the amount of grading required. As revised, the total amount of grading increased from 6,688 cubic yard (c.y.) to 10,341 c.y., while the non-exempt grading decreased from 979 c.y. to 742 c.y., which is below the 1,000 c.y. maximum allowed in LIP Section 8.3 for development on a residential parcel. The revised project complies with the grading requirements of LIP Chapter 8 (Grading), including the requirements of Section 8.3 (Development Standards).

To eliminate all obstructions to public bluewater views, the buildings would need to be lowered even further, to a height that is below the PCH road grade and the adjacent Caltrans earthen berms.

Further reductions to height are considered infeasible as the building height would need to be no more than 3 ft. to 7 ft. in most areas. Lowering building pad elevations further would require substantial earthwork, resulting in non-exempt grading beyond the LIP’s maximum allowed 1,000 c.y. and more retaining walls that could exceed the 6 ft. height maximum. As designed, the project does not include any discretionary requests for relief from development standards. To lower the building pad elevations with shorter retaining walls, or without walls, would require an increase in development at the edges of the lowered building pad to transition to the existing grade elevations over a long distance. This alternate design would require grading on steep slopes that would exceed the LIP’s allowance for placement on structures on slopes 3 to 1 or flatter and may require grading outside of the parcel’s boundaries. It would also be inconsistent with the required COC findings for avoidance of steep slopes. This alternate design would also likely be considered inconsistent with the LIP (LIP Section 8.3) and MMC standards and policies for minimizing the alteration of landforms. LIP Section 8.3(E) states that grading shall be designed to minimize the alteration of landforms by ensuring that graded slopes blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding area and conform to natural topography.

There are no other feasible locations on the parcel to accommodate the proposed development that would entirely avoid scenic and visual impacts to public views without encroaching into ESHA and ESHA buffer and/or substantially increasing grading. The applicant considered reconfiguring all buildings on the eastern portion of the project site (i.e., the area of the eastern part of the main residence), where the PCH grade and/or berms are highest and provide the most screening for the development (up to a 21-ft. difference between the project site and PCH grade/berms). However, because the project site is narrow and the area where there is the most potential screening is limited, locating all development in this area is infeasible.
33 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 13 of 47 ends

______________________
Another option of locating development in the eastern portion of the property (beyond the proposed project site), which is wider, would result in encroachment into the ESHA, ESHA buffer, and jurisdictional drainage area, and would require grading of steep slopes (over 30 percent), and shifting fuel modification zones off-site, which would be inconsistent with LIP Chapters 4 (Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area) and 8 (Grading) for the protection of ESHA and biological habitat and for grading. The LCP prioritizes the protection of ESHA over other coastal resources, including scenic and visual resources, whereby a proposed development has incorporated design revisions to minimize and/or avoid impacts to the maximum extent feasible so long as the protection of ESHA is maintained.

As revised, the total development square footage (TDSF) was reduced from 11,121 sf. to 10,656 sf. with the removal of the guest house. This is below the maximum allowed TDSF for the parcel of 11,172 sf. Of the 6.36-acre parcel (277,0411 sf.), the proposed TDSF represents a development area of approximately 3.8 percent of the parcel’s lot size. Reducing the TDSF further would not necessarily result in a project that further decreases intrusions into bluewater views from PCH.

As conditioned, the proposed project is considered the least environmentally damaging alternative in accordance with the findings of LIP Sections 13.9(C) and 6.4(A). There are no feasible alternatives to the development that would further avoid or substantially lessen impacts to coastal resources. The potential alternatives explored are either infeasible or would create further environmental impacts and/or be inconsistent with the LIP. The project, as proposed and conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The last finding of LIP Section 6.4(A) states, “Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse scenic and visual impacts but will eliminate or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.” The project protects ESHA and ESHA buffer and minimizes impacts to landform alteration and scenic and visual resources.

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

The property is within a designated ESHA and ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. However, the project, including required fuel modification activities and grading, is over 300 feet west of the ESHA boundary. Because the project avoids any work within the ESHA and 100-foot ESHA buffer areas, no Environmental Review Board review is required.

Therefore, this finding is inapplicable.

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

1. The project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

Scenic and visual resource would be protected to the maximum extent feasible by the project. The 34 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 14 of 47 ends

______________________
project site is below the grade of the adjacent PCH roadway, the building and driveway pads average approximately one foot below grade, while in other areas of the main residence the building pad has been lowered two feet below grade, and the 10-foot-high guest house is no longer proposed to further maximize public bluewater views through the subject property from PCH. The applicant has also located the development in the least visible portion of the site where the height difference between the building pad and roadway/berms is highest, has designed a single story development of a maximum height of 16 feet, 10 inches to step down the hillside to the west, has minimized grading by not exceeding the maximum allowed non-exempt grading yards, and has designed the structures as one-story buildings with flat roofs to blend into the natural hillside setting.

The upper portions of the main residence and gym will be visible from public views from PCH and impede upon bluewater views for those areas of the subject property. The upper 3-7 feet of the main residence would protrude above PCH and the berms at the most, while some residence portions would not be visible above the PCH and berms. The gym would protrude a maximum of 2 feet and 7 inches about the PCH and berms. There will be no bluewater view impacts for the portion of the property west of the gym.

It is infeasible to further lower the project site and structures to be fully below the PCH grade.

There are no other feasible alternatives to development and no other feasible locations on the property to accommodate the proposed development that would avoid scenic and visual impacts including bluewater views. To eliminate all obstructions to public bluewater views, the buildings would need to be lowered even further, to a height that is below the PCH road grade and the adjacent Caltrans earthen berms. Further reductions to height are considered infeasible as the building height would need to be no more than 3 ft. to 7 ft. in most areas. Lowering building pad elevations further would require substantial earthwork, resulting in non-exempt grading beyond the LIP’s maximum allowed 1,000 c.y. and more retaining walls that could exceed the 6 ft. height maximum. As designed, the project does not include any discretionary requests for relief from development standards. To lower the building pad elevations with shorter retaining walls, or without walls, would require an increase in development at the edges of the lowered building pad to transition to the existing grade elevations over a long distance. This alternate design would require grading on steep slopes that would exceed the LIP’s allowance for placement on structures on slopes 3 to 1 or flatter and may require grading outside of the parcel’s boundaries. It would also be inconsistent with the required COC findings for avoidance of steep slopes. This alternate design would also likely be considered inconsistent with the LIP (LIP Section 8.3) and MMC standards and policies for minimizing the alteration of landforms. LIP Section 8.3(E) states that grading shall be designed to minimize the alteration of landforms by ensuring that graded slopes blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding area and conform to natural topography.

There are no other feasible locations on the parcel to accommodate the proposed development that would entirely avoid scenic and visual impacts to public views without encroaching into ESHA and ESHA buffer and/or substantially increasing grading. The applicant considered reconfiguring all buildings on the eastern portion of the project site (i.e., the area of the eastern part of the main residence), where the PCH grade and/or berms are highest and provide the most screening for the development (up to a 21-ft. difference between the project site and PCH grade/berms). However, because the project site is narrow and the area where there is the most potential screening is limited, locating all development in this area is infeasible.
35 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 15 of 47 ends

Consistent with LIP Section 6.5(E)(2), an onsite view corridor will be implemented as part of the project. This LIP section requires that where topography of the project site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade, new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site. While a view corridor of 20 percent of the width of the parcel is required, the project includes a 31 percent view corridor. Additionally, the portion of the parcel west of the gym would remain free of bluewater view obstructions, an area of approximately 500 feet wide.

Project materials and colors will be required to be compatible with the natural environment through conditions of approval, therefore will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Although retaining and other freestanding walls included in the project are not expected to be visible from PCH, conditions of approval would still apply to the project to ensure the retaining walls blend with the surrounding natural area. No outdoor lighting is proposed or approved as part of this project. Conditions of approval require compliance with the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance and any other applicable regulations. The Landscape Plan includes trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other plants. Native species are proposed along the edges of the development, adjacent to existing natural vegetation. The project is not expected to have adverse visual impacts due to landscaping, as conditioned. Vegetation, including trees, are required to have a maximum height at maturity to not extend above the PCH grade/Caltrans berms, and shall be maintained to ensure they do not extend above PCH and the berms. To further reduce bluewater view impacts, the development will not block views of the horizon line of the Pacific Ocean nor views of the Santa Monica Bay as seen by travelers going westbound, also known as northbound, along the PCH, as conditioned.

The project site will not result in adverse impacts from public viewing areas in the hillside above the subject property. The project site may be visible from Corral Canyon Park (1,500 feet northwest of the site), Corral Canyon Trail/Corral Canyon Loop Trail (400 feet northwest of the site), and Cameron Nature Preserve at Puerco Canyon (500 feet northeast of the site). These locations, which are upslope from the project site in the hillside above PCH, would be considered public viewing areas pursuant to LIP Chapter 6. The project consists of a one-story single-family residence and associated development with flat roofs, not to exceed a height of 16 feet, 10 inches, consistent with the LIP requirements. As described above, the buildings, walls, and driveways will be required to use earthtone colors and contain materials to blend with the natural environment and landscaping, is conditioned to prohibit the use of vegetation that will exceed the height of the existing PCH grade/Caltrans berms to protect bluewater views from PCH.

