[8:33] All right. Well, uh, good evening

[8:35] everybody.

[8:37] Like to call to order the planning

[8:39] commission regular meeting of beautiful

[8:42] Monday, August 17th in California.

[8:45] meeting was held in both a hybrid format

[8:48] that allows members of the public to

[8:50] participate in person and remotely via

[8:51] Zoom technologically viable. Inerson

[8:55] participants, if you'd like to speak,

[8:57] please submit your request to speak form

[8:58] to the clerk before your item is called

[9:00] and only inerson participants may donate

[9:03] or accept donations of time. Remote

[9:05] participants, if you would like to

[9:07] speak, please join the Zoom meeting

[9:08] printed on the agenda and raise your

[9:09] hand in Zoom when the item you wish to

[9:12] comment on is called. Commissioners,

[9:14] when you have comments, raise your hand.

[9:17] Calling you in order and try to make it

[9:18] clear for the uh record in the public.

[9:22] Rebecca, may I please have a roll call?

[9:26] >> Commissioner Leonard

[9:28] >> here.

[9:29] >> Commissioner

[9:31] >> here.

[9:39] » I'm here.

[9:40] >> Thank you. Normally this pledge of

[9:44] allegiance

[10:13] May I please have a report on the

[10:14] posting of the agenda?

[10:17] >> The agenda for this meeting is properly

[10:18] posted on August 7th.

[10:22] >> Chairman,

[10:22] >> are you approve the agenda continuing

[10:25] item 4 to a date uncertain?

[10:27] >> That is correct.

[10:29] >> Do we have a second?

[10:32] >> I'll second it.

[10:40] We'll go for a roll call.

[10:46] » Yes. Commissioner

[11:00] » We have any public comments?

[11:05] Commissioners, any comments? One on

[11:08] Zoom.

[11:09] >> There's two raised hands on Zoom.

[11:12] >> Go ahead.

[11:22] » Sorry.

[11:30] » I am. We can we can hear you. Yes, we

[11:32] can.

[11:32] >> Okay.

[11:44] » It's coming up. You'll have to check

[11:46] back. What item is that?

[11:50] » Okay. 3B. So, put your arm up for 3B.

[11:54] >> Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. 5A.

[11:56] >> It's 5A. Just put your hand up for 5A.

[11:58] When that counts. Thank you.

[12:04] Sterling page.

[12:24] Sterling, are you there?

[12:27] Going once for Sterling. Going twice.

[12:30] All

[12:31] right, let's go to the next one.

[12:33] Sterling, if we missed you, you can

[12:34] raise your hand again. We'll call you

[12:35] again.

[12:36] >> Judy,

[12:43] you're unmuted.

[12:45] Judy

[12:57] on your

[13:04] freedom.

[13:25] Judy, I'm going to give you a warning

[13:26] right now that I need you to speak about

[13:28] things that are on topic regarding the

[13:30] planning commission, please. Thank you.

[13:40] very

[13:58] You jump in.

[14:24] Um,

[14:26] >> you're again you're again off topic.

[14:29] This is your second warning. So, let's

[14:31] try to stick to the topic and relating

[14:34] to the planning commission. Thank you.

[15:03] All right. If you're going to continue

[15:04] to be off topic, we're going to go to

[15:05] the next speaker. Thank you. Have a good

[15:07] evening.

[15:20] We can we can hear you.

[16:36] Wednesday morning

[16:42] contctor.

[16:54] after all.

[16:59] » Thank you, Joe.

[17:03] And congratulations.

[17:05] >> That is all.

[17:07] >> All right. Um, commissioners, any

[17:08] comments? Great.

[17:12] I had a question.

[17:13] >> Something came up conversation I had

[17:15] with Norm prior to the meeting. Um, when

[17:18] people do swimming pools, is there like

[17:20] a right to entry for the fire

[17:21] department? He was asking about draft hy

[17:28] » for rebuild or

[17:29] >> no just in general for swimming pools.

[17:32] There's some

[17:35] language that gives a wildfire situation

[17:38] to the fire department.

[17:39] >> Um, the fire department usually will

[17:41] with the owner when they do require um a

[17:43] draft hydrant. There's a rights event

[17:48] that they work out.

[17:49] >> I I think that what what Drew is asking

[17:51] is more in the immediiacy of disaster.

[17:53] Is that what you're saying?

[17:53] >> Yeah. And and the way you do it, Drew,

[17:55] is you get a Nox from the fire

[17:57] department and they once once they have

[18:00] a Nox block, they have permission to go

[18:02] in and they have the only key. You don't

[18:05] have to.

[18:09] I could be wrong. Maybe Kellen can chime

[18:12] in on this, but I believe the fire

[18:13] department has accessardless.

[18:18] » Generally, yes, they do.

[18:20] >> Thank you.

[18:22] Anybody else?

[18:26] All right, moving on to the community

[18:28] development director report. I don't

[18:29] know if we have anything this evening,

[18:31] Tyler,

[18:31] >> just a couple things and then we're also

[18:33] going to do our um monthly uh rebuild

[18:35] update if that's okay.

[18:37] Um, so on regular operations, just

[18:40] letting the public know that on

[18:41] September 11th, a new PE schedule comes

[18:43] into effect. That's for, uh, fiscal year

[18:46] 2627. So they're not in effect right

[18:49] now. Typically, they go in effect July

[18:50] 1st, but this year they're going into

[18:52] effect September 11th.

[18:54] And then we also want to remind folks

[18:56] that on the Woosey Fire rebuild front

[18:58] that November 9th is the deadline to

[19:01] obtain either your building permit or to

[19:03] submit uh your application for an

[19:06] extension. And these are only pertaining

[19:08] to um people who have a plan

[19:10] verification approval for a

[19:12] non-conforming rebuild for the fire.

[19:14] Just keep track of that. We're already

[19:16] in August, you can believe it, and

[19:18] November's right around the corner. And

[19:19] with that, I'm going to pass it to Lazal

[19:21] for our Palestate.

[19:24] Thank you, Tyler Barbie.

[19:35] » Good evening, chair and commissioner.

[19:38] I will be providing the numbers for the

[19:40] review statistics.

[19:46] So this chart is a visual breakdown of

[19:49] the part of the last slide showing the

[19:51] numbers of the projects currently are in

[19:53] planning and building and safety. So far

[19:56] we received the 275 application.

[19:59] [clears throat]

[20:00] From these 275 application, 232 they got

[20:04] their planning approvals, 44 they are

[20:07] still under planning review and 63 they

[20:10] are in plant check and we issue so far a

[20:13] nine permits.

[20:20] So this is the breakdown of the nature

[20:23] of the projects. So 71%age of the

[20:26] application receive it they are planning

[20:28] verification in kind and in kind plus

[20:31] 10% with 8% uh in kind requiring

[20:37] administrative plan review or director

[20:40] administrative discretion request

[20:43] uh depend on the because of the height

[20:45] or also of the setbacks

[20:49] and 20% they require an additional RBPS

[20:52] for uh new supporting development for

[20:56] the seaw walls septic retaining walls

[21:00] and there is only four applications they

[21:02] are full cities

[21:06] so you can see that

[21:10] 59%age of the permits they were issued

[21:13] and still have 41 percentage they are in

[21:16] their plan check review.

[21:21] So the last chart is just display the

[21:24] distribution of the application sorry of

[21:26] the permit issues by zone captains. So

[21:28] you can see the big uh the big u the big

[21:33] rock area has been the highest number of

[21:36] the permit issued which is the 37 and

[21:39] the next one is basically the Lacosta

[21:42] and car beach which is

[21:54] That's all I have. You have any

[21:56] questions? One thing that might be nice

[21:57] to see on that is the relative amount of

[22:00] those being issued versus the amount of

[22:02] houses or homes that were destroyed in

[22:04] those areas

[22:06] >> to see that sort of sort of I think that may be helpful for the public as

[22:10] well just to kind of gauge where we're

[22:11] at in relative to what was destroyed.

[22:14] And I would just add that um I think the

[22:16] community is very grateful and

[22:19] supportive of your guys efforts. Um, I

[22:21] think like the comment that Joe made

[22:22] earlier would be awesome for people to

[22:24] know that stuff up front when they come

[22:26] in. I know that maybe it's not presented

[22:28] in a way, hey, we want to do this pool

[22:29] as well or whatever, but and not to to

[22:32] bombard people with too much

[22:34] information, but I think that that's

[22:35] super helpful if we can try to get ahead

[22:37] of that to help people with their time

[22:42] processes. Um, anybody else have any

[22:44] questions or anything?

[22:48] » Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[22:51] All right, we are now on consent. You

[22:54] Tyler, you didn't have anything to add,

[22:55] right? Okay,

[22:57] >> I move the consm.

[23:00] >> Uh, we had one person. Oh, no, that

[23:02] wasn't that was a different.

[23:06] All right. So, uh, do we need a roll

[23:09] call?

[23:13] if we have a second.

[23:19] » I think we have consensus. Anybody

[23:20] objecting? No. Everybody's in favor.

[23:23] >> All in favor? All in favor?

[23:39] Formula retail clearance number 26008

[23:43] formula retail waiver 26001 application

[23:45] for go

[23:48] center

[24:08] Good evening, Chair Peak and

[24:11] honorable members of the planning

[24:13] commission. Tonight we have before you

[24:15] an application for formula retail

[24:17] clearance and formula retail waiver for

[24:19] Greek yogurt located at in the park at

[24:23] Cross Creek shopping center.

[24:28] Go Greek Yogurt, a retail food service

[24:30] business, specializes in Greek style

[24:32] frozen yogurt, yogurt products, and

[24:35] related food items. Uh the spaces uh to

[24:39] occupy unit 2B within the park at Cross

[24:42] Creek Shopping Center located at 23401

[24:46] Civic Center Way.

[24:53] The application was submitted on March

[24:55] 18th, 2026 as a standard planning

[24:58] clearance request for proposed Greek

[25:00] yogurt business occupying approximately

[25:03] 650 square ft. On June 2nd, staff

[25:07] determined that the application needed

[25:09] to be processed as a formula retail

[25:11] clearance based on the nature of the

[25:13] proposed tenant. On July 16th, staff

[25:16] determined that the proposed 650 square

[25:19] formula retail use would cause the

[25:21] shopping center to exceed the 30% retail

[25:24] limit established by MMC section

[25:27] 17.61.030

[25:30] B2. The applicant is therefore

[25:33] requesting a waiver under Malibu

[25:36] Municipal Code section 17.61.030D

[25:40] 30 for the approximately 49 square ft

[25:45] that would exceed the 30% limit in the

[25:47] shopping center. The waiver does not

[25:50] apply to the entire 650 square foot

[25:53] tenant space.

[25:59] Staff compared the park acet commercial

[26:01] area to the surrounding shopping

[26:03] centers. Shown in blue is the total

[26:06] square footage of the shopping centers.

[26:08] As the graphic suggests, Cross Creek

[26:10] Ranch has significantly larger

[26:12] commercial area compared to the park at

[26:15] Cross Creek. Depicted in red is a 30%

[26:19] allowable formula retail per shopping

[26:21] center.

[26:25] Compared to Malibu Village, the allotted

[26:27] formula retail at the park across creek

[26:30] is significantly less. This is due to

[26:33] Whole Foods occupying more than half of

[26:35] the commercial space in the center.

[26:39] The shopping c center's total growth

[26:42] floor area is 38,188

[26:46] square ft. Whole Foods at 24,549

[26:51] square ft is exempt from the formula

[26:54] retail calculation. So it's subtracted

[26:56] out leaving 13,639

[27:00] square ft of gross floor area subject to

[27:03] the 30% cap. 4

[27:06] 91.7 square ft is the maximum nonexempt

[27:11] formula retail floor area allowed in the

[27:14] center. Go Creek yogurt is proposed at

[27:17] 650 ft. Adding this to the existing

[27:21] 3,851

[27:24] square ft brings the total to 4,51

[27:28] square ft. Compared against the

[27:30] allowable cap, this exceeds the

[27:32] threshold by 409 square ft, which is

[27:35] precisely the waiver amount reference on

[27:38] the earlier slides. Without a waiver,

[27:40] the center would not comply and would

[27:43] exceed the 30% limit, which is why the

[27:46] applicant's request under MMC 17.61.030D

[27:52] is necessary to move forward.