Page 16 of 47 ends

______________________
Development of the project site, as proposed and conditioned, is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to views from these public viewing areas, as it is adjacent to existing residential development and proposes a low-profile design. The conditions noted above regarding colors and materials allow the development to be visually compatible with the surrounding natural environment when viewed from above. The development is not expected to have a significant impact on ocean views from the public viewing areas, given the height of the locations in the hillsides above the project site, and that the applicant has designed the project as a series of lowprofile buildings ranging from 12 feet to a maximum of 16 feet, 10 inches in height.

Therefore, the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources from PCH, including bluewater views.

2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

The project modifications described in Finding B.1 above that are incorporated into the proposed project have reduced bluewater view impacts from PCH. Conditions described in Finding 1 above will reduce scenic and visual impacts. Therefore, the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources, including bluewater views.

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

As described in Finding A.3 above, the project, as conditioned, is the least damaging environmentally feasible alternative. The jurisdictional drainage area, areas of steep slopes, and ESHA and ESHA buffer areas on the subject property will be protected. Coastal resources, such as public scenic views, will be protected to the extent feasible, consistent with LIP Chapter 6. The required project conditions described in Finding 1 above, will further reduce scenic and visual impacts.

4. There are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

As described in Finding A.3 above, the proposed project, as conditioned, is considered the least environmentally damaging alternative in accordance with the findings of LIP Sections 13.9(C) and

6.4(A). There are no feasible alternatives to the development that would further avoid or substantially lessen impacts to coastal resources. The potential alternatives explored and addressed in Finding A.3 are either infeasible or would create further environmental impacts and/or be inconsistent with the LIP. The project, as proposed and conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

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

As described in the above Findings, the project will not have a significant adverse impact on scenic or visual resources as viewed from PCH or the public viewing areas in the hillside above PCH.

Nonetheless, the last finding of LIP Section 6.4(A) states, “Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse scenic and visual impacts but will eliminate or otherwise contribute to 37 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 17 of 47 ends

______________________
conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified LCP.” The project protects ESHA and ESHA buffer and minimizes impacts to landform alteration and scenic and visual resources.

C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

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

Based on review of the project plans and associated project geotechnical and other reports by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Environmental Health Administrator, and Public Works Department, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The project, including the OWTS, will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards.

The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed. Conditions of approval require that all recommendations contained in the above cited geotechnical reports and conditions required by the City geotechnical review consultants, City Public Works Department, and the LACFD, are incorporated into the project. The conditions include onsite drainage measures, as well as implementing improvements offsite in the public right-of-way to the existing dewatering system and making other drainage system improvements in the public right-of-way, to ensure slope stability. Stabilization methods, including but not limited to soldier piles, will ensure the safety of the slope just below the project site.

While the original project design showed proposed soldier piles and tiebacks on the slope just below the project site, the structural design was revised in 2023 and the soldier piles and tiebacks were relocated to be within the project site, which is northerly and upslope of the prior location.

The factors of safety (FOS) were calculated for the original location on the slope and found to meet the requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D) (1.5 static and 1.1 pseudostatic), and the City’s 2013 updated methodology of computing the seismic FOS (1.0). The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers indicated that the re-calculation of FOS for the revised location within the project site would be addressed in the Building Safety plan check phase, which is standard practice for all development projects in the City to reaffirm structural safety prior to building permit issuance. The City’s geotechnical consultant reviewers noted that relocating the soldier piles further upslope and into the project site would result in less load that must be retained than the increased loads further downslope. As is standard practice during the review stage for CDP applications, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers conceptually approved the project for consistency with the LCP and from a feasibility of development standpoint. During Building Safety plan check, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers will confirm constructability of the project and further assess slope stability, which is typical for review of development projects. This includes ensuring the project is designed for worst case design assumptions (e.g., lowest shear strength, highest groundwater level, etc.). Further, the City geotechnical consultant reviewers will require that testing be conducted during the initial construction stage by the applicant’s geotechnical engineer to confirm stabilization before the project site can be developed with structures.

As with all properties in the City, the subject property is currently subject to wildfire hazards and development of a residence and associated development on the subject property will not increase 38 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 18 of 47 ends

______________________
the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire. The project is not expected to have an impact on wildfire hazards. The proposed development may actually decrease the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate required building materials and measures. All required fuel modification activities will occur onsite.

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 require the project to comply with all LACFD development standards and with the approved LACFD fuel modification plan for the site. As such, the project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity pertaining to wildfire hazards.

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

As described in Finding C.1 above, the proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to project design, location, modifications, landscaping, and other conditions. Geologic-, flood-, and fire-related conditions will ensure there are no significant adverse impacts. Such conditions include those required by the project geologist/geotechnical engineer and by the City geologic consultant reviewers.

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

As discussed in Finding A.3 above, the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As revised and conditioned, the project is also considered the least environmentally damaging alternative from a geotechnical standpoint because the development will occur on the flattest portion of the property and soldier piles and tiebacks often require a smaller excavation footprint.

Based on review of the project plans and associated project geotechnical and other reports by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site and offsite parcels related to the proposed development are not expected. The soldier piles, tiebacks, and other geotechnical slope stabilization measures to be employed will ensure the safety of the slope that is south of the subject parcel. The project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the project site and offsite parcels from geologic or flood hazards. The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed. Retaining walls are consistent with the maximum 6 ft. height requirement. The project, as conditioned, will include onsite drainage measures, as well as implementing improvements offsite in the public right-of-way to the existing dewatering system and making other drainage system improvements in the public right-of-way to ensure slope stability.

Conditions of approval require that all recommendations contained in the geotechnical reports and conditions required by the City geotechnical review consultants are incorporated into the project. 39 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 19 of 47 ends

______________________
Conditions of approval will ensure project compliance with all required standards and measures to minimize hazards.

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

The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the City Building Official, City Environmental Health Administrator, and the City geotechnical consultant reviewers. These specialists determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. Proposed soldier piles, tiebacks, and other geotechnical measures are proposed to ensure the stability of the site and areas below the site.

As described in Finding C.3 above, the project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to geologic, flood, or fire hazards are anticipated. There are no feasible project alternatives that are more environmentally preferable than the proposed project. The drainage area, areas of steep slopes, and the ESHA and ESHA buffer areas onsite, as well as the stability of the slope below the project site, will be protected as part of the project through the use, in part, of soldier piles on the subject site. Soldier piles are a slope stabilization method that minimizes excavation. The development will be located on the flattest portion of the parcel outside of steep slopes and would not be located within a flood hazard area.

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

As described in Finding C.1 above, the project will not result in adverse impacts to hazards from development. Soldier piles, tiebacks, and other geotechnical measures to be employed will help stabilize the subject property and areas downslope. The use of such measures will minimize excavation on the subject property and avoid project activities in steep slopes, ESHA, and the jurisdictional drainage, and will not adversely affect coastal resources, including scenic views.

D. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)
LIP Chapter 15 states that a land division shall not be approved unless the City finds that the proposed land division meets each of the following:

1. Does not create any parcels that do not contain an identified building site that: (a) Could be developed consistent with all policies and standards of the LCP; (b) Is safe from flooding, erosion, geologic and extreme fire hazards; and (c) Is not located on slopes over 30% and will not result in grading on slopes over 30%.

The project includes a LM to combine two parcels into a single parcel. As described in the Findings in Section IV, Items A, B, and C, the parcel can be developed in accordance with the LCP. As described in Finding C.1, the parcel can be developed safe from flooding, erosion, geologic, and extreme fire hazards. The project site is within a maximum 4:1 slope (25 percent) in most areas, with a few small areas of 4:1 to 3:1 slope that are less than a 30 percent slope. 40 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 20 of 47 ends

______________________

2. Is designed to cluster development, including building pads, if any, to maximize open space and minimize site disturbance, erosion, sedimentation and required fuel modification.

By merging two parcels, development will be clustered on a single parcel. Open space will be maximized. The Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) is 10,656 square feet, less than the 11,172 sq. ft. maximum allowed. Of the 6.36-acre or 277,041 sq.-ft. property, the TDSF represents a development area of 3.8 percent of the property area. Development will be clustered in the middle and western portions of the property to minimize site disturbance and maximize open space on the east side of the property in ESHA, a jurisdictional drainage, and in steep slopes. The subject property can accommodate development, including fuel modification, outside of the ESHA and ESHA buffer. The eastern portion of the property will be preserved as open space with a 31 percent view corridor, where no development is allowed. From the proposed gym westward to the west border of the property, an approximately 500-ft. wide swath will be free of buildings. As described above in Finding D.1, the development, including grading, will avoid steep slopes. As conditioned, development is safe from flooding, erosion, geologic, and extreme fire hazards

3. Does not create any parcels where a safe, all-weather access road and driveway cannot be constructed that complies with all applicable policies of the LCP and all applicable fire safety regulations; is not located on slopes over 30% and does not result in grading on slopes over 30%.

The project includes an LACFD-approved fire access driveway surrounding the development, which will not be located on slopes over 30 percent and will not require grading on slopes over 30 percent. The fire access drive will be made of permeable surfaces, including grasscrete in portions.

4. Does not create any parcels without the legal rights that are necessary to use, improve, and/or construct an all-weather access road to the parcel from an existing, improved public road.

The fire access driveway surrounding the development will be entirely on the subject property and will connect to PCH to provide ingress and egress to the project site.

5. Is designed to minimize impacts to visual resources by complying with the following: (a) Clustering the building sites to minimize site disturbance and maximize open space; (b) Prohibiting building sites on ridgelines; (c) Minimizing the length of access roads and driveways; (d) Using shared driveways to access development on adjacent lots; (e) Reducing the maximum allowable density in steeply sloping and visually sensitive areas; (f) Minimizing grading and alteration of natural landforms, consistent with Chapter 8 of the Malibu LIP; (g) Landscaping or revegetating all cut and fill slopes and other disturbed areas at the completion of grading, consistent with Section 3.12 of the Malibu LIP; and (h) Incorporating interim seeding of graded building pad areas, if any, with native plants unless construction of approved structures commences within 30 days of the completion of grading.

As discussed in Section IV, Item B, the project has been designed to minimize visual resource impacts. The development would occur on an already graded terrace that is the flattest portion of the property, away from steep slopes and sensitive resources, and grading will be consistent with LIP Chapter 8 to minimize movement of soil and alteration of natural landforms. As described in Finding D.2, development would be clustered and open space maximized. The project is not 41 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 21 of 47 ends

______________________
located on any ridgelines. The landscape plan includes native species around the development, and conditions for revegetation and other erosion protection measures are required. The fire access driveway loop, approved by the LACFD, is the minimum feasible length to meet fire standards.

There are no other undeveloped adjacent lots with which to share access driveways.

6. Avoids or minimizes impacts to visual resources, consistent with all scenic and visual resources policies of the LCP.

As described in the Findings of Section IV, Item B, the project minimizes impacts to visual resources, including bluewater views from PCH and views from public areas in the hillsides above PCH, and is consistent with all scenic and visual resource policies of the LCP. Impacts to scenic and visual resources will not be significant.

7. Does not create any additional parcels in an area where adequate public services are not available and will not have significant effects, either individually or cumulatively, on coastal resources.

The subject property will be served by adequate public services, including water and utilities. An OWTS is proposed onsite. As described in the Findings of Section IV, Item B, the project will not have significant effects on coastal resources, including bluewater views from PCH. The project is a single-family residence on a single merged parcel zoned for single-family residential use. The parcel zoning and land use designation are consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, the residential development was anticipated in the General Plan and no cumulative effects are anticipated. The project does not include any requests for relief from MMC or LIP standards and is consistent with all regulations and standards of the LIP and MMC.

8. Does not create any parcels without the appropriate conditions for a properly functioning onsite
wastewater treatment system or connection to the Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility (if applicable), or without an adequate water supply for domestic use.

Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29 and the City Environmental Health have approved the project for water availability and the OWTS, respectively. The project is required to comply with conditions of approval for the OWTS.

9. Is consistent with the maximum density designated for the property by the Land Use Plan map and the slope density criteria (pursuant to Section 15.6 of the Malibu LIP).

The property is designated Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) on the LCP Land Use Map and Zoning Map, which allows one single-family residence on a minimum 2-acre lot. The proposed project is one single family residence on 6.36-acre property. Therefore, the project is consistent with the maximum density designated.

10. Does not create any parcels that are smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.
42 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 22 of 47 ends

______________________
The LM will create a single parcel of 6.36 acres. Surrounding parcels are zoned RR-2 and RR and range from 0.24 to 6.62 acres. The average parcel is 0.78 acre. Therefore, the subject parcel is one of the larger in the surrounding area.

11. Does not subdivide a parcel that consists entirely of ESHA and/or ESHA buffer or create a new parcel that consists entirely of ESHA and/or ESHA buffer.

The LM will create a single parcel from two parcels, one of which is characterized mostly by ESHA or ESHA buffer and steep slopes. Therefore, through the LM, the ESHA and ESHA buffer will be located on the subject parcel and will be protected from development, including grading and fuel modification, and will be sited within the required 31 percent view corridor where development is not allowed.

12. Does not create any new parcels without an identified, feasible building site that is located outside of ESHA and the ESHA buffer required in the LCP and that would not require vegetation removal
or thinning for fuel modification in ESHA and/or the ESHA buffer.

As described in Finding D.12 above, the LM will create a parcel with a feasible building site located outside of ESHA and ESHA buffer, and for which all grading and required fuel modification can be accomplished outside of the ESHA and ESHA buffer. The fuel modification activities (outer Zone C) will be no closer than 20 feet from the ESHA buffer.

13. Does not result in construction of roads and/or driveways in ESHA, ESHA buffer, on a coastal bluff or on a beach.

No development, including roads or driveways, are proposed in the ESHA or ESHA buffer on the property. As described in Section III, Item D, the property is not a coastal bluff. The property is adjacent to PCH and is not on a beach. Properties along Malibu Road downslope of the subject property front the beach.

14. Does not create any parcel where a shoreline protection structure or bluff stabilization structure would be necessary to protect development on the parcel from wave action, erosion or other hazards at any time during the full 100 year life of such development.

The subject property is not along the shoreline, and the project does not require a shoreline protection structure or bluff stabilization structure. The subject property borders PCH on the north, and the closest roadway to the south is Bayshore Drive, which is above Malibu Road. Parcels along Malibu Road front the shoreline. Consistent with Section III, Item D, the property is not a bluff.

Soldier piles, tiebacks, and other geotechnical mechanisms are proposed onsite as part of the project and will stabilize the slope just south of the subject property.

15. If located on a beachfront parcel, only creates parcels that contain sufficient area to site a dwelling or other principal structure, onsite wastewater treatment system, if necessary, and any other necessary facilities without development on sandy beaches or bluffs. 43 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 23 of 47 ends

______________________
The subject property is not a beachfront parcel, rather is upslope from the shoreline. It borders PCH on the north, and the closest roadway to the south is Bayshore Drive, which is above Malibu Road. Parcels along Malibu Road front the shoreline.

16. Includes the requirement to acquire transfer of development credits in compliance with the provisions of the LCP, when those credits are required by the Land Use Plan policies of the LCP.

As described in Section III, Item E, a transfer of development credits is not required of the project, as the project includes a LM to combine two parcels into a single parcel, whereby one singlefamily residence is allowed on the property.

SECTION 6. City Council Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby approves CDP No. 19-012, COC No. 19-009, and LM No. 24-002, subject to the conditions in Section 6.

SECTION 7. 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 project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. 9,219 square-foot, one-story, single-family residence, and a 1,000 square-foot subterranean two-car garage and 1,523 square-foot basement; b. Detached 676 square-foot gym;
c. Swimming pools and spa;
d. OWTS, including a 7,540-gallon septic tank;
e. New landscaping and hardscape, including permeable driveways; f. Perimeter fencing not to exceed 42 inches in height along the north property line and an entry gate;
g. Retaining walls up to six feet in height; and
h. Solid freestanding walls up to six feet in height.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on the following plans on file with the Planning Division:
44 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 24 of 47 ends

______________________
a. Architectural dated April 16, 2025, except as amended by sheets FS100, Z102, Z106, Z107, Z112, Z113, A100 through A107, A200 through A207, and A300 through A303, dated January 27, 2026.
b. Civil dated January 27, 2026.
c. Landscape dated August 11, 2021.
d. Fire access plan stamped approved by the LACFD December 30, 2021. e. Fuel modification plan stamped approved by the LACFD November 22, 2023.

The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this CDP), Lot Merger, and Certificate of Compliance shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any development permits.

5. This CDP shall not be effective until all appeals are exhausted and the property owner, applicant, and the business operator execute the Affidavit of the Acceptance of Conditions.

Said documents shall be recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder and a certified copy of said recordation shall be filed with the Planning Department within 10 days of the effective date of the approval.

6. 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.

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

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

9. All development shall conform to requirements of the City Community Development Department, City Biologist, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

Page 25 of 47 ends

______________________
results and the project is still in compliance with the Malibu Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

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

12. The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources

13. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the 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.

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

Outdoor Lighting

15. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
46 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 26 of 47 ends

______________________
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

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

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

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

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

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

21. No lighting can exceed 18 feet in height except as required by the California Building Code.

22. 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

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

24. The height of fences and walls shall comply with LIP Sections 3.5.3(A) and 6.5(E)(1)(c).

No retaining wall shall exceed six feet in height or 12 feet in height for a combination of two or more walls.

25. 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.

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

27. Development adjacent to, but not within ESHA, may include fencing, if necessary for security, that is limited to the area around the clustered development area. 47 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 27 of 47 ends

______________________
Site Specific Conditions

28. The applicant shall submit to the City a recorded instrument evidencing the Lot Merger prior to issuance of a grading permit. The instrument must be reviewed and approved by the City prior to recording. A copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office.

29. This project and CDP approval is not valid unless a Certificate of Compliance and Lot Merger have been approved by the City, filed with the City Clerk, and recorded with the County of Los Angeles.

30. The project shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.

31. To minimize bluewater view obstruction from PCH, on-site vegetation, including trees, shall be selected and located to have a maximum growth height at maturity that will not extend above the PCH grade or Caltrans berms, whichever is higher, and be maintained at this height in perpetuity so as to provide bluewater views from PCH. The Final Landscape Plan submitted for Building Safety plan check approval shall reflect this requirement. In no instance shall onsite vegetation block views protected in Condition No. 35.