[27:56] The applicant is requesting a waiver

[27:59] because the proposed 600 foot square

[28:01] formula retail use would cause the

[28:03] shopping center to exceed the 30%

[28:06] formula retail cap by approximately 409

[28:09] square ft. Under section 17.61.030D,

[28:15] the planning commission may grant a

[28:17] waiver when unusual circumstances create

[28:20] an undue hardship in complying with the

[28:23] formula retail standards. In that case,

[28:26] the waiver is limited to the amount

[28:28] necessary to accommodate the proposed

[28:30] tenant and does not wave the 4,000

[28:32] square foot size standard for the

[28:34] individual business. Staff analysis

[28:37] considers whether the proposed would

[28:39] remain compatible with the existing

[28:41] shopping center, surrounding areas, and

[28:44] the city's goal of maintaining the

[28:46] community character and ambiance. If the

[28:50] planning commission determines that the

[28:51] required findings are supported by

[28:53] substantial evidence, it may approve the

[28:56] waiver with appropriate conditions to

[28:58] ensure continued compatibility with the

[29:01] shopping center and surrounding

[29:02] community.

[29:06] Staff is recommending two actions, 1 A

[29:09] and 1 B.

[29:12] Adopt resolution number 26-40

[29:16] and determine the project is exempt from

[29:18] SQA and is approving formula retail

[29:21] number two 26-008

[29:24] and FRW number 26-00001

[29:29] or direct staff to return with a

[29:31] resolution consistent with the planning

[29:33] commission's decision.

[29:35] Staff and the applicant are available

[29:37] for questions.

[29:39] >> All right. Thank you very much. Does

[29:40] anybody have any disclosures?

[29:43] Okay. Uh this was retail orance

[29:48] originally an initiative

[29:51] put forward by the public. I worked on

[29:53] that initiative. Um it passed by 60%

[29:58] and uh involves

[30:01] considerable expense by Robin half

[30:04] million dollar

[30:15] earlier today.

[30:24] All right.

[30:32] Do you want questions now or you want to

[30:34] go to public comment first?

[30:36] We have one on Zoom, I believe. And I

[30:38] don't know any other

[30:42] Oh, yeah. Let's start with the

[30:46] question.

[30:47] >> No.

[30:47] >> Okay.

[30:50] Unless you have a question that you want

[30:51] to do before.

[30:53] Okay.

[30:56] » Um, it says gold, but it's not there

[31:00] yet.

[31:04] » There's other stores that made it for

[31:06] retail. So, when it first applied, it

[31:08] wasn't, and now it is.

[31:11] >> No, I'm saying since gold store is not

[31:13] there, how is it counting towards the

[31:17] square footage

[31:22] of of retail of this formula retail.

[31:26] >> Well, I think the question is, is Gold

[31:27] Union there? Yes or no? Or do you not

[31:29] know?

[31:30] >> It's not open yet. Correct.

[31:32] >> Okay.

[31:33] >> So, it's formula retail not including it

[31:35] not being open yet.

[31:36] >> Got it.

[31:38] >> Okay. They they have approvals from the

[31:39] city though. So, we include them as part

[31:41] of that.

[31:46] » Correct.

[31:49] >> Any other clarifying questions?

[31:54] the this is was an ordinance

[31:59] we are allowed to give a variance

[32:03] unusual circumstances we have a letter

[32:05] from

[32:07] saying the unusual basically unusual

[32:09] circumstances they go over the limit

[32:12] there's no other reason put in their

[32:13] letter that's unusual

[32:17] is that

[32:21] If I want to build

[32:27] to be clear, this is a waiver, not a

[32:28] variance. They do have legal

[32:30] differences.

[32:31] >> I get a waiver

[32:41] because I'm over the limit.

[32:47] One of the points you have to make is

[32:48] that

[32:49] Okay.

[32:50] So, I hope everybody read this

[32:52] letter. There is no hardship.

[32:57] The other thing in your presentation

[33:01] you compared this to other shopping I

[33:04] understand the

[33:11] shopping center%

[33:25] So there

[33:29] other shopping centers.

[33:37] » Uh part of the reason for the comparison

[33:39] is the fact that this shopping center

[33:41] has the whole foods which takes up a lot

[33:43] of the retail space compared to other

[33:46] centers that don't have that.

[33:48] >> And is there a reason why that would

[33:50] change anything?

[33:56] to show you.

[33:58] >> And then my third question is

[34:02] they are asking for the ability to go.

[34:06] Well, first question is shopping center.

[34:12] This shopping center already has seven

[34:15] restaurants not

[34:23] small.

[34:28] It just depends on what you call

[34:29] diversification, right? It's a form of

[34:31] retail. So, you know, is there any other

[34:34] yogurt place in that shopping center?

[34:36] So, I think

[34:43] » the other the last question is you gave

[34:46] us the numbers, but when you look at 400

[34:52] 4

[34:59] whatever it is% of what's so the

[35:02] ordinance says you can have 30% and

[35:04] we're being asked to do a w%

[35:12] of what's

[35:21] the whole foods area from the gross

[35:25] right

[35:29] what you're saying is

[35:31] >> 10% of the remainder

[35:41] » um I have a question which is so there's

[35:44] a note on there for Prince Street and

[35:47] Herbs that while those all occupy that only um

[35:55] uh

[35:57] Prince Street is the one that's the form

[36:00] of the retail. Did you just calculate

[36:02] the square footage for Prince Street

[36:04] Pizza or did you calculate the square

[36:06] footage for Prince Street Herbs and the

[36:08] bar?

[36:09] >> I I took out the

[36:10] >> You took out the other ones. Okay. I

[36:11] just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

[36:13] Um All right. Can we go to the uh

[36:16] applicant? Everybody good? Nothing else?

[36:20] Um Joe,

[36:22] you have 15 minutes.

[36:25] I don't know if you want to reserve any

[36:27] time or not. You can now or you can just

[36:30] go and do whatever you like.

[36:32] >> Okay, just go.

[36:32] >> Yeah. So, uh good evening,

[36:34] Commissioners. I'm Michael Robin. I'm

[36:36] the I'm the architect also the

[36:38] applicant. Thanks for considering this

[36:41] um issue. Um we also have representative

[36:45] for the property owner and actually

[36:51] I wanted to first of all there's a I

[36:54] think there's maybe an error in square

[36:56] footage. I think what you had provided

[36:58] to us before was we were 210 over that

[37:02] can you clarify that?

[37:04] >> We were trying to find square footage um

[37:06] to

[37:08] help you out. I guess we've looked at

[37:10] the plan for the square footage. So ours

[37:12] are based on plans that we have with the

[37:14] record with the city.

[37:16] >> That's just the last document that you

[37:18] two

[37:22] » that's because gold is now for retail.

[37:26] So the square footage change between

[37:28] gold and I believe the cleaners.

[37:32] >> Right. So I wanted to reiterate the

[37:35] disadvantage that our center has because

[37:37] of

[37:39] Hopefully this picks up 64% of the

[37:42] center which allows the center to have

[37:44] only 4,000 square feet of retail formula

[37:47] retail. Um obviously if it was if it was

[37:51] not exact we would have a larger

[37:53] proportion available but as only 4,000

[37:57] of

[37:59] that our space is only 650.

[38:02] It's a restaurant but really it's

[38:05] retail. I mean it's not You don't go in

[38:08] sit down. There's not chairs on the

[38:09] interior. It's really you take something

[38:17] but we still have to have all the health

[38:19] department

[38:21] storage and walk

[38:23] and all that stuff. So what it does

[38:33] 183

[38:36] really The way I look at it, we're

[38:38] asking for 183

[38:41] of formula retail

[38:46] talk about

[38:49] comparing it with other centers which I

[38:51] think is sort of interesting because

[38:52] everything is connected. Everyone's

[38:54] going center to center. So if you would

[38:57] consider that a connected

[39:01] overall center, I think that it averages

[39:03] out like 17.8%

[39:06] I got from

[39:09] retail which is a lot less than 30%.

[39:13] And if we added ours in I think we I

[39:16] think it's only one and a half% increase

[39:18] in our in our retail. So it's pretty min

[39:21] it's pretty minimal. Um

[39:24] but anyway, I just I just wanted to to

[39:27] talk about those things and property get

[39:31] messy to talk about from a property of

[39:35] actually appreciate your time.

[39:47] » Like I represent the agent for

[39:52] center and we submitted a letter kind of

[39:56] outlining our position and our request

[39:58] for consideration of this. Um in our

[40:01] letter we specified that currently we

[40:05] have Tesla um at our shopping center and

[40:08] although they reached out to us about 18

[40:11] months ago for an early lease

[40:12] termination we weren't we didn't get

[40:15] anywhere but we do believe that if and

[40:17] when is coming um next April of 2028

[40:23] that they will most likely not renew and

[40:26] landlord market center we are committed

[40:28] in good faith If that does happen, we

[40:32] will either do a space division two

[40:34] spaces with a 500 foot minimum and we

[40:38] are committing to 50% not using it for

[40:43] formula retail and the balance of it

[40:45] formula retail. Um so we really think

[40:48] that you know in good faith we would be

[40:50] willing to commit to that proactively

[40:52] and full transparency. We do have a call

[40:54] with tomorrow. They reached out to us

[40:57] already. So we have everything to

[41:00] believe that we're going to be in

[41:01] position very shortly to get more

[41:04] footage.

[41:06] So, I just wanted to make sure that you

[41:09] guys had a moment to hear from us as the

[41:12] agent and the landlord. And again, we

[41:15] would consider you guys approving this

[41:18] in good faith and I'll

[41:33] Good evening, commissioners. My name is

[41:35] Joe Miguel and I oversee the

[41:37] construction and development of

[41:39] Gilbert's locations. Before I begin, I'd

[41:42] like to give you a little background on

[41:43] my connection to the company. Creek

[41:46] Yogurt is owned led by David and Sabot,

[41:49] a husband and wife team who remain

[41:51] personally involved in the and grow of

[41:54] the business. Tanya is my daughter and

[41:57] David is my son-in-law. So when I

[42:00] describe Creek

[42:02] as a family oriented and owner operated

[42:05] business, I'm speaking from personal

[42:07] experience.

[42:08] Michael and uh Mitsy have addressed the

[42:11] technical aspects of the application. So

[42:13] I don't want to repeat the numbers and

[42:15] go back to information you've already

[42:17] heard. Instead, I'd like to give you

[42:19] some perspective on who go Greek

[42:22] actually is and behind the company. Go

[42:26] did not begin as a large corporate

[42:27] chain. It started as an entrepreneurial

[42:30] owner driven business and has grown over

[42:33] time because of the concept has been successful. I've

[42:37] watched that grow personally and despite

[42:40] the growth, the way the company operates

[42:42] really hasn't changed. Dave and Tanya

[42:45] remain directly involved in the business

[42:47] and the decisions surrounding the

[42:49] stores. As the company has grown, I

[42:51] became directly involved to the

[42:53] construction development of our

[42:54] locations.

[42:56] We work together closely. There isn't a

[42:58] large corporate development department

[43:00] or layers of management making these

[43:03] decisions for us. The owners and the

[43:04] family are directly involved.

[43:07] We fully understand that because of the

[43:10] number of locations Go now operates, we

[43:12] meet the city's definition of formula

[43:14] retail. We're not disputing that at all.

[43:18] But I think there's an important

[43:19] distinction between meeting the

[43:21] technical definition of retail and being

[43:24] the type of large multinational

[43:26] corporation that people often associate

[43:28] with that term growth hasn't changed

[43:32] Greek yogurt is it remains a closely

[43:35] held owner operated and family oriented

[43:38] business the Malibu location is

[43:40] particularly important to David and

[43:42] Tanya and myself this is a corporate

[43:45] owned store not a franchise they

[43:47] personally selected this location and I

[43:50] spent months going back and forth trying

[43:53] to finalize everything here.

[43:57] They like the shopping center and they

[43:58] generally believe Gold Yogurt is a good

[44:01] fit for this community. They're not

[44:03] looking at Malibu simply as another

[44:05] location on a growth map. They want the

[44:07] store to become part of the community

[44:09] for the long term.

[44:11] Greek yogurt is built around health,

[44:13] wellness, quality products, and creating

[44:15] a welcoming environment where families

[44:17] and friends can gather. We believe those

[44:20] values fit naturally with Malibu and the

[44:24] other businesses in the shopping center.

[44:26] So while we recognize that Gold Creek

[44:28] technically falls within the city's

[44:30] formula retail division uh definition,

[44:33] what I would respectfully ask the

[44:35] commission to consider tonight is the

[44:37] people and the business behind the

[44:39] definition.