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

33. All project plan sheets (including architectural, civil, landscape, fire access, and fuel modification) shall be made consistent with the revised plan Sheets FS100, Z102, Z106 through Z107, Z112 through Z113, A100 through A107, A200 through A207, and A300 through A303, dated January 27, 2026, prior to Building Safety plan check review.

34. Public bluewater views from Pacific Coast Highway through the subject property shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with Plan Sheets Z112 through Z113 and A200 through A207, dated January 27, 2026. No roof equipment, parapet, or other rooftop appurtenances or structures shall be permitted so as to impede upon public bluewater views from PCH.

35. The development shall not block views of the horizon line of the Pacific Ocean nor views of the western Santa Monica Bay as seen by travelers going westbound, also known as northbound, along Pacific Coast Highway.

36. The applicant shall incorporate vibration monitoring during construction of the proposed residence if such testing is determined to be beneficial by the City.

Certificate of Compliance/Lot Merger

37. The applicant/property owner shall submit all items required to complete the Certificate of Compliance to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, and prior to approval of a Lot Merger. 48 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 28 of 47 ends

______________________

38. All items required to complete a Lot Merger of the two parcels that are a part of this application shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The proposed Lot Merger must be approved by the City, recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and filed with the City Clerk’s office prior to the approval of a grading permit. A copy of the recorded instrument, which shall contain a legal description of the contiguous parcels prior to the merger and the new parcel that results after the merger, shall be provided to the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office.

View Corridor

39. Pursuant to LIP Section 6.5(E)(2) and in order to ensure the protection of scenic and visual resources from public viewing areas across the property, the property owner is required to maintain:

a. An onsite view corridor perpendicular to PCH to the ocean, beginning at the eastern limit of the property line and extending west a minimum width of 542 feet and 7 inches (represents 31 percent of the width of the property). b. No portion of any structure, temporary or permanent, shall extend into the view corridor above the elevation of the adjacent street.
c. Any fencing across the view corridor shall be permanently maintained as visually permeable. Tinted or frosted glass, and louvered or slatted screen fences are not permitted.
d. Any landscaping in this area shall include only low-growing species that will not obscure or block bluewater views. All landscaping within the view corridor shall be maintained in perpetuity so as to provide bluewater views from PCH through the view corridor at all times.
e. If at any time the property owner allows the view corridor to become impaired or blocked, it would constitute a violation of the coastal development permit and the Coastal Act and be subject to all civil and criminal remedies.

40. Prior to final Planning approval, the applicant shall submit an application to Caltrans, and any other agency as applicable, for removal of any portion of the existing dirt berm adjacent to PCH located in the required public view corridor and impeding public views of the Pacific Ocean from PCH. All required permits shall be obtained and the portion of the berm impeding views shall be removed prior to the issuance of building permits by the City. The required view corridor, including the berm removal in it, shall be produced prior to commencement of property development to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Construction/Framing

41. The applicant shall submit a copy of a 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. 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. 49 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 29 of 47 ends

______________________

42. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to plan check submittal.

43. 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.

44. 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.

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

46. 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.

47. 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

Page 30 of 47 ends

______________________
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.

49. 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.

Biology/Landscaping

50. 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.

51. Prior to final Planning Division inspection, the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with 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.

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

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

54. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). In no instance shall onsite vegetation block public views protected in Condition No. 35.

55. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height. In no instance shall onsite vegetation block public views protected in Condition No.

35. 51
Resolution No. 26-55

Page 31 of 47 ends

______________________

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

57. Construction fencing shall be placed and indicated on the site plan. 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 – primarily the drainage feature at the eastern portion of the site as identified by the biological assessment (Chambers).

58. All new development, including structures, OWTS and landscaping, shall be set back no less than 100 feet from the jurisdictional drainage.

59. The landscape and fuel modification plan shall protect natural resources in accordance with the Malibu General Plan. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the landscape and fuel modification plan, except as indicated elsewhere in these conditions.

Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

61. 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.

62. 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.

63. 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.

64. 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.

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

66. Prior to or at the time of Planning Division final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planer a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division. 52 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 32 of 47 ends

______________________

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

68. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

69. 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.

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

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

72. 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.

Fuel Modification

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

Street Improvements (Public Works)

74. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department prior to the commencement of any work within the public right-of-way.

75. This project proposes to construct a new driveway within Caltrans’ right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from Caltrans for the proposed driveway. 53 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 33 of 47 ends

______________________

76. The applicant shall update and install a new curb and gutter on Pacific Coast Highway to accommodate the proposed drainage design. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide Caltrans approval for Pacific Coast Highway improvements and drainage design.

77. This project proposes to discharge to Pacific Coast Highway. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide Caltrans approval to discharge onto Pacific Coast Highway.

78. The applicant shall submit an updated geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist. The updated report shall include detailed investigation and analyses of the portions of the earthen berms on the project site along the northerly property line. The applicant shall address and mitigate any geotechnical issues related to the berms on the project site identified in the updated report and incorporate them into the final plans.

Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical review consultants and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

Grading/Drainage (Public Works)

79. The applicant shall construct the following improvements to the existing dewatering system to reduce groundwater pressure and increase the slope stability within the Malibu Road Assessment District 98-3, within which the property is located. The work shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department of the City of Malibu and its landslide district dewatering system operation and maintenance contractor. a. Construct a new 100-foot deep 6-inch diameter PVC casing installed within a 12.5- inch diameter dewatering well along Bayshore Drive near the easterly property line of APN 4459-013-001. The PVC shall be screened by 0.04-inch machined slots between 10 and 85 feet. Casing backfill and well sealing shall meet requirements of the Los Angeles County well permit. Install a 1/3 HP Grundfos submersible pump at 80 feet deep and a 1-inch ID PVC sounding tube to the drop pipe for the pump to obtain water level measurements. Finish the surface with a flush mount Christy 1830 traffic rated well vault.
b. Replace the existing SI-3 inclinometer on Malibu Road by over-drilling the existing sheared inclinometer to original depth of 50 feet below ground surface to bottom of casing. Install a 2.75-inch 50-foot-long inclinometer casing with both a vibrating wire piezometer and time domain radar (TDR) cable attached to the casing to the full depth. Temie grout medium strength bentonite grout within the annual space between the borehole and outside of casing. Finish at surface with a 24-inch by 24- inch traffic rated vault.

80. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that, pursuant to LIP Section 17.3.1:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.
c. Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time 54 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 34 of 47 ends

______________________
to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

81. Grading operations involving the hauling of dirt shall be controlled and reasonable efforts to avoid the spillage of dirt onto the public streets shall be enforced. The grading contractor shall maintain onsite at all times a means of preventing dust blowing within the project site and onto adjacent sites.

82. 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 plans that addresses this condition.

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

84. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMP’s shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlet, postconstruction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements. 55 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 35 of 47 ends

______________________

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

86. Prior to the approval of the drainage plan, the applicant shall remove the existing CMP (Corrugated Metal Pipe) onsite and install a new pipe to redirect water currently draining to the lot. The new pipe shall be designed in accordance with Caltrans and LA County Flood Standards. A video recording and images of the completed pipe shall be submitted to the City of Malibu Public Works Department. Applicant shall coordinate any easements required for the maintenance of the pipe with the appropriate agencies.

87. The installation of the new CMP shall also include necessary improvements to the catch basin on Bayshore Dr., the downstream pipe, and the outfall. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements required for such drainage purposes. The design will need to address how impacts on the landslide maintenance district will be mitigated.

Stormwater (Public Works)

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

89. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include and 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
56 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 36 of 47 ends

______________________
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance with 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.

90. Prior to the approval of any permits and prior to the applicant submitting the required Construction General Permit documents to the State Water Quality Control Board, the applicant shall submit to the Public Works Department for review and approval an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP). The ESCP shall contain appropriate site-specific construction site BMPs and developed and certified by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QWD). All structural BMPs must be designed by a licensed California Engineer. The ESCP must address the following elements:
a. Methods to minimize the footprint of the disturbed area and to prevent soil compaction outside the disturbed area.
b. Methods used to protect native vegetation and trees. c. Sediment/Erosion Control.
d. Controls to prevent tracking on and off the site.
e. Non-storm water controls.
f. Material management (delivery and storage)
g. Spill prevention and control.
h. Waste management
i. Identification of site Risk Level as identified per the requirements in Appendix 1 of the Construction General Permit.
j. Landowner must sign the following statement on the ESCP:
“I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to ensure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that submitting false and/or inaccurate information, failing to update the ESCP to reflect current conditions, or failing to properly and/or adequately implement the ESCP may result in revocation of grading and/or other permits or other sanctions provided by law.”
57 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 37 of 47 ends

______________________

91. A State Construction activity permit is required for this project due to the disturbance of more than one acre of land for development. Provide a copy of the letter from the State Water Quality Control Board containing the WDID number prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.

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

93. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage 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. 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.
g. 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 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. 58 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 38 of 47 ends

______________________

94. Hydromodification: Alteration or disturbance of streams or natural drainage courses or human-made or altered drainage courses that have replaced natural streams or drainages and serve the same function, shall be prohibited.
a. Necessary water supply projects where no feasible alternative exists. b. Flood protection for existing development where there is no other feasible alternative.
c. The improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.