[44:41] When I say this is a family business,

[44:43] I'm not using that simply as a

[44:45] description. This is my family. I've

[44:47] watched the company grow. I work

[44:49] alongside David and Tanya and I see

[44:51] firsthand how personally involved we

[44:53] remain. We respect the purpose of

[44:56] Malibu's formula retail ordinance. And

[44:59] we're not asking the commission to

[45:00] disregard it. We're simply asking you to

[45:02] consider Greek for what it actually is,

[45:06] a successful and growing family oriented

[45:09] business whose owners remain personally

[45:11] involved and who generally genuinely

[45:14] want to become part of the Malibu

[45:16] community.

[45:17] We would say we very much appreciate the

[45:20] opportunity to do that. Thank you for

[45:22] your time and consideration.

[45:25] >> Thank you. You guys want to reserve the

[45:26] rest of the time? You want to keep

[45:27] going?

[45:35] Steve Welch

[45:37] operational management and part of the

[45:40] asset management team for the center.

[45:42] I'm personally involved with the

[45:44] day-to-day operations of the center and

[45:48] the uh

[45:50] improvement management and and all of

[45:52] the approvals and oversight of the

[45:54] tenants construction. Uh we uh the

[45:58] ownership purchases property in 2024.

[46:01] It's a familyowned

[46:04] uh entity. It's not it's not a big

[46:07] corporate setting. We been very

[46:10] respectful of all the city's ordinances

[46:13] and and followed them very carefully.

[46:16] We feel in this case we have follow the

[46:19] rules. We did submit we received some

[46:24] initial approvals and then they were

[46:28] rescended. uh that made us

[46:32] uh brought us to the point where we both

[46:36] the landlord and the tenant financially

[46:38] committed themselves to this project.

[46:40] And then there's been some adjustments

[46:42] in that as we went along with the

[46:44] understanding of

[46:46] misunderstandings or or changes of the

[46:49] interpretation of this formula retail.

[46:54] Again, we we understand that we have

[46:59] this, you know, shortage of 49 square

[47:03] feet, but we are willing we're basically

[47:06] asking for short-term uh reconsideration

[47:10] of that. Uh and again, we're willing to

[47:13] recommmit future footage that we will be

[47:15] getting back. Could be anytime within

[47:18] the next few months and up to a year and

[47:21] a half from now. But we are going to

[47:24] commit to

[47:26] make at least 500 square feet of that

[47:30] non

[47:34] back out in a short time.

[47:42] No public comments here.

[47:46] Three raised hands. First is

[47:53] Hello. How you doing?

[48:30] Bill Samson.

[48:43] We can hear you though.

[49:08] We're not giving anybody.

[49:15] Sorry.

[49:26] I don't care. I'm not about

[49:29] But I don't think

[49:32] anywhere.

[49:44] Thank you, Bill.

[49:48] >> Joe Drummond.

[50:04] one large dominative

[50:19] clothing

[50:23] and this isn't abouting local business,

[50:32] but there should be room for

[50:35] more small businesses with kids, family

[50:38] gather,

[50:43] not just

[50:48] » Thank you, Joe.

[50:52] Those are all the raised hands.

[50:53] >> All right. Um, you guys have any other

[50:57] comments? You have a little bit more

[50:58] time left the applicant team? No. All

[51:02] right, we'll call you up if you have any

[51:03] questions.

[51:05] Public comment is closed.

[51:08] Commissioners,

[51:10] Marty,

[51:13] » um,

[51:15] so I have nothing against frozen yogurt.

[51:17] I really like it. Um, I wish that it was

[51:20] Gold Union here because that would be

[51:24] block. Um, much easier than frozen

[51:26] yogurt. Um,

[51:30] my problem is the center

[51:33] really doesn't do a good job of managing

[51:36] um, parking and so I'm picturing this

[51:39] place is going to bring a lot of people.

[51:42] Um, I was there yesterday. I'm probably

[51:44] there about three times a day, seven

[51:47] days a week because I walk my dog

[51:48] through there. Um there's road rage

[51:52] going on in yesterday. There was road

[51:54] rage in the parking lot. There was about

[51:56] 35 kids in the playground there. Um that

[52:00] has no gate. You know, they're just kind

[52:02] of running loose. Um there was no

[52:05] parking anywhere. There were people were

[52:07] parked in the towway spots. People are

[52:10] always parked in the horse parking. All

[52:12] the Tesla spots. People are arguing

[52:14] because people park in the electric

[52:17] parking spots when there don't have

[52:19] electric cars. Um people park in the

[52:21] handicap spots. Employees tell me that

[52:24] they can't find parking because people

[52:25] park in the employee spots and that um

[52:28] and I myself have called to try and have

[52:31] someone towed that's just been parked in

[52:33] the middle. Um and the the response is

[52:37] that nothing can be towed unless you're

[52:39] the property owner, but the property

[52:40] owner doesn't enforce that. Um, so

[52:43] really my biggest problem is I I don't

[52:46] feel like I can in good conscience

[52:48] support adding more people coming to the

[52:52] center and I would go for other shops as

[52:54] well when already people park there.

[52:57] Maybe they're going to the beach, I

[52:58] don't know, but they park there all day

[53:00] and it's all filled. Um, as well as um

[53:04] they don't enforce um homeless people

[53:07] kind of being everywhere bathing in the

[53:10] drinking fountain. Nothing is enforced

[53:12] and I I don't feel like the center is

[53:15] managed in a way that um I could ever

[53:20] without conditions um say yes to this.

[53:25] And so that said, I'm wondering if you

[53:27] guys would be open to having some kinds

[53:29] of conditions that say that maybe

[53:31] somebody is always available. Um I don't

[53:36] know what kind of conditions maybe my

[53:38] other commissioners can help me but um

[53:40] that someone is always available um by

[53:42] phone to call a tow truck to have people

[53:46] cited that are parked illegally in

[53:48] handicapped spots um you know that

[53:52] someone is available every day of the

[53:53] week to to make that happen. Um and then

[53:57] and it's and then I had another question

[53:59] of the city um with the new um emergency

[54:05] ordinance um that we have for the fires.

[54:08] I forget what it's called. Um what

[54:11] happens if there is somebody that um

[54:15] shouldn't be there and somebody calls

[54:17] and says, "We have this person here.

[54:19] They shouldn't be at the center." Will

[54:21] Lost Hills Sheriff be able to enforce

[54:24] with our new emergency ordinance?

[54:27] Do you know what I'm saying? I would

[54:29] imagine somebody would be able to show

[54:31] up they're breaking a law or something

[54:33] like that or if the landlord were to

[54:34] make a phone call and request somebody

[54:36] were be removed from that property that

[54:37] could happen. But I think I'm not really

[54:40] entirely understanding. I don't know if

[54:42] Tyler tell the um the [clears throat]

[54:45] emergency ordinance that was emergency

[54:47] declaration that was uh approved last

[54:50] week was related to encampments and so I

[54:53] think it has to be related to that in

[54:54] order for the sheriff to take action. So

[54:57] >> So somebody lives an encampment close by

[55:00] or seems to look like they might uh

[55:03] which I wouldn't want to you know you're

[55:05] not going to profile people or whatever

[55:06] but if somebody seems that they're um

[55:12] not appropriately behaving at this

[55:14] center um what's going to what can be

[55:17] done if the sheriff

[55:20] real quick I think it depends on the

[55:21] type of behavior right if there's a

[55:23] physical altercation

[55:25] >> okay let's say washing their hair in the

[55:26] drinking fountain Um, I see

[55:29] >> I'm struggling to see how this relates

[55:31] to formula retail and the waiver request

[55:34] here. So, I'd really focus back on the

[55:38] Let me Let me finish real quick. Focus

[55:40] uses back on the municipal code, which

[55:42] is either yes or no. Do you find unusual

[55:46] circumstances here? They've said it's

[55:48] because they were caught in the middle

[55:49] of another business and the formula

[55:51] retail kind of competing for that those

[55:53] last remaining slots. And whether If you

[55:57] find that was there an undue hardship um

[56:00] if the answer is yes you can impose

[56:02] certain conditions but homelessness

[56:05] anything like that I fail to see how

[56:07] that's related parking maybe you know

[56:09] you can create conditions but I think

[56:11] the first step is to get over the hurdle

[56:13] of is there a majority vote yes or no on

[56:16] those first questions and then move on

[56:18] to conditions if you see that but

[56:19] >> just to share the relevance Helen the

[56:22] fact that this is bringing such a clown

[56:24] show to the area not just go the frozen

[56:27] yogurt place. But I'm saying this center

[56:29] um creates so much so much havoc going

[56:32] on and and all the centers um it it

[56:36] brings those people it brings more uh

[56:39] people that have encampments. It brings

[56:42] more unpredictable people to the area.

[56:45] >> I you know legally I fail to see how we

[56:47] can create a condition about how a

[56:49] yogurt shop attracts homeless people.

[56:53] Well, it would be more for the center. A

[56:55] condition that the center

[56:56] >> it's it's not for the center. You're not

[56:58] looking at the center's behavior. You're

[57:00] looking at this building um and this formula retail or this retail use.

[57:07] What what conditions can we do in

[57:11] regards to the parking and the basic uh

[57:15] >> so if you wanted to post something on

[57:17] the parking maybe you could say like x

[57:19] amount of spots need to be one hour

[57:21] parking

[57:22] >> right

[57:22] >> that's something or

[57:24] >> it already is it is you're supposed to

[57:26] be going to the shops there and people

[57:27] don't people flout that

[57:29] >> or you know there there's this

[57:30] relationship between the the retail

[57:33] tenant and the business as a whole or

[57:36] the shopping center. You could have, you

[57:39] know, potential people being

[57:41] responsible. You're the owner of this

[57:42] shop. You, if someone complains about

[57:44] parking, you have 20 minutes to call the

[57:46] and call for a tow and work with the

[57:49] shopping owner or work something out

[57:50] with the shopping owner prior to opening

[57:52] that they're going to get special

[57:53] priority on toes. Those type of things.

[57:55] >> You can also say that like special

[57:58] parking specifically for this business.

[58:00] if you feel like this business might

[58:01] attract a certain amount of parking. So,

[58:04] the parking is allocated for the

[58:06] shopping center as a whole. Commissioner

[58:08] Maza talked about the mixed uses going

[58:10] on. So, it's it's not looked at each

[58:12] individual business. It's looked at as a mixeduse. So, you could say we want

[58:16] three dedicated parking spaces, let's

[58:18] say, for this uh yogurt shop at all

[58:21] times.

[58:23] >> But then what if somebody does somebody

[58:25] parks there and goes to the beach in the

[58:27] yogurt shop parking? How will that be

[58:29] enforced? That's what I'm wondering.

[58:38] » So, hold on. Drew, did you want to

[58:40] finish the comment?

[58:41] >> No, I was going to say,

[58:43] but I has a little bit of a point in

[58:45] regards to kind of reviewing the

[58:48] protocol of the shopping center. Uh, it

[58:51] is very, very hard to get around in that

[58:52] shopping center a lot of the time.

[58:55] >> Okay,

[58:57] >> John, go ahead. Perhaps you might

[58:59] consider part of the problem in parking

[59:01] is seven other restaurants. Seven. Okay.

[59:06] Seven. That has to do with usage. Fast

[59:09] food has has more people come to it than

[59:13] dry cleaners. Okay. You can do this by

[59:17] following the law saying this is this is

[59:21] you know a single business out of the

[59:23] toes. No one

[59:26] can tow and uh for example it's a matter

[59:32] of following our code. This shopping

[59:34] center never completed its uh CDP

[59:38] requirements. Never. Okay. They never

[59:41] planted the green walls. So

[59:46] and and to say to say, "Oh, this is a

[59:49] family business.

[59:51] It's going to be run differently."

[59:52] That's like saying Hotel is a family

[59:55] business. Okay, it was at one time. So

[59:58] was McDonald's. But

[1:00:02] the real key here is

[1:00:05] I actually I'd like to ask if I could

[1:00:07] ask the applicant a question.

[1:00:12] Could I could I any one of you who wants

[1:00:15] to answer the question?

[1:00:16] >> Why don't you ask the question? They'll

[1:00:18] put the best person answer. The question

[1:00:20] is, you're required to have unusual

[1:00:23] circumstances.

[1:00:25] Can you come up and tell me what's the

[1:00:26] unusual circumstance? Because your

[1:00:28] letter certainly doesn't spell it out.

[1:00:30] So, we can't we're we're not supposed to

[1:00:33] make this finding without an unusual

[1:00:35] circumstance.