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

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

Other Public Works

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

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

Page 39 of 47 ends

______________________
Geology
103. 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.
104. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP.

Swimming Pool/Spa/Water Features
105. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise). 106. 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).
107. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable of sensing a leak of the inner wall. 108. 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. c. The discharge does not reach into the MS4 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) 109. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.

The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating, “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
110. Pursuant to MMC Section 9.20.040(B), all ponds, decorative fountains shall require a water recirculating/recycling system.
60 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 40 of 47 ends

______________________
Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
111. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s onsite wastewater treatment regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS. 112. 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/LIP, 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).
113. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: If the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then a final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City-registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable). 114. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above):
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design. b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems.
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This 61 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 41 of 47 ends

______________________
must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics.
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Division.
115. 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. 116. Traffic-rated Slab Plans: All project traffic rated slab plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 117. Notice of Decision: The final OWTS plans shall include the condition of approvals sections of the Notice of Decision (NOD) from the Planning Division. 118. Architect/Engineer Certification for Reduction in Setbacks to Buildings and Structures: All proposed reductions in setbacks from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures or other features less than those shown in Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 15.42 must be supported by letters from the project consultants. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters. The construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setback must be approved by City of Malibu Building Safety prior to Environmental Health final approval.

The architectural and/or structural plans submitted for Building Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g., waterproofing, concrete additives). For complex waterproofing installations, submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. All plans must show the location of onsite wastewater treatment system components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable). a. Structures – All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section 62 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 42 of 47 ends

______________________

15.42) must be supported by a letter from the project Structural Engineer and a letter from the project Soils Engineer (i.e., a Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the onsite wastewater treatment system and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the setback is reduced.
b. Buildings – All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section

15.42) also must be supported by City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet a letter from the project Architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California licensed architect, then the required Architect’s certification may be supplied by an Engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setback to the wastewater system; in this case the Engineer must include in the letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback(s), then the Architect (or Engineer) must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Plan Check. 119. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
120. 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.
121. 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. 122. Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.
123. Covenant to Forfeit 100% Expansion Effluent Disposal Area: A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that 1) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., 63 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 43 of 47 ends

______________________
replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)) and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area fails to drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through an operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non-habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair. Said covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the Environmental Sustainability Department.
124. Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
125. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.
126. City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
127. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers’ final approval of the OWTS shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
128. City of Malibu Planning Division final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained. 129. 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 specification. 130. Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with the MMC, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health Office for an OWTS 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. 131. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setbacks must be approved by the City Building Safety Division. The architectural and/or structural plans submitted to Building Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g., waterproofing, concrete additives, etc.). For complex waterproofing installations, submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. The architectural/structural/ waterproofing plans must show the location of OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable). 132. Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the applicant shall provide engineer’s certification for reduction in setbacks to buildings or structures: All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Table 64 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 44 of 47 ends

______________________

15.42.030(E)) must be supported by a letter from the project structural engineer and a letter from the project soils engineer (i.e., a geotechnical engineer or civil engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the OWTS and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the Table 15.42.030(E) setback is reduced.

Construction drawings submitted for plan check must show OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced. All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Table 15.42.030(E)) also must be supported by a letter from the project architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California-licensed architect, then the required architect’s certification may be supplied by an engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setbacks to the wastewater system. In this case, the engineer must include in his/her letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback, then the architect or engineer must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Safety Division plan check. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters. 133. Reference Plans: Reference architectural and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted to Environmental Health during building plan check review of the proposed OWTS. The approved plans are for 121 fixture units, 6 bedrooms and one master bedroom, and a design flow of 1,050 GPD.
134. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation of the OWTS shall be screened from view by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42-inches tall.

Water Quality/Water Service
135. A State Construction Activity Permit is required for this project due to the disturbance of more than one acre of land for development. Provide a copy of the letter from the State Water Quality Control Board containing the Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 136. 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. 137. Prior to final inspection (or project sign off, as applicable) by the Planning Division, 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. 138. For projects including installation of a private water well, prior to final inspection (or project sign, as applicable) by the Building Safety Division, the applicant shall demonstrate 65 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 45 of 47 ends

______________________
that all requirements of Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 have been met, including installation of a backflow prevention device.

Prior to Occupancy
139. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning Division final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to Planning the plumbing permit for the OWTS signed off by the Building Safety Division.
140. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all Planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
141. 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. 142. 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.
143. 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
144. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
145. 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.

Deed Restrictions
146. 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 staff prior to final planning approval. 66 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 46 of 47 ends

______________________
147. 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 Nos. 15-22.

The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final Planning Division approval.
148. The garage area shall be limited to accessory use as defined by the City of Malibu Local Coastal Pall be Plan (LCP). The garage area cannot be converted into habitable space at any time in the future. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to execute and record a deed restriction to this effect.
149. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction stating that as part of the project, a view corridor of 31 percent (342 feet, 7 inches) of property width shall be established and maintained, as stipulated in Condition No. 39 shall be specifically identified in the deed restriction, including an exhibit that represents the area of the view corridor on the property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Division staff prior to final Planning Division approval. 150. Any future improvements to the single-family residence and related development approved under this permit that modify height or mass shall require a CDP.

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 19th day of August 2026. __________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
67 Resolution No. 26-55

Page 47 of 47 ends

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

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 68 City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California • 90265-486 I Phone (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org

PLANNING DIVISION

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

NOTICE OF APPEAL CHECKLIST
FEB 2 7 2026

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

Deadline and Fees: Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1, an appeal 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 No. 19-012 / Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-05

2. On what date was the decision made which you are appealing? February 17, 2026

3. Who made the decision you are appealing?
D Community Development Director

4. What is the address of the project site at issue?
25200 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA 90265
Page I of4
P:\Fonns\COUNTER FORMS\PLN Appeal Checklist_ CDP_ 220518.docx !XI Planning Commission
Doc ID: 9fec4c6ee4443f039484ff2ff4dfe3a5c5b70df7
Exhibit B
Exhibit B
69 70
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 78
79 80
81 82
83 84
85 86
87 88
89 90
91 92
93 94
95 96
97 98
99 100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 26-05

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19—012 TO CONSTRUCTANEW 9,219 SQUARE FOOT, ONE—STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING A 1,000 SQUARE—FOOT SUBTERRANEAN
TWO-CAR GARAGE, 1,523 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT, 676 SQUARE FOOT GYM, SWIMMING POOLS, SPA, DRIVEWAYS, DECKS, LANDSCAPE, WATER FEATURES, HARDSCAPE, GRADING, RETAINING WALLS, AND ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 19—009 TO RECOGNIZE AN ILLEGALLY CREATED LOT CONSISTING OF TWO ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS (4459—013-021 AND 4459-014-018), AND LOT MERGER NO. 24-002 TO CONSOLIDATE TWO EXISTING PARCELS INTO ONE PARCEL, LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TWO-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 25200 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (PAR PCH LLC) The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, Order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On March 7, 2019, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 19- 012 to allow for a new single-family residence and associated development was submitted to the Planning Division by PAR PCH LLC for development on property identified as APNs 4459—01 3- 021 and 4459-014-018. 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 25, 2023, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On December 11, 2023, the application was deemed complete.

D. On April 18, 2024, the Planning Division visited the site and documented the story pole installation.

F. In April 2024, Planning Division staff received concerns from several community members related to impacts to bluewater views and potential outdoor lighting Exhibit C
134
Exhibit C
R6501ution N0. 26-05
Paga 2 0f 35
G. On May 20, 2024, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.

H. On May 23, 2025, Planning Division staff Visited the site and documented installation of the updated story poles.

K. On August l8, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain at the request of staff.

M. On December l6, 2025, the Commission continued the item to the January 20, 2026, Regular Plamiing Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

N. On January 20, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, and reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record, and continued the item to the February l7, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting to provide time for the applicant to make project revisions to further preserve public bluewater views through the subject property from Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The applicant offered to lower the building pad for portions ofthe main residence by two feet, thereby reducing the maximum height elevation ofthe residence, and eliminate the proposed guest house from the design.

O. On February l7, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, as revised, reviewed and considered the staff report, and reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Page 3 ends

use Ofa categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2). PCH is not an officially designated state scenic highway. This project, along with any other project in the City, is required to implement the criteria in LIP Section 6.5(E)(2) to protect scenic and Visual resources. There are no impacts to biological resources because the limits of project development, including required fuel modification activities and grading, do not encroach into identified environmentally sensitive habitat area in compliance with LIP Section 4.6. 1. The project will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards because the project is required to comply with the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and the City and County regulations, including compliance with development standards listed in LIP Section 9.4. The property is not included on any list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and no historical resources are located on or adj acent to the property.

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the public hearings on January 20, 2026 and February l7, 2026, and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 19-012 for construction of a 9,219 square-foot single-family residence, 1,000 square-foot subterranean garage, 1,523 square—foot basement, 676 square—foot gym, swimming pools and spa, driveways, decks, landscape, water features, hardscape, grading, retaining walls, and an onsite wastewater treatment system located in the Rural Residential, Two— Acre (RR—2) zoning district at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway.

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 certificate of compliance (COC) and Lot Merger (LM), 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 proj ect is located in the RR-2 residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses and typically developed with 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, Waterworks District 29 (WD29), and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD). As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, proj ect plans, visual analysis, and site investigation by the Planning Division, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards, inclusive of the requested COC and LM.

2. Based on the analysis in the record, as designed and conditioned, the project will not result in biological impacts and has been designed to minimize grading. There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of 136
Reselution N0. 26—05

Page 4 of 35 ends

the development on the environment beyond that of the proposed project. The project, including required fuel modification area and grading, is located approximately 300 feet from Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) in compliance with LIP Section 4.6. l.

3. The following alternatives to the project were considered to determine the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

The project was originally contemplated as a two—story residence. However, due to the visual impacts of impeding upon public bluewater views from PCH, the applicant revised the plan to lower the main residence building height from 18 feet to a maximum of 17 feet, 7 inches (kitchen area) and one story, and the guest house (previously reduced from a height of 15 feet, 8 inches to 10 feet) has now been eliminated. The proposed location of development is sited on the flattest area of the subject property where slopes range from 4 to 1 or flatter. Other areas of the property where development could occur, but was avoided, contain slopes that are 3 to 1 or steeper.

Proposed building pad elevations would be set further below current grade on the property to further minimize impeded bluewater views from PCH, and to allow the building pads to be gradually stepped into the western slope of the project site to reduce their visual profile. To eliminate all impedance to public bluewater views from PCH, all proposed buildings would need to be at height that is at or below that of the adjacent PCH roadway grade and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) berms along the roadway. To meet this, the buildings would need to be below three to seven feet in height in most areas, with the exception of the tallest building portion at the east end of the main residence. This portion of the main residence was proposed at a height of 17 feet, 7 inches, and there is a 21 —foot difference between the development surface and the roadway/berm grade such that the building height would not be Visible from PCH.

The applicant has further reduced the prior maximum height ofthe main residence (kitchen area) to 15 feet, 7 by lowering the building pad by two feet in the communal areas of the main residence (outdoor kitchen, kitchen, dining room, family room, living room, and beneath the subterranean areas) to minimize bluewater view impacts. The resulting maximum height of the main residence is 16 feet and 10 inches (master bedroom area), as the master bedroom area height has not changed from the prior design. The amount that the communal areas of the main residence will protrude above the PCH/berms has been reduced by 2 feet to a maximum of 6 feet and 5 inches (kitchen). For the non-communal areas, the maximum amount ofthe main residence that will protrude above the PCH and Caltrans berms will continue to be 7 feet, 6 inches (secondary bedrooms). The applicant has also revised the project design to eliminate the previously proposed, 10—foot—high, detached guest house, resulting in no public bluewater view impacts west of the proposed gym building. In lieu and in accordance with LIP Section 6.5(E)(2), the project would also implement a public view corridor from PCH to existing bluewater views for a distance of 31 percent (542 feet, 7 inches) of the property width (east to west) on the eastern portion of the property, consistent with LIP Section 6.5(E)(2).

Substantial earthwork would need to occur to lower the current grade several more feet to set all buildings below the PCH grade and the Caltrans berms. The resulting amount of grading could exceed the maximum allowed 1,000 cubic yards for non-exempt grading and require more retaining walls, which could exceed the six—foot high maximum allowed and require a variance.

As designed, the project does not include any discretionary requests for relief from development 137
Resolution N0. 26-05

Page 5 ends

standards. To lower the project site with shorter retaining walls, or without walls, would require an increase in development at the edges of the lowered building pad to transition to the existing grade elevations over a long distance. This alternate concept would require grading on steep slopes that would also exceed the maximum allowed non—exempt grading of l ,000 cubic yards and require a variance. It would also be inconsistent with the required COC findings for avoidance of steep slopes and may not be accomplished entirely within the property boundaries. This alternate concept would also likely be considered inconsistent with the LIP (LIP Section 8.3) and MMC standards and policies for minimizing the alteration of landforms. LIP Section 8.3(E) states that grading shall be designed to minimize the alteration of landforms by ensuring that graded slopes blend with the existing terrain of the site and surrounding area and conform to natural topography.

The applicant considered clustering all buildings in the eastern portion of the development site, where the PCH grade and/or Caltrans berms provide the most screening to the development.

However, the subject property is narrow and locating all development in this area is considered infeasible. Additionally, developing the eastern portion of the property would result in encroachment into ESHA, ESHA buffer, and a drainage, as well as require grading of steep slopes and shifting fuel modification zones offsite. Variances would be required for development in this alternate location.

Consideration for reducing the proposed Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) in the project was made but was found that a reduction in TDSF would not necessarily result in a project that further decreased impedances to bluewater views from PCH. This is because the building heights could continue to be up to 18 feet in height, consistent with LIP allowances. All sensitive biological resources (EHSA and drainage) and steep slopes at the eastern end of the subject property would not be encroached upon by the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, including required fuel modification.

A considerable portion of the proposed development consists of outdoor recreation and gathering spaces, such as an outdoor kitchen, garden rooms, pools and other water features. Due to the narrow shape of the property with a long roadway frontage and the need for vehicle fire access driveways around the development that reduce available area for buildings, the development cannot feasibly be set back further from PCH to further minimize privacy and noise concerns within these outdoor spaces. Other considerations were made by the applicant to increase privacy and reduce roadway noise, such as a wall with some transparent features, a transparent fence, or vegetation screening options. Two solid freestanding walls along the n01thern part of the project site were originally proposed at a height of 12 feet each and subsequently revised such that the upper four feet of the 12—foot-wall included glass to allow public bluewater views. Wall heights have since been revised to reduce the overall height to six feet to protect bluewater views from PCH (with no glass portions) and to be consistent with the maximum allowed height for solid walls in the LIP and MMC. Along with removing the proposed guest house, the applicant has reduced the height ofthe building walls that were proposed to be attached to it to a maximum height of six feet. The walls will not obstruct public bluewater views through the site.

As designed and conditioned, the proposed development is considered to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.
138
Resolution N0. 26-05

Page 6 ends

4. The property is within a designated ESHA and ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. However, the project, including required fuel modification activities and grading, is over 300 feet west of the ESHA boundary. Because the project avoids any work within the ESHA and IOO-foot ESHA buffer areas, no Environmental Review Board review is required.

B. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) l. The project site is below the grade of the adj acent PCH roadway, the building and driveway pads average approximately one foot below grade, the 10—foot-high guest house is no longer proposed, and the building pad has been lowered an additional two feet for portions of the main residence to further maximize public bluewater views through the subject property from PCH. The upper portions of the main residence and gym will be visible from public views from PCH and impede upon bluewater views for those areas of the subj ect property, but the impacts to bluewater views will be reduced by lowering the building pad. There will be no bluewater View impacts for the portion of the property west of the gym. As described above in Finding A3, it is infeasible to further lower the project site and structures to be fully below the PCH grade. The applicant is not requesting a discretionary request to increase height above 18 feet. Also as described in Finding A.3, there are no other feasible alternatives to development and no other feasible locations on the property to accommodate the proposed development that would avoid scenic and Visual impacts including bluewater views. The upper 6 feet, 5 inches of the main residence kitchen area will be visible from public views along PCH, which has been reduced from 8 feet, 5 inches by lowering the building pad by two feet. The upper 7 feet, 6 inches of the master bedroom area ofthe main residence will continue to be visible from PCH, which will be the highest portion of the project visible from PCH. The applicant has implemented design revisions, including lowering building heights and eliminating a portion of the proposed development. The applicant has also located the development in the least visible portion ofthe site where the height difference between the building pad and roadway/berms is highest, has designed a single story development of a maximum height of 16 feet, 10 inches (master bedroom area) to step down the hillside to the west, has broken up the massing of the structures, has minimized grading by not exceeding the maximum allowed non-exempt grading yards, and has designed the structures as one-story buildings with flat roofs to blend into the natural hillside setting.

Consistent with LIP Section 6.5(E)(2), an onsite View corridor described in Finding A.3 will be implemented as part of the proj ect. This LIP section requires that where topography of the project site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade, new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site. Project materials and colors will be required to be compatible with the natural environment, therefore, will be compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Although retaining and other walls included in the project are not expected to be visible from PCH, conditions of approval would still apply to the project to ensure the retaining walls blend with the surrounding natural area and would prohibit the use of vegetation that will exceed the height of the existing PCH grade Caltrans berms to protect bluewater views from PCH. Therefore, the project will not result in significant adverse impacts to scenic and visual resources from PCH, including bluewater views. 139
Resolution N0. 26-05

Page 7 ends

2. As described in Finding A3 above, the project is the least damaging environmentally feasible alternative. The drainage area, areas of steep slopes, and ESHA and ESHA buffer areas onsite will be protected.