[1:00:43] I addressed this before but you know

[1:00:47] I think our issue is that we are

[1:00:50] disadvantaged by the 60% 64% of our

[1:00:54] project is is taken by Whole

[1:00:56] >> Foods.

[1:00:58] My question is the unusual part of it.

[1:01:01] >> John the issue with the Whole Foods is

[1:01:04] like we don't that's not necessarily

[1:01:06] like that's your guys decision, right?

[1:01:08] We rented out this large space to this

[1:01:10] big anchor tenant. So then you have to

[1:01:13] deal with the consequences of that,

[1:01:14] right? That's not a hardship. The

[1:01:15] consequences are these are the rules.

[1:01:18] These is the law. You know, I I I I

[1:01:21] don't I don't buy that argument.

[1:01:22] >> Well,

[1:01:24] the point I'd like to make is

[1:01:27] four shopping centers in this city have

[1:01:29] super.

[1:01:31] Okay. So, are we supposed to tell tell

[1:01:34] the Ralph Center that they get not they

[1:01:37] get to count the Ralphs and or or

[1:01:40] Vintage Market

[1:01:42] similar size shopping center almost

[1:01:44] exactly the same size and we and so the

[1:01:48] word unusual is required in

[1:01:52] >> So is there any other hardship that you have in relation to that?

[1:02:01] I don't think so.

[1:02:02] >> No. Okay.

[1:02:07] » Okay.

[1:02:09] So, so first, you know, as a planning

[1:02:12] commission,

[1:02:15] my personal view, and I'll state this

[1:02:17] publicly, is I'm not here to be an

[1:02:19] enforcer. I'm not a a police officer.

[1:02:22] I'm not going out and handing out code

[1:02:26] violations. I'm here to have perspective

[1:02:29] on the community.

[1:02:31] on our business establishments,

[1:02:35] on our residents, and I need to have the

[1:02:38] ability to look at a situation not in

[1:02:42] black and white, but as a whole. And

[1:02:45] what I see right now in this particular

[1:02:48] situation is we're talking about a

[1:02:52] center owner who has a certain amount of

[1:02:55] establishments

[1:02:57] that he needs to lease in order to have

[1:03:00] his center be successful as well as our

[1:03:04] you know lees who are businesses who

[1:03:07] need to be profitable and have their

[1:03:10] businesses work. And there's

[1:03:12] negotiations that go on between these

[1:03:15] two and different things that happen to

[1:03:17] try and get the best outcome. I think

[1:03:19] what we don't want to have is a bunch of

[1:03:22] empty storefronts in Malibu and I have

[1:03:25] seen that. So when I look at this

[1:03:29] particular situation,

[1:03:31] I think that the hardship if I was to

[1:03:36] state what I'm seeing is it's a timing

[1:03:38] issue. Um, we've heard a commitment by

[1:03:43] the center owner to subdivide and commit

[1:03:46] to having a nonformmula retail take up

[1:03:50] 500 square feet in the recent or near

[1:03:53] future. So, the waiver would be somewhat

[1:03:55] temporary. I'm hearing that. Um, I hear

[1:03:58] that they've chosen a yogurt shop that

[1:04:02] was initially a family business. It only

[1:04:05] has 10 stores. I don't think you can

[1:04:06] compare it to Hilton Corporate. Um,

[1:04:11] so I I'm hearing a lot of of different

[1:04:13] things that that are going on and that

[1:04:15] are in play here. And it's certainly not

[1:04:18] black and white. And I'm not sure if

[1:04:20] Robiner was sitting here right now how

[1:04:22] he would vote on this. And I don't think

[1:04:25] that we should be guessing. Um, what I think is what is best for Malibu.

[1:04:31] I don't see personally as a mom and as a

[1:04:35] shop customer. Usually, we don't go

[1:04:41] driving somewhere to go park and go to a

[1:04:43] yogurt shop. Usually, we dine and then

[1:04:46] we want to have some dessert and we

[1:04:48] swing by the yogurt shop. We get some

[1:04:50] yogurt and we leave and we're like,

[1:04:53] "Yay, okay, we have some yogurt instead

[1:04:54] of ice cream." You know? So, I don't

[1:04:56] really see the yogurt shop being a a

[1:05:00] parking destination or somewhere where

[1:05:03] people go and sit and linger. It it's

[1:05:06] like a quick grab and go, a final to a

[1:05:08] meal. You're passing through, you know,

[1:05:10] the shop and you grab some yogurt. So, I

[1:05:12] don't I don't fear it as being some

[1:05:15] huge, you know, parking um issue. So, I

[1:05:19] think we need to look at the situation

[1:05:21] as a whole. And I also think we need to

[1:05:23] take into consideration that we're

[1:05:25] talking about 400 square feet.

[1:05:29] That's it's extremely tiny. Um so you

[1:05:35] know let let's keep things in

[1:05:36] perspective.

[1:05:38] >> Thank you for that. I I just want to

[1:05:41] 100% disagree with you. When you when

[1:05:44] you swore in when you swore in as a

[1:05:47] planning commission you swore to follow

[1:05:49] the

[1:05:52] >> they are passed by the city council not

[1:05:54] by

[1:05:54] >> I just want to say that there's

[1:05:56] something called a waiver but there's

[1:05:58] something called a waiver

[1:06:03] » the ordinance was passed by the city

[1:06:06] council

[1:06:10] but you can

[1:06:12] Well, I can, you know, I'll just look at

[1:06:14] what it is and who it is and everything

[1:06:16] else. We should not have the ability to

[1:06:18] choose which

[1:06:21] only to decide what square footage can

[1:06:24] be used. They could have Joe's cigar

[1:06:28] shop,000

[1:06:30] cigar and you don't like smoking. No,

[1:06:34] that's not what the unusual

[1:06:36] circumstance. There is none. Now,

[1:06:40] Robin would roll over

[1:06:42] Okay.

[1:06:46] 60% of the people in voted for retail

[1:06:50] orders because we were losing all our local stores. They're all gone

[1:06:56] almost because it was gutted and

[1:06:59] combined it. Now you say, "Well, please

[1:07:02] come to town." Of course they can. Right

[1:07:04] next door, right across the street is a

[1:07:07] shopping center. It's got five. I was

[1:07:10] there today.

[1:07:12] You can rent there.

[1:07:14] It's notific

[1:07:27] whatever that juice store is. But

[1:07:32] there was a process

[1:07:34] 50% of the people over half a million

[1:07:37] probably 100 people

[1:07:40] work on getting petition signed through

[1:07:43] the law to the lawyers

[1:07:47] everything else that's the people of

[1:07:50] Malib you're not the people of Malib

[1:07:52] you're one person you're you were put on

[1:07:56] a commission to

[1:08:00] evaluate whether people qualify for what

[1:08:03] they were. We can't That's like saying,

[1:08:06] "Well, gee, I don't have a good view, so

[1:08:08] I can put my house out in the ocean."

[1:08:11] That's not what it said.

[1:08:14] and

[1:08:16] specific I'm still talking

[1:08:18] >> I know you are

[1:08:20] >> the subject

[1:08:23] >> we we have a very strict set of criteria

[1:08:27] that we're looking at and who voted for

[1:08:29] it 60% those are irrelevant to the

[1:08:33] question

[1:08:33] >> you say it was irrelevant what you said

[1:08:35] >> because you didn't talk as long as you

[1:08:37] did I let you go on

[1:08:40] >> okay then I'm on the subject and I'm

[1:08:43] I hear what you say.

[1:08:45] >> Okay.

[1:08:45] that's it. Now,

[1:08:48] here we have a situation where we we're

[1:08:52] not they admit they don't have an

[1:08:53] unusual circuit. So, we should not

[1:08:56] approve this because it's supposed to be

[1:08:59] extraordinary, not just like children.

[1:09:01] And we also have the fact that they are

[1:09:04] going from 30% to a 40%. It's not a

[1:09:09] small move, it's 40%.

[1:09:12] Okay.

[1:09:13] >> So, John, you would make a motion and

[1:09:15] that motion would be for denial, but

[1:09:17] we're still having a conversation. Okay.

[1:09:19] >> Can I can I ask is there some way we can

[1:09:21] come to some conditions that say this is

[1:09:24] going to bring more people? I know Liz

[1:09:26] would maybe be on foot and parked

[1:09:28] elsewhere, but this is going to bring

[1:09:30] more people. I think it's actually going

[1:09:32] to be if it if it's there, it's going to

[1:09:34] be probably a very popular place. I

[1:09:36] think it would fit well, but I don't

[1:09:38] think that the way that the place is

[1:09:41] managed and the parking is managed is

[1:09:44] feasible and maybe there's a condition

[1:09:46] that we could put on to come to an

[1:09:48] approval so that

[1:09:49] >> so why don't you think about whatever

[1:09:52] that condition would be Drew did you

[1:09:54] have anything else to add at this point

[1:09:58] >> there I mean I'm open to the idea of a

[1:10:00] condition I'd love to ask the team if

[1:10:03] there's some suggestions on how we get

[1:10:06] to where our concerns are

[1:10:09] >> I have a question

[1:10:10] team as well. My question is going to be

[1:10:14] about the information that you have from

[1:10:16] one of your other tenants, Tesla. And I

[1:10:19] know that you offer to do something that

[1:10:22] would be conditional based on that. I

[1:10:24] would be reluctant to uh

[1:10:27] resolve something by saying that, but

[1:10:30] maybe the item gets continued if you're

[1:10:32] having a call with them tomorrow and

[1:10:34] maybe you know some more information. So

[1:10:37] maybe this could be

[1:10:40] based on some sort of fate or something

[1:10:41] like that.

[1:10:43] >> You can

[1:10:46] trust Elon Musk to not change his mind.

[1:10:50] Okay.

[1:10:52] >> I digress.

[1:10:52] >> No, but I just want I just want to I

[1:10:55] just want to real you realize

[1:10:58] you had speakers on this

[1:11:01] over 2500 people voted.

[1:11:04] >> I think everybody understand I

[1:11:07] understand that. But when it goes to

[1:11:09] appeal, you're the guy who appointed you

[1:11:12] or who the woman who appointed you is

[1:11:14] going to have to stand up there and say,

[1:11:15] "Nah, I don't want to."

[1:11:18] >> I can speak for myself and say that the

[1:11:20] way it is right now, I'm not comfortable

[1:11:21] with it based on it. So that's why I'm

[1:11:24] asking them, you're having a call

[1:11:26] tomorrow, you anticipate that call

[1:11:28] saying, "Can we terminate our early

[1:11:32] penalty?" Or you're going to say, "You

[1:11:34] guys got to stick around for a year and

[1:11:36] a half." You understand that kind of a

[1:11:38] sort of mixed bag but pretty hard to get

[1:11:42] a conclusive yes on how things are right

[1:11:45] now. So what is the update on that or

[1:11:47] what are your thoughts?

[1:11:49] >> So my thoughts are as mentioned um we

[1:11:53] purchased this in 2024 and when we

[1:11:57] purchased it shortly there we actually

[1:12:00] invested almost 500,000 in this

[1:12:04] improvement. Um we did our parking lot

[1:12:06] patio furniture. I mean we really took

[1:12:08] pride in the center. So um when

[1:12:11] approached us then we respectfully

[1:12:13] declined. You know we weren't interested

[1:12:14] in early termination. Um but we believe

[1:12:19] that they have changed their mind. Um we

[1:12:21] believe that tomorrow's phone call is

[1:12:24] actually at

[1:12:27] your real estate manager and myself

[1:12:29] along with some other members of our

[1:12:32] team and we will be having a discussion

[1:12:36] about early.

[1:12:40] Um I do want to comment on concerns

[1:12:43] about parking. Um

[1:12:46] we were just there

[1:12:49] and we had I'm not going to say that he

[1:12:51] was a patriot of our center. Um but he

[1:12:54] certainly was being excessively loud um

[1:12:58] and causing a disruption making the

[1:13:01] patrons of our center not feel welcomed

[1:13:03] and we have security on site Monday

[1:13:05] through Sunday on site foot patrol um

[1:13:08] and uh we dispatched the sheriff and

[1:13:11] unfortunately they declined and said

[1:13:13] that they weren't able to remove the

[1:13:14] individual because he was not intruding

[1:13:18] in our storefronts and he was in the

[1:13:20] common area and we had take that

[1:13:23] negativity experience at our shopping

[1:13:25] centers. So, I I understand what you're

[1:13:27] saying about, you know, the homeless

[1:13:29] concern, but we really do try to

[1:13:33] dispatch sheriffs and get our security

[1:13:35] personnel to escort these individuals

[1:13:38] off of our center, but unfortunately, we

[1:13:41] have limited rights as a landlord and a

[1:13:43] shopping center owner. So, I I hear you

[1:13:46] guys and we appreciate the feedback, but

[1:13:48] I would just say that we're still trying

[1:13:50] to do this in good faith. So,

[1:13:53] >> I have a question. What's your parking

[1:13:54] per thousand?

[1:14:05] » Needless to say, they're not adding.

[1:14:10] » Um, does your security do any type of

[1:14:14] enforcement or

[1:14:15] >> they do they do and and uh we get a lot

[1:14:18] of push back. We get a lot of uh

[1:14:21] interactions with our customers that get

[1:14:23] upset. We actually got um we actually

[1:14:27] got excessive voicemails from a Patreon

[1:14:30] or it was it wasn't even a Patreon. Um

[1:14:32] and they kept calling and leaving very

[1:14:34] aggressive voicemails to us saying that

[1:14:36] they were a customer in fact that they

[1:14:38] were not and they were living in their

[1:14:41] vehicle and we requested that they We

[1:14:43] have security cameras. Uh we look at

[1:14:46] them daily. Uh we have security reports.

[1:14:49] I like I said, we're constantly there.

[1:14:51] So I understand.

[1:14:54] >> How many toes did you do last month?

[1:14:57] >> Well, unfortunately, when we get to the

[1:14:59] point where we tow, they either they

[1:15:01] either leave aggressively upset um they

[1:15:05] vandalize our property and we throw all

[1:15:08] their trash out and then now our dayter

[1:15:10] has to clean it up. We have on site at

[1:15:13] least 12 hours a day. Um, Monday through

[1:15:16] Friday, Monday through Sunday, 12 hours

[1:15:18] a day. So, I

[1:15:23] also your cleaning crew is excellent. I

[1:15:25] see them working all the time. I wave to

[1:15:27] them. They're fantastic. The security

[1:15:31] officers, I give them a thumbs down. Um,

[1:15:35] they don't do anything

[1:15:39] afternoon. It would have been vastly

[1:15:40] different than whatever you saw today.

[1:15:42] They do zero to remove disruptive people

[1:15:46] and um they focus on

[1:15:51] people that are actually dining not to

[1:15:54] sit on a certain bench or something. Um

[1:15:57] they're really

[1:15:59] and and it would be great if we could

[1:16:01] get Malibu City to give citations to

[1:16:04] people that are parked for longer than a

[1:16:06] certain amount of time. I possible is

[1:16:09] that

[1:16:10] >> I think that's up to the center. That's

[1:16:11] their

[1:16:13] >> They don't can't give citations on

[1:16:14] private property

[1:16:19] they can if there's proper signage.

[1:16:21] >> They cannot give citations on private

[1:16:23] property

[1:16:30] the type of telling activity is on uh in

[1:16:33] the public rights that that Commissioner

[1:16:36] C is referring to. So just um thank you

[1:16:39] very much. Um commissioners, do we

[1:16:43] where you guys at? I would make I would

[1:16:46] consider a motion for a continuence

[1:16:48] pending their conversation with their

[1:16:49] other tenants.

[1:16:50] >> I would second that.

[1:16:52] >> I don't I just don't know. I I don't

[1:16:55] think that just to the applicant, I

[1:16:56] don't think that we have enough in front

[1:16:58] of us to make I think right now if you

[1:17:00] were to go to a vote um you would be

[1:17:02] getting a deny. So I think it's in your

[1:17:05] best

[1:17:07] figure out what your resolution is going

[1:17:09] to be with your other tenant and maybe

[1:17:11] that gives you some sort of a better

[1:17:13] timeline on when this can happen. I

[1:17:15] don't think that as a business we

[1:17:18] necessarily have issues with the yogurt

[1:17:19] plate. It's the real issue is simply the threshold of the formula retail and

[1:17:24] not being a sensitive issue for our

[1:17:26] community and not really finding being

[1:17:28] able to make the findings in regards to

[1:17:29] the hardship. Um I think that's kind of

[1:17:32] where we're at. So

[1:17:33] >> well I'll I'll second that. We specified

[1:17:37] that we need hard evidence, not just

[1:17:42] >> we need hard evidence if they're coming

[1:17:43] back for something that's going to push

[1:17:44] them over. But if they're coming back

[1:17:46] for something that they're not over

[1:17:48] Tesla writes a letter say we're out of

[1:17:49] here.

[1:17:50] >> Well, I mean, it's like them promising

[1:17:53] to plant.

[1:17:54] >> There's also a wall

[1:17:59] of green and they never planted things

[1:18:02] like that. Um, I actually do think that

[1:18:03] they did do the green walls because I

[1:18:05] was there the other day using the

[1:18:06] restroom and I saw them. So, hold

[1:18:10] motion.

[1:18:12] >> It's not formally on the table yet.

[1:18:14] >> We have a motion in a second to continue

[1:18:16] it until after they speak with

[1:18:24] so there's also I mean I don't know

[1:18:25] where this plays in, but there's also

[1:18:28] the option just to downsize. I mean, I

[1:18:30] don't know what Tesla, you know, what

[1:18:33] the negotiations are and it's unified

[1:18:35] business, but you know, to shave off

[1:18:38] 409.

[1:18:40] >> Yeah. I mean, that's their their

[1:18:43] conversation to have. We don't know the

[1:18:44] answer to that. I think it's in their

[1:18:47] best interest probably at this point to go with a continuence. And I'll make

[1:18:51] the motion and John is seconding that. I

[1:18:53] don't think we need a date certain. Um

[1:18:56] Oh, you seconded it. Sorry. But um I

[1:19:00] think that that's sort of up to the

[1:19:01] applicant to be in touch with the

[1:19:02] planning department

[1:19:04] based on their conversation, you know,

[1:19:07] and if they come up with any other

[1:19:08] hardship and they want to come back

[1:19:10] before us with the situation the way it

[1:19:13] is now, you have a general read on where

[1:19:15] it's at. So

[1:19:18] >> I do think it's a good fit for the

[1:19:21] community, you know,

[1:19:26] » that's what

[1:19:29] Thank you, John. So, Rebecca, do you

[1:19:32] have enough

[1:19:38] to date of October 5th, 2020? Sure,

[1:19:41] that's fine.

[1:19:45] » Continuence to the middle of October,

[1:19:48] >> October 5th,

[1:19:49] >> sorry, beginning of October. Is that

[1:19:51] acceptable?

[1:19:52] >> Yeah. Come up to the mic.

[1:20:00] I just wanted to bring up what we've

[1:20:02] gone through the last

[1:20:06] we understand that I think this is

[1:20:07] specific in regards to the

[1:20:09] >> we have a time we have a time issue you

[1:20:10] know we've been going through this for a

[1:20:12] long time we actually have approval we

[1:20:15] help approval we're ready to start

[1:20:18] building this project so you know

[1:20:23] if we would have known this from the

[1:20:24] very

[1:20:25] This would have been a little bit easier

[1:20:27] to deal with.

[1:20:27] >> Understood.

[1:20:29] >> But we just heard about this

[1:20:31] >> recently.

[1:20:32] >> Correct.

[1:20:32] >> So, um I mean I don't there's nothing

[1:20:36] none of their permits or anything

[1:20:37] they've already had would expire or any

[1:20:40] of that. We can add this time onto

[1:20:42] there.

[1:20:43] >> They just don't they don't have a valid

[1:20:44] permit right now.

[1:20:44] >> They don't have a valid.

[1:20:45] >> Correct. Because they need a form of

[1:20:47] retail

[1:20:47] >> in order to get that. Okay.

[1:20:50] Yeah, we have all of our clearances

[1:20:52] except for planning.

[1:20:55] >> Correct. And planning is going to

[1:20:56] dictate whether or not any of the other

[1:20:57] ones can happen. So,

[1:20:59] >> I think it's in your guys best interest

[1:21:01] to do the continuence to the beginning

[1:21:03] of October, work out whatever that is

[1:21:06] with the tenant. Even if you come back

[1:21:07] and you say, "Hey, the lease is

[1:21:08] terminating. You know, the tenants's

[1:21:10] going to be out on set date. You know,

[1:21:13] you grant us the approval so we can get

[1:21:16] our construction going and everything

[1:21:17] else and get to a place where we're

[1:21:19] opening after that is operation.

[1:21:25] Okay. All right. So, can we have a roll

[1:21:27] call?

[1:21:29] >> Okay. So, the motion that you're voting

[1:21:31] on is for continuence to date certain of

[1:21:34] October 5th, 202.

[1:21:38] » Yes.

[1:21:39] >> Commissioner,

[1:21:41] >> yes.

[1:21:43] >> Commissioner Leonard,

[1:21:44] >> yes. Commissioner, sorry.

[1:21:59] » Thank you. Um, all right. So, we're now

[1:22:01] on 5B.

[1:22:03] Uh,

[1:22:05] coastal development permit policies fire

[1:22:09] 25-001

[1:22:11] streamline modification review 26.002

[1:22:13] an application to construct a new single

[1:22:15] family residence and associated

[1:22:17] development at 21844 Pacific Coast

[1:22:20] Highway.

[1:22:26] Is that remote?

[1:22:27] >> Yeah, we're

[1:22:29] Rick

[1:22:46] Yes, you are.

[1:23:19] neighborhood of the city. As we all

[1:23:21] know, this is one of the areas that was

[1:23:23] severely impacted by the power

[1:23:26] back in January 2025.

[1:23:30] So, the application before you

[1:23:33] coastal development permit

[1:23:37] fire the governed

[1:23:41] executive order.

[1:23:46] So, this basically allowed a temporary

[1:23:48] suspension um

[1:23:51] postal relative to I'll next slide just

[1:23:57] quick enough here essentially under that

[1:24:01] executive order uh the property owner

[1:24:05] when it comes to rebuild would be

[1:24:07] allowed

[1:24:09] plus 10% under a planning verification.

[1:24:13] So actually if we could just quickly go

[1:24:15] back up that slide in this case the

[1:24:20] for

[1:24:22] this course does require local program.

[1:24:26] Next slide please.

[1:24:29] So as I introduced before so the

[1:24:33] executive order does suspend the coastal

[1:24:36] act where again you have this rev

[1:24:45] beach structure does not extend further

[1:24:48] than

[1:24:50] prior to the power.

[1:24:53] So therefore the development including

[1:24:55] adjacent properties

[1:24:58] point on the beach fire.

[1:25:03] So this effectively gives this a

[1:25:06] streamline and this will essentially

[1:25:09] become a recurring fee

[1:25:12] for the final commission as it projects

[1:25:15] and applications going forward where

[1:25:18] people building.

[1:25:27] So, as I mentioned, this is located in

[1:25:29] the Canyon

[1:25:32] property just zoomed in there on the

[1:25:35] right. It's located just south of road

[1:25:42] and the property is located

[1:25:48] next.

[1:25:51] So we can see the on this is the

[1:25:55] existing conditions

[1:25:59] which will be shown in a later slide.

[1:26:01] Over on the right you'll see the little

[1:26:04] star there. That's essentially what the

[1:26:07] You can see

[1:26:10] the property

[1:26:12] right

[1:26:14] there.

[1:26:17] This is currently a vacant block.

[1:26:20] because of fire

[1:26:26] resite.

[1:26:29] It's a small beach here in neighborhood

[1:26:35] 52.

[1:26:41] So looking at the proposed project the

[1:26:43] construction is proposing to construct a

[1:26:47] new 2019

[1:26:51] single family resusive

[1:26:57] garage.

[1:26:58] Additionally,

[1:27:00] modification

[1:27:04] building

[1:27:11] up to the nearest corner of the next

[1:27:16] property that's the east of immediately.

[1:27:27] A rooftop deck has been a max height of

[1:27:31] 24

[1:27:38] space. Additionally, there's both first

[1:27:42] and second floors, a spa, a new on

[1:27:51] the two foot wide.

[1:27:56] property where

[1:28:02] the next

[1:28:11] property

[1:28:26] garage as well as the location.

[1:28:34] So in reviewing the streamline

[1:28:36] modification

[1:28:39] request here, you can see the prefire

[1:28:42] string line there.

[1:28:49] And you can see how this line basically

[1:28:52] cuts back

[1:28:55] as we measure to

[1:28:57] 40.

[1:28:59] Next slide, please.

[1:29:02] is proposing you can see here.

[1:29:08] So they are

[1:29:11] down

[1:29:14] and then below that you'll see

[1:29:24] previously there.