3. The project site will not result in adverse impacts from public viewing areas in the hillside above the subj ect property. The proj ect site may be visible from Corral Canyon Park (l ,500 feet northwest of the site), Corral Canyon Trail/Corral Canyon Loop Trail (400 feet northwest of the site), and Cameron Nature Preserve at Puerco Canyon (500 feet northeast of the site). These locations, which are upslope from the project site in the hillside above PCH, would be considered public viewing areas pursuant to LIP Chapter 6. The project consists of a one—story single-family residence and associated development with flat roofs, not to exceed a height of 16 feet, 10 inches, consistent with the LIP requirements. The buildings, walls, and driveways will be required to use earthtone colors and contain materials to blend with the natural environment. Landscaping is proposed throughout the development and is conditioned to prohibit the use of vegetation that will exceed the height of the existing PCH grade/Caltrans berms to protect bluewater views from PCH.

Current views from the public viewing areas in the hillside above the project site include a large expanse of coastline, PCH, and structures, including residences in the vicinity of the project site. Development of the project site, as proposed and conditioned, is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to views from these public viewing areas, as it is adjacent to existing residential development and proposes a low-profile design. The conditions noted above regarding colors and materials allow the development to be visually compatible with the surrounding natural environment when viewed from above. The development is not expected to have a significant impact on ocean views from the public viewing areas, given the height of the locations in the hillsides above the project site, and that the applicant has designed the project as a series of lowprofile buildings ranging from 12 feet to a maximum of 165 feet, 10 inches in height.

The development is proposed on the flattest area of the property, away from steep slopes, a jurisdictional drainage, and riparian ESHA. Moreover, the project provides a public View corridor on the eastern part of the property that is 31 percent of the lineal frontage of the project site. There are no feasible alternatives for development that would avoid or substantially lessen views from these public viewing areas. The applicant considered clustering all buildings in the eastern portion ofthe building pad, in lieu ofthe western portion, where the PCH grade and Caltrans berms provide the most screening to the development from PCH. However, because the subject property is narrow, locating all development in the eastern portion of the property is considered infeasible.

Development further east on the property beyond the proposed project site would result in direct impacts to ESHA and ESHA buffer as well as the jurisdictional drainage, and grading in steep slopes.

4. No outdoor lighting is proposed or approved as part of this project. Conditions of approval require compliance with the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance and any other applicable regulations.

5. The Landscape Plan includes trees, shrubs, groundcover, and other plants. Native species are proposed along the edges of the development, adjacent to existing natural vegetation.

The project is not expected to have adverse visual impacts due to landscaping, as conditioned. 140
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 8 ends

Vegetation, including trees, are required to not extend above the PCH grade/Caltrans berms.

C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Based on review of the project plans and associated project geotechnical and other reports by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD, City Environmental Health Administrator, and Public Works Department, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The project, including the OWTS, will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or tire hazards. The proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed. Conditions of approval require that all recommendations contained in the above cited geotechnical reports and conditions required by the City geotechnical review consultants, City Public Works Department, and the LACFD, are incorporated into the proj ect. The conditions include onsite drainage measures, as well as implementing improvements offsite in the public right—of—way to the existing dewatering system and making other drainage system improvements in the public right—of—way, to ensure slope stability.

2. As described in Finding C.1 above, the proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or flood hazards due to project design, location, modifications, landscaping, and other conditions. Moreover, there are no preferable feasible project alternatives to improve site stability or structural integrity beyond that of the proposed project. The development will be located on the flattest portion of the subject property, outside of steep slopes, and is not within a flood hazard area. Retaining walls are consistent with the maximum six-foot—high requirement.

3. As with all properties in the City, the subj ect property is currently subject to wildfire hazards and development of a residence and associated development on the subject property will not increase the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire. The project is not expected to have an impact on wildfire hazards. The proposed development may actually decrease the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate required building materials and measures. All required fuel modification activities will occur onsite.

4. The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry, and Fire Protection, if needed. In the event of maj or 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 require the project to comply with all LACFD development standards and with the approved LACFD fuel modification plan for the site.

As such, the project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity pertaining to wildfire hazards.

5. As described in Finding A3 above, the project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to geologic, flood, or fire 141
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 9 ends

hazards are anticipated. There are no feasible project alternatives that are more environmentally preferable than the proposed project, including compliance with LIP requirements related to ESHA, scenic and Visual resources, and hazards. The drainage area, areas of steep slopes, and the ESHA and ESHA buffer areas onsite will be protected as part of the project.

6. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the City Building Official, City Environmental Health Administrator, and the City geotechnical consultant reviewers. These specialists determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. Since there are no significant impacts expected, there are no feasible alternatives to reduce significant impacts. Conditions of approval will ensure project compliance with all required standards and measures to minimize hazards.

7. There is no evidence in the record that the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will have adverse impacts to sensitive resources, particularly in consideration of hazards. The onsite drainage area, areas of steep slope, and areas of ESHA and the ESHA buffer will be protected, and development, including grading and fuel modification activities, will be over 300 feet away from ESHA.

D. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)

1. The certificate ofcompliance (COC) complies with all policies and standards ofthe LCP, including the requirements of LIP Section 15.2. The project site provides for development that avoids any work within slopes over 30 percent (3:3 to 1). The project site can accommodate adequate roads for fire access and, as conditioned, development is safe from flooding, erosion, geologic, and extreme fire hazards. The project site is served by adequate public services and can accommodate an OWTS. The subject property can accommodate development, including fuel modification, outside of the ESHA and ESHA buffer. Development of the subject property can occur in a manner that minimizes grading and alteration of natural landforms, and that will be landscaped with native species to minimize erosion. Clustering of development can be accommodated on the west side of the property to minimize site disturbance and maximize open space on the east side of the property, in ESHA, a drainage, and in steep slopes.

2. No coastal resources or ridgelines are located on the property or would be affected by the development. The project site enables impacts to visual resources, including bluewater views, to be minimized to the extent feasible. As described in Findings A.l and B.l above, the project implements a public view corridor through the property for a minimum 31 percent of the property width, consistent with the LIP requirements. The site allows for development consistent with the maximum density permitted in the LCP and would not be smaller than the average size of surrounding parcels.

3. The two parcels subj ect to the LM are under common ownership and the applicant proposes a voluntary merger that has been initiated by the property owner. The LM is consistent with all policies and standards of the LCP that protect ESHA or visual resources of the coastal zone, as habitat in the ESHA will be protected and no structures in the onsite view corridor are permitted.
142
Resdution N0. 26—05

Page 10 of 35 ends

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 19—012, LM 24-002, and COC No. 19—009, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions ofAnnroval.

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

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

Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Division date stamped (Architectural dated April l6, 2025, Civil dated October 17, 2025, Landscape dated August ll, 2021, fire access plan stamped approved by the LACFD December 30, 2021 , and fuel modification plan stamped approved by the LACFD November 22, 2023, as amended by revised plan Sheets FSI 00, Z102, Z1 06 through Z107, Z1 12 through Z1 l3, A100 through A107, A200 through A207, and A300 through A303, dated January 27, 2026, and updated accordingly for consistency). The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached a. 9,219 square—foot, one—story, single—family residence, and a 1,000 square—foot subterranean b.
c.
d.
e.
two-car garage and 1,523 square-foot basement;
Detached 676 square—foot gym; Swimming pools and spa;
OWTS, including a 7,540-gallon septic tank;
New landscaping and hardscape, including permeable driveways; f. Perimeter fencing not to exceed 42 inches in height along the north property line and an entry gate; g. Retaining walls up to six feet in height; and
h. Solid freestanding walls up to six feet in height.
143
Resolution No. 26—05

Page 11 ends

hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

Pursuant to LIP Section 13.182, this CDP), Lot Merger, and Certificate of Compliance shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Community Development Department prior to issuance of any development permits.

This CDP shall not be effective until all appeals are exhausted and the property owner, applicant, and the business operator execute the Affidavit of the Acceptance of Conditions.

Said documents shall be recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder and a certified copy of said recordation shall be filed with the Planning Department within lO days of the effective date of the approval.

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.

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 ifthe project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

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.

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

10. 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 Malibu Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.
ll. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that 144
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 12 ends

the CCC denies the permit 0r issues the permit on appeal, the coastal development permit approved by the City is void. l2. The applicant must submit payment for any outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources
l3. 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 ll and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed. l4. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those ofa 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.

Outdoor Lighting
l5. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60 watt incandescent bulb); b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens; e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited. l6. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited. 145
Res01ution N0. 26—05

Page 13 of 35 ends

17. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flasha 0r be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subj ect property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot-candle. l8. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. High intensity lighting of the shore is prohibited. l9. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

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

21. No lighting can exceed 18 feet in height except as required by the California Building Code.

22. 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

24. The height of fences and walls shall comply with LIP Sections 3.5.3(A) and 6.5(E)(1)(c).

No retaining wall shall exceed six feet in height or 12 feet in height for a combination of two or more walls.

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

27. Development adjacent to, but not within ESHA, may include fencing, if necessary for security, that is limited to the area around the clustered development area.

Site Specific Conditions

28. The applicant shall submit to the City a recorded instrument evidencing the Lot Merger prior to issuance of a grading permit. The instrument must be reviewed and approved by 146
Resolution N0. 26—05
Paga 14 0f 35
the City prior to rocording. A copy of the recorded instrument shall be provided to the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office.

30. The project shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the County of Los Angeles Fire Department.

31. To minimize bluewater View obstruction from PCH, on-site vegetation, including trees, shall be selected and located to have a maximum growth height at maturity that will not extend above the PCH grade or Caltrans berms, whichever is higher, and be maintained at this height in perpetuity so as to provide bluewater views from PCH. The Final Landscape Plan submitted for Building Safety plan check approval shall reflect this requirement. In no instance shall onsite vegetation block views protected in Condition No. 35.