[1:29:29] Next slide please.

[1:29:32] So with this one you can see here

[1:29:37] and this is it relates to the prevailing

[1:29:42] string line.

[1:29:44] So you can see that this line

[1:29:51] behind what's

[1:29:56] building there. So it's definitely

[1:29:58] keeping with the overall Obviously

[1:30:06] located

[1:30:12] next slide.

[1:30:15] So uh the property does have a lateral

[1:30:19] access. It's essentially

[1:30:23] required by the commission. This was

[1:30:25] back in 1976. So it's 25.

[1:30:32] So this basically allows

[1:30:37] accessorine

[1:30:44] there. All proposed development

[1:30:56] access.

[1:31:07] of the access.

[1:31:14] The city has also received confirmation

[1:31:17] from the state.

[1:31:25] So this is really just a reference point

[1:31:27] here.

[1:31:30] First on the left, second floor in the

[1:31:33] middle here as well as the roof there

[1:31:36] with the rooftop.

[1:31:48] And then balcony

[1:31:57] again I'll Skip through these again

[1:32:03] just showing how

[1:32:11] he is included.

[1:32:24] Please.

[1:32:26] The section here just shows us the

[1:32:28] location of that wall as a protective

[1:32:31] device.

[1:32:37] This also

[1:32:49] just quick

[1:32:57] view here is taken

[1:33:01] west along the beach there. You can see

[1:33:04] effectively kind of the ghost

[1:33:08] of what

[1:33:12] residences were to rebuild as they

[1:33:15] previously were seeing

[1:33:19] that

[1:33:21] down below. You can see

[1:33:24] here

[1:33:30] relative to previously existing

[1:33:33] structures.

[1:33:36] the ability to come

[1:33:47] on the right.

[1:33:58] Thus far

[1:34:04] this evening but

[1:34:13] The recommendation staff is to adopt

[1:34:16] resolution.

[1:34:32] As always, we'll remain available for

[1:34:34] any questions you might Thank you very

[1:34:36] much.

[1:34:37] >> Thank you, Rick. Um, disclosures

[1:34:39] everybody.

[1:34:48] All right. None.

[1:34:53] Doug Fresh in the house.

[1:34:58] We have 15 minutes,

[1:35:01] correct?

[1:35:02] >> All right. Good evening, commissioners.

[1:35:04] Thank you for taking the time to hear

[1:35:05] our project. Uh, first, I want to thank

[1:35:08] staff for doing an excellent job. Um,

[1:35:10] this is an interesting project for us,

[1:35:13] especially being a fire rebuild, and we

[1:35:15] are doing our fair share of fire

[1:35:16] rebuilds. This is the first CDP fire

[1:35:19] rebuild, and the conversation really

[1:35:22] hinges, and we've had a lot of

[1:35:23] architects actually looking at this

[1:35:25] meeting tonight and a lot of homeowners

[1:35:27] looking tonight because the situation on

[1:35:30] the fire we built on the beach is crazy.

[1:35:33] And it's mainly coming down to people

[1:35:35] are starting to get bids on their

[1:35:36] pricing and they're building podiums,

[1:35:39] concrete podiums, seaw walls, septic

[1:35:42] systems,

[1:35:43] and spending. It doesn't matter what

[1:35:45] size the house. These old lots that are

[1:35:46] 40 ft wide, they're spending anywhere

[1:35:48] from 1.8 to 2.5 million. They haven't

[1:35:51] started their house yet. It's crazy.

[1:35:53] They're spending all their insurance

[1:35:54] monies going into the ground. they

[1:35:56] haven't started their house yet. So,

[1:35:58] what we're up against is that would for

[1:36:01] this client in particular, you know,

[1:36:02] would have been PB plus 10% would have

[1:36:05] been maybe a 2100 foot house. We said

[1:36:08] we're going to take it to the planning

[1:36:09] commission. We feel that that once it

[1:36:11] gets to the planning commission, not

[1:36:13] asking any favors, but we know that we

[1:36:15] can provide a full compliance project,

[1:36:17] but get a project, and again, this is

[1:36:19] not a big house. We go all the way to

[1:36:20] maybe 2,900. So, that extra 800 ft is

[1:36:24] huge. It means they don't have to do a

[1:36:26] two-step process. Maybe do the PB plus

[1:36:28] 10, maybe do a CDP later. They can get

[1:36:30] this done once we can get under

[1:36:32] construction. So, this is a big step.

[1:36:34] to come here before

[1:36:36] today knowing this is a CDP for fiery

[1:36:38] rey because we are telling people and

[1:36:41] they're asking how much longer is it

[1:36:42] going to take knowing that we can also

[1:36:44] be appealed to this the coastal

[1:36:46] commission and that's one of the things

[1:36:47] because they've been sitting up there

[1:36:48] and not been able to do anything about

[1:36:50] it on any of these projects. But as you

[1:36:53] know, our health and our geology

[1:36:55] department full compliance with all

[1:36:56] brand new septic systems, brand new seaw

[1:36:58] walls and brand new foundation systems.

[1:37:00] The best systems out there these other

[1:37:02] systems as you know were over 100 years

[1:37:04] old in some cases. Brand new stuff. It's

[1:37:07] financial but it's also makes sense. I

[1:37:10] mean we started the process 15 months.

[1:37:12] We started this process in about May of

[1:37:16] 2025. We're now at 15 months. This is

[1:37:18] like world record territory when people

[1:37:20] say that oh it's typically as we all

[1:37:22] know two or three years to get to a CDP

[1:37:24] in the city of Malibu. So if we can take

[1:37:27] some extra time and maybe make it maybe

[1:37:29] six months more whatever the time would

[1:37:31] be to actually apply for a CDP this is

[1:37:33] groundbreaking for the city of Malibu.

[1:37:36] And so we want to stress that this

[1:37:38] particular job which was a fun piece of

[1:37:40] architecture as far as I'm concerned as

[1:37:42] an architect and a great client. It's

[1:37:44] really a more of a breakthrough

[1:37:46] situation. So we work with the staff,

[1:37:49] excellent job on describing all the

[1:37:51] conditions, but the thing as a planning

[1:37:52] commission what you need to consider is

[1:37:54] that there should almost be encouraged

[1:37:56] in some cases because full compliance

[1:37:58] means more off street parking spaces.

[1:38:01] Otherwise, they're grandfathering in

[1:38:02] parking. We had two spaces before. We're

[1:38:05] now at four where we're supposed to be.

[1:38:07] No corridor on the sideyard setbacks.

[1:38:09] The fire department can walk around this

[1:38:11] house. Everything is fully compliant for

[1:38:13] all our seven departments we have to go

[1:38:15] to. So now we're building a better

[1:38:17] house. What most houses are our fiery

[1:38:20] builds are getting away with the

[1:38:21] grandfather. This is what I had before.

[1:38:23] Yes, we have the bulk and mass that we

[1:38:25] have to consider which was the city

[1:38:26] council part of it that was added um

[1:38:28] after about six months of design. But

[1:38:31] when we can go fully compliant with a

[1:38:34] little more in the system, I think it's

[1:38:36] a much better project. It's really what

[1:38:38] should be on the beach. Now we can P

[1:38:42] plus 10. Great. Everyone's entitled to

[1:38:44] that. We hope with this planning

[1:38:46] commission having an attitude where we

[1:38:48] can look at these projects and if we can

[1:38:51] look at them by speed and I can say a

[1:38:53] little bit more time we can actually get

[1:38:55] to a CDP and you can build then maybe

[1:38:58] what you want to build which in our case

[1:39:00] is 300 on a 40 foot wide lot which is

[1:39:02] around an average house size for a beach

[1:39:04] home. They're not 10,000 foot homes.

[1:39:06] We're not comping lots here. So we think

[1:39:09] it's a modest project. We think it's a

[1:39:10] better project for you to approve. Um

[1:39:13] and there's only a things that I wanted

[1:39:15] to point out that are very interesting

[1:39:17] anomalies in our code and they apply to

[1:39:20] two separate things and I know you've

[1:39:22] heard this before and I don't know

[1:39:23] whether or not this is a racist thing

[1:39:24] but I do want the planning commission to

[1:39:26] be aware of this is that from our codes

[1:39:29] the MMC says that homes could be 24 ft

[1:39:32] 24 flat roof 28 sloping roof but when

[1:39:36] the LI was developed they created a

[1:39:38] section for beachrone homes where you

[1:39:40] can go to 25 and that 25 ft is one extra

[1:39:43] foot has to be permeable. It's a guard

[1:39:46] rail case only for deck that you can

[1:39:49] have it see through. So the person maybe

[1:39:51] across the street has the 24 foot height

[1:39:54] limit. They got that to go the extra

[1:39:56] foot. The problem is the planning

[1:39:58] department can't make that call. They

[1:40:00] always have to go back. Well, you're

[1:40:02] going to have to ask for a modification

[1:40:04] or variance to try to get that extra

[1:40:05] foot. There's something wrong in our

[1:40:07] code. And there a small little piece

[1:40:09] between I go through this with Tyler and

[1:40:11] their staff all the time that we have to

[1:40:13] work this out. by an amendment or

[1:40:15] something in our code that allows the

[1:40:17] beachfront homes to apply for this

[1:40:18] without the planning department

[1:40:20] declaring that oh it's safe. This

[1:40:22] project is only asking for 24 but we

[1:40:25] should be entitled to 25 because that's

[1:40:27] the way the LI was written. But it's

[1:40:29] that section of the code that well it

[1:40:30] says it in this part of the code and

[1:40:32] that part of the code. So I'd like that

[1:40:33] to be addressed by the planning

[1:40:35] commission that it will affect other

[1:40:37] beachfront builds. It's a huge thing.

[1:40:39] The second thing is the view corridor

[1:40:41] issue. We didn't have a view corridor

[1:40:43] before. If you know per your code, the

[1:40:46] way the view corridor was established in

[1:40:48] the beginning of time when Malibu became

[1:40:49] a city 9394

[1:40:52] by us for the coaster commission. The

[1:40:54] way the view corridor is written, it's

[1:40:56] written as if the center line of PCH

[1:40:58] that point is supposed to be clear all

[1:41:00] the way to the beach. That's the view

[1:41:02] corridor. I said, who was it designed

[1:41:04] for?

[1:41:06] with the design for humans because if it

[1:41:08] was designed for people driving cars and

[1:41:11] walking the corridor would be maybe in

[1:41:14] your car you're 4 and 1/2 ft or three

[1:41:15] and a half feet maybe you're walking or

[1:41:17] 5 and 1/2 ft the PL department is back

[1:41:20] in this problem because they're making

[1:41:22] us do everything from that point on the

[1:41:25] ground

[1:41:29] what is their view and it's not meant to

[1:41:32] be for them so the problem is within the

[1:41:34] code and

[1:41:35] Tyler and his department is that the

[1:41:37] view corridor again with the letter of

[1:41:39] the law says it has to be from that

[1:41:41] point. I think it's something that needs

[1:41:42] to be cleared up because it's not meant

[1:41:44] to be I'm sure it's meant to be for

[1:41:46] drivers, pedestrians, people walking,

[1:41:49] driving, getting the view corridor. The

[1:41:51] reason I'm bringing this up real quick

[1:41:52] is because all the new homes are also

[1:41:56] being asked to be hired for the wave up

[1:41:58] rush and their coastal development

[1:42:00] permits. The garages are on PC

[1:42:04] of the The house itself has to be up at

[1:42:06] the level which is usually in some cases

[1:42:08] two to three higher than PCH.

[1:42:11] You have to get up there. So the

[1:42:13] sideyards are a natural place to have

[1:42:15] steps. We've even suggested can those

[1:42:18] steps be open risers so the squirrel can

[1:42:21] maybe have a view through that open

[1:42:22] riser. Okay. But we are not allowed

[1:42:26] that. So you're section of the code is

[1:42:29] stuck with the planners. something that

[1:42:32] I don't know whether or not I know we

[1:42:34] have AC coming up against this is a code

[1:42:36] thing and amendment thing but I just as

[1:42:38] a planning commission these two things

[1:42:40] this new corridor thing very irritating

[1:42:43] interpretation and then the extra foot

[1:42:45] and height we think we should be

[1:42:46] entitled to we'd love to have it and

[1:42:49] again for that you guys know the

[1:42:51] beginning of time when the codes are

[1:42:52] written that extra foot is again when

[1:42:55] you have a deck on a roof extra foot of

[1:42:58] permeable view allowing

[1:43:01] or whatever on just the deck side. The

[1:43:03] decks are always on the as you know when

[1:43:05] you do a house 50% of the house has to

[1:43:07] be one height measured PCH the other 50%

[1:43:10] is measured from the wave oper the side

[1:43:14] of the house. So with that I look

[1:43:17] forward to your comments. We are excited

[1:43:19] to be here. We're ready to answer any

[1:43:21] questions and I look forward to getting

[1:43:24] the first CDP on the beach for a fiery

[1:43:26] vote. Thank you very much.

[1:43:28] >> All right. Thank you.

[1:43:31] online.

[1:43:33] There's one raised hand from Danny

[1:43:35] Smith.

[1:43:40] » Danny, are you there?

[1:44:02] neighbors.

[1:44:04] I think um this house will be shorter

[1:44:06] than many of its neighbors that are

[1:44:11] this could become a template and a

[1:44:13] hopeful sign for um options for CDP

[1:44:17] options if necessary on the beach. So

[1:44:20] please uh please agree tonight. Thank

[1:44:22] you. Thank you, Danny. Doug, do you have

[1:44:25] anything else to add? You have a little

[1:44:27] time left.

[1:44:32] » Well, we might ask call you up anyways,

[1:44:34] but okay. So, the public comment is

[1:44:37] closed.

[1:44:42] Go for it. Okay.

[1:44:49] Rick mentioned that this was

[1:44:55] It's just a designation to track that

[1:44:59] there was there was a house that was

[1:45:00] destroyed.

[1:45:02] This is a CDP.

[1:45:03] >> It's a CDP.

[1:45:04] >> Okay. Um

[1:45:07] then my first question is we changed the

[1:45:10] way we do.

[1:45:13] Okay. We said, "Okay, that house is

[1:45:14] back, so we'll just move it down a

[1:45:16] couple.

[1:45:18] Is this something that's going to be a

[1:45:20] new policy?" So that's again, I agree

[1:45:24] with Doug. This is a a record setting, a

[1:45:27] groundbreaking event for this reboot.

[1:45:31] You don't have to agree with that.

[1:45:33] People are entitled through the

[1:45:35] governor's order, through the laws that

[1:45:37] the city has to rebuild to the extent

[1:45:39] that they were on the beach. right now

[1:45:41] that be wiped out and they don't have a

[1:45:43] lot of structures to pull from. So they

[1:45:45] would need a variance with a strict

[1:45:46] letter that so knowing that people are

[1:45:49] going to be entitled to rebuild up to

[1:45:51] the extent that they are allowed to for

[1:45:53] the state law and for the city's law.

[1:45:56] Yes, we thought it was reasonable ask

[1:46:01] >> are you going to put this in the

[1:46:02] interpretation manual saying this is how

[1:46:04] we do it now? It depends on how this

[1:46:06] information decides on this outcome.

[1:46:09] >> Isn't that something?

[1:46:11] >> Not always. So, we're not, you know,

[1:46:14] we're not going to go to Zoro season and

[1:46:16] bog down the system when people are

[1:46:17] trying to get back into their homes. I

[1:46:19] mean, the planning commission has

[1:46:20] authority to make policy decisions and

[1:46:23] make interpretations on code. So, you

[1:46:25] guys can very much do that tonight.

[1:46:27] >> Okay. Well, I maybe I missed it, but I

[1:46:29] didn't see things required in order to

[1:46:36] one in here.

[1:46:36] >> Yeah, Rick can confirm, but this is

[1:46:37] treated no differently as if it was, you

[1:46:41] know, blind to the the

[1:46:44] new

[1:46:45] >> rect.

[1:46:49] Um I assume

[1:46:52] I'm wondering why the house doesn't

[1:46:57] Is that something new?

[1:46:59] >> No, it's so we can go into the detail,

[1:47:02] but it's based on the recommended

[1:47:04] finished floor. That's how a new house

[1:47:05] on the beach is designed. So the

[1:47:06] finished floor based on the coastal

[1:47:08] engineer report recommended this

[1:47:10] finished floor. So once that's agreed to

[1:47:13] for the city's coastal engineers and the

[1:47:15] applicant that that's the lowest

[1:47:16] recommended finish for all types of

[1:47:18] things, you have to not only meet the

[1:47:20] thing about this one that's different

[1:47:21] from a PV plus 10%. PV plus 10% only has

[1:47:24] to meet

[1:47:26] These guys have to meet 100 year life.

[1:47:28] The LCP requires the structure to

[1:47:30] survive 100 years. They have to account

[1:47:31] for 100 years and wave up sea level rise

[1:47:34] and so sea level rise was accounted for

[1:47:36] in the lowest floor recommendation and

[1:47:38] that's where you derive the height.

[1:47:40] >> Okay, I understand that

[1:47:45] recommendation

[1:47:49] on the

[1:47:50] >> but it all depends on whatever that

[1:47:52] engineering study says. So based on the topography and based on the

[1:47:56] wave up,

[1:47:58] >> this is what they came up with.

[1:47:59] >> They came up with exactly

[1:48:04] most

[1:48:05] used.

[1:48:22] Rick, do you can you confirm that the um

[1:48:25] that the lowest floor elevation on the

[1:48:28] beach side is being used on this

[1:48:29] property?

[1:48:31] >> That is correct. Yes, by the end

[1:48:37] when you read the LCP height is measured

[1:48:39] from. Um also if I could quickly address

[1:48:42] the idea or the I guess the question uh

[1:48:46] on the streamline modifications. So the

[1:48:49] L does have a mechanism to allow for

[1:48:53] streamline

[1:48:55] measurement to be taken from the next up

[1:48:58] coast down property that is section

[1:49:01] 13.27

[1:49:03] B3

[1:49:05] and so that was actually approved as a

[1:49:09] amendment to the LCP a number of years

[1:49:12] ago to allow for example situations like

[1:49:15] this where you have a general character

[1:49:18] the neighborhood where you know there

[1:49:20] are going to be anomalous

[1:49:23] properties that basically

[1:49:26] follow letter of the law basically

[1:49:30] result in an unfair

[1:49:32] position on the

[1:49:35] developing property to try to meet that

[1:49:38] immediately adjacent neighbor

[1:49:41] so that's why the coast commission

[1:49:44] approved that change to the LCP

[1:49:47] So that staff wouldn't have to go

[1:49:49] through that

[1:49:54] modification.

[1:49:55] >> Okay. So that's that's just for the

[1:49:57] review that the standard practice was to

[1:49:59] do it the way it's shown on figure two.

[1:50:03] That correct?

[1:50:05] And then what I'm wondering is on figure

[1:50:08] two

[1:50:10] the house immediately adjacent to it

[1:50:14] which if

[1:50:16] rebuild can't go any further than where

[1:50:18] it is

[1:50:22] not

[1:50:23] to go out as far as

[1:50:32] » right so So, what I'm wondering is this

[1:50:35] particular house, you're saying, "Well,

[1:50:38] it's not far enough forward and it's a

[1:50:40] CDP, so we can we can uh make it two

[1:50:43] houses down to compare it with, but the

[1:50:45] house next door fire rebuild can't do

[1:50:47] that."

[1:50:49] >> That's correct, right?

[1:50:51] >> Have different rules.

[1:50:52] >> Yeah, they have their existing

[1:50:53] nonformities also,

[1:50:54] >> but they could come through with the CDP

[1:50:56] and would be granted that further

[1:50:59] and that's their option.

[1:51:00] >> Yeah.

[1:51:01] >> Um, Drew I was just going to say this is

[1:51:05] a great project and

[1:51:08] you know I commend the applicants for

[1:51:11] deciding to go to build the house that

[1:51:13] they should now that they're starting

[1:51:15] over again build the house that they

[1:51:17] want and you know going for a CDP is a

[1:51:20] tough road and you know

[1:51:24] I'd actually like to make a motion to

[1:51:26] approve this.

[1:51:28] >> Okay. Do um do you have a second?

[1:51:31] have some more comments.

[1:51:39] » We can continue discussion.

[1:51:41] >> Okay.

[1:51:42] >> I'll tell you what, I'll second it. I

[1:51:44] just have a lot of questions about

[1:51:46] understanding.

[1:51:47] >> Great.

[1:51:48] >> So, what are they?

[1:51:50] >> First, I'm wondering just in I'm this is

[1:51:53] just for my own understanding. I haven't

[1:51:55] done this kind of project and I'm hoping

[1:51:57] that maybe there's other people that

[1:51:58] have questions that are listening. Um,

[1:52:01] in a nutshell, is this just bringing it

[1:52:03] forward the 10 feet and then adding more of the house, but not that

[1:52:08] much more? A little more than 10%

[1:52:10] though.

[1:52:12] >> This is a new house.

[1:52:14] >> But you're But you're bringing it

[1:52:16] forward um 10 feet and you're basing it

[1:52:18] on the closest structures that are still

[1:52:21] standing. Is that what

[1:52:23] >> No, none of the structures are standing.

[1:52:25] What they're doing is they're looking at

[1:52:27] what was there before and then they're

[1:52:29] using that were there before. On uh I

[1:52:33] guess that would be on one side the

[1:52:35] house was a little far forward. On the

[1:52:37] other side the house sat back, but then

[1:52:39] the next house sat far forward. So, what

[1:52:42] they're doing is they're saying instead

[1:52:43] of having this diagonal streamline, the code allows us to go to the the

[1:52:48] neighborhood and the other houses and we're allowed to bring it forward

[1:52:53] and thus that the adjacent property

[1:52:56] that's set back right now, if they elect

[1:52:57] to do the CDP process, they would be

[1:53:00] granted likely I mean obviously you have

[1:53:02] to look at the project, but the ability

[1:53:04] to move forward too.

[1:53:04] >> So, a few questions. If the person next

[1:53:07] to them wanted wanted to then move

[1:53:09] forward just so that they could then be

[1:53:11] more in line, do they now have to get a

[1:53:13] CDP because they're forward and they no

[1:53:15] longer qualify for the governor's

[1:53:17] federal order?

[1:53:18] >> They would have to get a CDP because

[1:53:19] they're moving the house forward just

[1:53:20] like this one.

[1:53:22] >> Okay. So, this is potentially causing

[1:53:25] other people that want to do the same

[1:53:28] more stress.

[1:53:29] >> It would be it would be elect.

[1:53:31] >> But if they wanted to come forward, is

[1:53:33] there some way that they could just

[1:53:35] Okay, my new neighbor is at this and my

[1:53:38] new neighbor here is at this. So I can

[1:53:40] be at this or they have to go by their

[1:53:41] old

[1:53:42] >> no

[1:53:43] come forward with the CDP

[1:53:46] >> just like this planning commission or

[1:53:49] >> so basically all fire rebuilds are

[1:53:51] allowed to rebuild what they had an

[1:53:53] additional 10% they have to stay on the

[1:53:55] same footprint of their original home

[1:53:58] that is their basis

[1:53:59] >> this is what I understand but what I'm

[1:54:00] saying

[1:54:01] >> so like let's say if I was back here and

[1:54:03] you guys are all up there and I want to

[1:54:05] rebuild but before you were back here

[1:54:08] with me so Now, um I want to be back

[1:54:10] upront with everybody and now I have

[1:54:12] this added, you know, however many

[1:54:14] months it takes to go through the

[1:54:16] planning commission.

[1:54:17] >> I'm wondering if you're causing um

[1:54:19] >> I think what you're what you're losing

[1:54:20] on that is that that neighboring

[1:54:22] property

[1:54:23] >> Yeah.

[1:54:23] >> already has a house that's pushed

[1:54:25] forward that would be rebuilt and pushed

[1:54:27] forward.

[1:54:28] >> Okay. So, that was my question. It's not

[1:54:29] causing anyone to have to now get a CD

[1:54:33] and not have your your side view even

[1:54:36] though I know your side view is not

[1:54:37] protected is now this person is here and

[1:54:40] they're

[1:54:42] >> they would have to get a CDP as if there

[1:54:44] was no fire ever.

[1:54:45] >> So yeah, they have to get a CDP. The

[1:54:47] other thing to keep in mind is um as

[1:54:50] Commissioner Leonard mentioned they

[1:54:52] would lose a lot of their other

[1:54:53] non-conformities. So this stretch of

[1:54:55] beach as Rick pointed out a lot of these

[1:54:57] don't have any view corridors. So maybe

[1:54:59] they through a CDP if you guys approve

[1:55:01] it, they get to move for their seaw

[1:55:02] work. However, they'd have to supply a

[1:55:04] few quarters. So they lose some room on

[1:55:06] the side. So there's there there's

[1:55:07] always a trade-off.