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

33. A11 project plan sheets (including architectural, civil, landscape, fire access, and fuel modification) shall be made consistent with the revised plan Sheets F8100, Z102, Z106 through Z107, Z1 12 through Z1 13, A100 through A107, A200 through A207, and A300 through A303, dated January 27, 2026, prior to Building Safety plan check review.

34. Public bluewater views from Pacific Coast Highway through the subj ect property shall be maintained to the maximum extent feasible and consistent with Plan Sheets Z1 12 through Z113 and A200 through A207, dated January 27, 2026. No roof equipment, parapet, or other rooftop appurtenances or structures shall be permitted so as to impede upon public bluewater views from PCH.

35. The development shall not block views ofthe horizon line of the Pacific Ocean nor views of the western Santa Monica Bay as seen by travelers going westbound, also known as northbound, along Pacific Coast Highway.

36. The applicant shall incorporate vibration monitoring during construction of the proposed residence if such testing is determined to be beneficial by the City.

Certificate of Compliance/Lot Merger

Page 15 of 35 ends

38. A11 items required t0 complete a Lot Merger of the two parcels that are a part of this application shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The proposed Lot Merger must be approved by the City, recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder, and filed with the City Clerk’s office prior to the approval of a grading permit. A copy of the recorded instrument, which shall contain a legal description of the contiguous parcels prior to the merger and the new parcel that results after the merger, shall be provided to the Los Angeles County Assessor’s Office.

View Corridor

39. Pursuant to LIP Section 6.5(E)(2) and in order to ensure the protection ofscenic and visual resources from public viewing areas across the property, the property owner is required to maintain:
a. An onsite view corridor perpendicular to PCH to the ocean, beginning at the eastern limit of the property line and extending west a minimum width of 542 feet and 7 inches (represents 31 percent of the width of the property). b. No portion of any structure, temporaiy or permanent, shall extend into the view corridor above the elevation of the adj acent street.
c. Any fencing across the view corridor shall be permanently maintained as visually permeable. Tinted or frosted glass, and louvered or slatted screen fences are not permitted. d. Any landscaping in this area shall include only low-growing species that will not obscure or block bluewater views. All landscaping within the view corridor shall be maintained in perpetuity so as to provide bluewater views from PCH through the view corridor at all times.
e. If at any time the property owner allows the view corridor to become impaired or blocked, it would constitute a violation of the coastal development permit and the Coastal Act and be subject to all civil and criminal remedies.

40. Prior to final Planning approval, the applicant shall submit an application to Caltrans, and any other agency as applicable, for removal of any portion ofthe existing dirt berm adj acent to PCH located in the required public View corridor and impeding public views of the Pacific Ocean from PCH. All required permits shall be obtained and the portion ofthe berm impeding views shall be removed prior to the issuance of building permits by the City. The required view corridor, including the berm removal in it, shall be produced prior to commencement of property development to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.

Construction/Framing

Page 16 ends

Construction Management Plan must be acceptable to the Community Development Director and, if applicable, to the Building Official and Public Works Director.

42. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to plan check submittal.

44. 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. ln addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

45. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter l7, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October). c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

47. For the transportation ofheavy 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.
149
ResolutiOn N0. 26-05

Page 17 of 35 ends

Colors and Materials

48. The project is visible from a scenic road (PCH), therefore, shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited t0 colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades 0f 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.

Biology/Landscaping

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.

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

53. No non—native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.
150
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 18 ends

54. Vegetation shall be situated 0n the property so as not to obstruct the primary View from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth). In no instance shall onsite vegetation block public views protected in Condition No. 35.

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

57. Construction fencing shall be placed and indicated on the site plan. 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 primarily the drainage feature at the eastern portion of the site as identified by the biological assessment (Chambers).

58. All new development, including structures, OWTS and landscaping, shall be set back no less than 100 feet from the jurisdictional drainage.

60. 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. 6l. 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.

63. Native species ofthe 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 151
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 19 of 35 ends

depths. A spacing of 15 f€et between large woody (>10-foot canopy) shrubs is recommended by the LACFD. Lawns are prohibited on slopes > 5 percent.

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

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

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

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

72. The use ofwood 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 152
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 20 ends

(excluding w00d chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 3O feet 0r more from a structure with no limitation on application area.

Fuel Modification

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

Street Improvements (Public Works)

74. The applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department prior to the commencement of any work Within the public right—of—way.

75. This project proposes to construct a new driveway within Caltrans’ right—of—way. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from Caltrans for the proposed driveway.

77. This project proposes to discharge to Pacific Coast Highway. Prior to the Public Works Department approval ofthe grading or building permit, the applicant shall provide Caltrans approval to discharge onto Pacific Coast Highway.

78. The applicant shall submit an updated geotechnical report prepared by a geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist. The updated report shall include detailed investigation and analyses ofthe portions ofthe earthen berms on the project site along the northerly property line. The applicant shall address and mitigate any geotechnical issues related to the berms on the project site identified in the updated report and incorporate them into the final plans. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical review consultants and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

Grading/Drainage (Public Works)

Page 21 ends

between 10 and 85 feet. Casing backflll and well sealing shall meet requirements of the Los Angeles County well permit. Install a 1/3 HP Grundfos submersible pump at 80 feet deep and a 1-inch 1D PVC sounding tube t0 the drop pipe for the pump to obtain water level measurements. Finish the surface with a flush mount Christy 1830 traffic rated well vault. b. Replace the existing Sl—3 inclinometer on Malibu Road by over—drilling the existing sheared inclinometer to original depth of 50 feet below ground surface to bottom of casing. Install a 2.75—inch 50-foot—long inclinometer casing with both a Vibrating wire piezometer and time domain radar (TDR) cable attached to the casing to the full depth. Temie grout medium strength bentonite grout within the annual space between the borehole and outside of casing. Finish at surface with a 24—inch by 24— inch traffic rated vault.

80. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that, pursuant to LIP Section 17.3. l:

Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to l shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31. unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources. 8 1. Grading operations involving the hauling of dirt shall be controlled and reasonable efforts to avoid the spillage of dirt onto the public streets shall be enforced. The grading contractor shall maintain onsite at all times a means of preventing dust blowing within the project site and onto adj acent sites.

83. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading pennits for the proj ect.
a. Public Works Department General Notes.
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, and pool decks).
c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by 154
ReSOIution N0. 26—05
Pag€ 22 of 35
grading equipment, areas disturbed fOr the installation 0f the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated.
d. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for till slopes.
e. If the property contains trees that are to be protected, they shall be highlighted on the grading plan. f. If the property contains rare, endangered, or special status species as identifled in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on the grading plan if required by the City Biologist. g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than l2- inch diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with the grading plan. h. 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.

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

87. The installation of the new CMP shall also include necessary improvements to the catch basin on Bayshore Dr, the downstream pipe, and the outfall. The applicant shall obtain the necessary easements required for such drainage purposes. The design will need to address how impacts on the landslide maintenance district will be mitigated.

Stormwater (Public Works)

Page 23 of 35 ends

where it is essential fOr flood control or slope stability, including roof, landscape, road and parking lot drainage, to prevent soil erosion, only occurs during wet weather, and is composed of only storm water runoff. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment. b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e. no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non—storm water discharges.

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

Page 24 ends

(QWD). All structural BMPs must be designed by a licensed California Engineer. The ESCP must address the following elements:
a. Methods to minimize the footprint ofthe disturbed area and to prevent soil compaction outside the disturbed area.

Methods used to protect native vegetation and trees.

Sediment/Erosion Control.

Controls to prevent tracking on and off the site.

Non—storm water controls.

Material management (delivery and storage)
Spill prevention and control.

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

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

93. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to 157
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 25 ends

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 (M84) 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—site, the project must biofrtrate 1.5 times the SWQDV that is not retained on-site.

Drainage improvements.

A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure.

A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 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 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.

C. The improvement of fish and wildlife habitat.

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

96. The Building Official may approve grading during the rainy season to remediate hazardous geologic conditions that endanger public health and safety. 158
Resolution N0. 26-05

Page 26 of 35 ends

Other Public Works

97. A11 cut and fill slopes shall be stabilized with landscaping at the completion of final grading.

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

99. The applicant shall prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) per the City of Malibu TIA Guidelines. The TIA shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading and or building permits. The applicant shall also be required to construct the applicable mitigation measures recommended in the TIA. The traffic mitigation measures shall be constructed prior to occupancy of the first building. 100. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of a Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way. 101. Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit a PDF of the final plans. If there are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF. 102. Lot Line Adjustment/Lot Merger (with development):
a. The proposed lot line adjustment/lot merger must be approved by the City and filed with the City Clerk’s office prior to the approval of this grading permit. b. Upon review of the documents provided, the City may require submittal of additional documents or maps, depending upon the completeness of the initial submittal
Geology
103. 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.
104. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP. 159
Resolution N0. 26—05

Page 27 of 35 ends

Malibu City CouncilAugust 19, 2026

Malibu City Council
August 19, 2026