[1:55:09] >> Here's the way to look at it. We we

[1:55:10] approved a house oh probably five or six

[1:55:14] months ago where it fell down. It didn't

[1:55:17] burn down. It fell down in 197. So they

[1:55:20] had to come in and get a CP. They are

[1:55:23] 18t

[1:55:29] That's all they were permitted because

[1:55:30] of the ocean up and bunch of other

[1:55:32] stuff. There's a lot of variables.

[1:55:35] >> Yeah, I was going to say also TVPs are

[1:55:37] not fee waver, right?

[1:55:40] >> So these people are paying for full

[1:55:42] premise fees.

[1:55:43] >> No, I understand what's going on with

[1:55:45] these people. I'm wondering how it's

[1:55:46] going to affect let's say so I'm trying

[1:55:48] to understand let's say another neighbor

[1:55:50] was far set back and they're trying to

[1:55:52] rebuild. Is there and I know it's not a

[1:55:56] protected view the side view but it is

[1:55:59] what it is but are they coming back and

[1:56:01] now they feel that

[1:56:03] >> they have a choice

[1:56:04] >> they have to now get another

[1:56:07] >> six months a year to get a CDP

[1:56:09] >> lot longer than that but yeah they have

[1:56:11] a choice and they're going to have to

[1:56:12] pay the fees and brush studies all

[1:56:16] everything that's required for a CDP

[1:56:18] >> I think the other thing is that if you

[1:56:20] look on a 0.1 which is of

[1:56:25] You can see where a portion of the house

[1:56:27] that was existing before was like pushed

[1:56:29] right up against the side like right

[1:56:31] here. This whole area right is no longer

[1:56:35] there.

[1:56:36] >> So in the redesign that's how you get

[1:56:38] your view

[1:56:40] >> but they wouldn't have needed a corridor

[1:56:41] if they

[1:56:42] >> if they did a fire rebuild it and they

[1:56:44] did did that and they they kept that old

[1:56:47] streamline they added their 10%

[1:56:49] elsewhere

[1:56:50] >> they would they would not be here.

[1:56:53] asking for something that in my opinion

[1:56:55] is totally reasonable based on the

[1:56:57] landscape and based on the other houses

[1:56:58] that were there before.

[1:57:00] >> So I I'm just a very simple answer to

[1:57:03] your question

[1:57:06] most people want in this situation they

[1:57:10] get their choice of being behind their

[1:57:13] neighbor.

[1:57:17] I mean they're already coughing up less

[1:57:18] money

[1:57:20] that's so if they want the advantage of

[1:57:22] getting up that wasn't before the fire

[1:57:29] I mean I understand that they're already

[1:57:31] going to be paying a lot regardless. Uh

[1:57:35] what I'm wondering is what is your guys

[1:57:38] opinions about does this disadvantage

[1:57:40] neighbors that haven't rebuilt yet and

[1:57:42] haven't gotten gotten to this point

[1:57:44] >> you have to look at yelling I'm just

[1:57:46] asking

[1:57:47] >> I would just add that another part of

[1:57:49] this is that

[1:57:50] >> you know as this is a city right all

[1:57:52] those people have to be notified they

[1:57:54] get all those notices in the mail I

[1:57:56] don't see a neighbor here this evening

[1:57:58] saying don't do this I see the team

[1:58:01] captain for the entire neighborhood

[1:58:02] saying do

[1:58:04] You know, and I think that

[1:58:06] >> I seconded the motion. I'm not saying

[1:58:08] no. I'm trying to understand that

[1:58:10] >> you have to look at it as a case by case

[1:58:11] basis. Every single home has its own

[1:58:14] individual characteristics. And

[1:58:16] >> I I don't think we're not like blanket

[1:58:18] saying like, hey, you know, come in for

[1:58:20] a streamline review and we're just going

[1:58:21] to grant everything out for the ocean.

[1:58:23] We're going to look at that based on the

[1:58:25] facts that are presented. And what's

[1:58:27] >> I understand and this is its own

[1:58:29] circumstances and that's why I seconded

[1:58:32] it. Um, but I also feel like people

[1:58:35] should understand what this is saying.

[1:58:36] If you have a different house,

[1:58:40] » this is like a new corridor issue. They

[1:58:44] are

[1:58:46] certain people if we did this on every

[1:58:48] single one of them would be

[1:58:49] disadvantaged.

[1:58:51] There's no question.

[1:58:52] >> Well, that's for the I I'm also 100% for

[1:58:56] building and getting things built on the

[1:58:57] beach and getting started. Um, I just

[1:59:01] think it's import have Were

[1:59:05] there any other specific questions?

[1:59:09] >> I was gonna say, do you guys want to

[1:59:10] address some of Doug's other concerns in

[1:59:13] regards to the 25 foot height and also

[1:59:16] measurement?

[1:59:18] >> No, because those are separate issues. I we we very much heard them. It be a

[1:59:23] separate thing, but I would like to call

[1:59:25] for a roll call.

[1:59:25] >> Well, let me let me make before you do

[1:59:28] that. There's a couple errors in here.

[1:59:32] I'd like to amend your motion that um

[1:59:37] let's see

[1:59:39] on page 9 of 11 it says they're going to

[1:59:41] have an impermeable front

[1:59:45] and condition number 23 says they have

[1:59:48] to follow the the rule they have to

[1:59:51] follow the

[1:59:54] okay if you look on page nine of 11 on

[1:59:56] the compiance table

[2:00:00] entirely in

[2:00:04] Okay. See that right near the bottom.

[2:00:09] Okay. This is CDP. It says in the

[2:00:12] resolution

[2:00:13] that they must follow the code. So the

[2:00:17] So obviously the

[2:00:19] >> Yeah, but you're you're missing that's

[2:00:20] not specific to the view corridor. So

[2:00:22] the

[2:00:22] >> view no this is front yard fence.

[2:00:27] >> Got it. Understood. So, what's what's

[2:00:29] So, Rick, what's the situation with the

[2:00:30] front yard fence here? It says it

[2:00:32] complies, but it's supposed to be view

[2:00:35] permeable over 42 in. Is that because

[2:00:37] part of that's the house in the garage,

[2:00:38] or what's the situation there?

[2:00:41] >> Yeah. So, in this case, it should be

[2:00:44] permeable all the way through. So, yeah,

[2:00:47] that's

[2:00:49] Hold on. Hold on. View corridor. It says

[2:00:51] view permeable 100% all the way through.

[2:00:53] The issue is above that where it says

[2:00:54] front yard,

[2:00:56] >> correct? And it says the lower.

[2:01:00] >> It should say

[2:01:02] >> it does say it. I just want to point it

[2:01:04] out. It does say

[2:01:07] in the resolution.

[2:01:09] >> The important thing is the resolution.

[2:01:11] So the resolution is correct.

[2:01:14] >> Okay.

[2:01:23] Call please.

[2:01:28] So, we're voting on a motion to approve

[2:01:31] as recommended by staff.

[2:01:33] >> Commissioner Leonard,

[2:01:34] >> yes.

[2:01:36] >> Vice Chairman,

[2:01:37] >> yes.

[2:01:38] >> Commissioner Maza,

[2:01:39] >> yes.

[2:01:40] >> Commissioner,

[2:01:41] >> yes.

[2:01:44] >> Motion carries.

[2:01:45] >> All right. We would like We're going to

[2:01:47] take a 10-minute recess. Don't talk to

[2:01:49] us about anything else.

[2:01:52] >> Thank you.

[2:01:54] 840.

[2:16:14] All right. Well, we're back on a

[2:16:16] beautiful Monday evening in Malibu for

[2:16:18] the best show in town. And uh

[2:16:22] so next up we have item 5C, coastal

[2:16:24] development permit 25-034 and demolition

[2:16:27] permit 26-002,

[2:16:30] an application to construct a new single

[2:16:32] family residence and associated

[2:16:33] development at 33650

[2:16:36] Pacific Coast Highway.

[2:16:40] Chair, members of the commission, as

[2:16:43] noted, the project for you right now is

[2:16:44] CDP25-034

[2:16:46] and demolition permit 26-002

[2:16:50] located at 33650 BPH.

[2:16:53] Here's a look at the vicinity map with

[2:16:55] the yellow star designating the property

[2:16:57] on the western side of Malibu near the

[2:16:58] city limits.

[2:17:01] And here's an aerial of the property

[2:17:03] itself, which is currently vacant.

[2:17:08] So, the project for you tonight is

[2:17:10] proposing to build a new one-story

[2:17:11] single family residence with a basement,

[2:17:14] attached garage, attach accessory

[2:17:16] dwelling unit, tennis court and cabana,

[2:17:18] swimming pool and spa, fencing and gate,

[2:17:21] landscaping and heartscaping, grading,

[2:17:23] retaining walls, and a new on-site

[2:17:25] wastewater treatment system.

[2:17:28] And the demolition permit uh is

[2:17:30] proposing to remove the unpermitted

[2:17:32] chain link fencing and gates, the

[2:17:34] unpermitted driveways, and the

[2:17:35] unpermitted non-native trees, plants,

[2:17:37] and grasses.

[2:17:40] And for some background, uh, in 2022,

[2:17:43] the planning commission approved a

[2:17:44] similar project on the subject property

[2:17:46] under CDP19-073.

[2:17:49] In 2023, the planning commission's

[2:17:51] approval was appealed to the city

[2:17:52] council and the city council upheld uh

[2:17:55] planning commission's approval. The

[2:17:57] project was then appealed to the

[2:17:58] California Coastal Commission. And then

[2:18:00] in 2025, the applicant withdrew CDP19073

[2:18:04] and opted to redesign the project. The

[2:18:06] applicant later submitted a redesign

[2:18:08] project under CDP25-034.

[2:18:14] We'll take a quick look at the

[2:18:15] demolition plan here. uh noting the

[2:18:17] unpermitted fencing along PCH uh areas

[2:18:20] of unmitted landscaping throughout the

[2:18:23] upper portion of the property and the

[2:18:25] two unpermitted driveways on the face of

[2:18:31] Here's an overview of the site plan with

[2:18:33] the single family home and the tennis

[2:18:35] court. We'll zoom in.

[2:18:39] You can see the tennis court on the left

[2:18:41] and the single family residence in red,

[2:18:44] the garage in purple, the ADU yellow and

[2:18:46] the pool and spa in blue. And you can

[2:18:49] also see the driveway coming in from PCH

[2:18:51] with the required fire department

[2:18:53] turnaround.

[2:18:57] And this uh proposed residence is set

[2:19:00] back 50 ft from the top of Bluff in

[2:19:02] compliance with LIP section 104D.

[2:19:08] and the resident is proposed to be cited

[2:19:10] below PCH road grade and the fencing is

[2:19:12] fally permeable in compliance with LIP

[2:19:14] section 65E.

[2:19:20] And for the attached ADU, the proposed

[2:19:22] ADU contains one bedroom, one bathroom

[2:19:24] with a total of 643 ft.

[2:19:30] We got two photos of the story poles. Uh

[2:19:33] this is from the driveway entrance

[2:19:35] looking towards the ocean.

[2:19:40] And then this is looking north uh

[2:19:42] towards the mountains.

[2:19:48] Thus far, the city has received three

[2:19:50] letters of correspondence which uh the

[2:19:53] plan commissioners have received

[2:19:56] and staff recommends adopting planning

[2:19:58] commission resolution 26-36

[2:20:01] determining the project is categorically

[2:20:03] exempt from the California Environmental

[2:20:04] Quality Act and approving coastal

[2:20:07] development permit 25-034.

[2:20:11] Staff is available for questions and the

[2:20:13] applicant and applicant team are here as

[2:20:14] well.

[2:20:16] >> Thank you. disclosures.

[2:20:22] » I don't have any disclosures.

[2:20:25] >> I did not visit the site. Uh but I

[2:20:28] probably am the planning commission.

[2:20:42] I had a conversation this afternoon.

[2:20:49] did not find out.

[2:20:53] » I visited the site with a member of the

[2:20:56] African team, Eric, uh about a week,

[2:21:00] last week, not this week, and the

[2:21:01] weekend prior and did not learn anything

[2:21:03] different than what's in the report, but

[2:21:04] it was good to see the site and see how

[2:21:06] the sight lines and those things worked.

[2:21:10] Um, all right. So, applicant team, you

[2:21:12] guys got 15 minutes. I don't know who's

[2:21:15] speaking. Eric, is that you? All right.

[2:21:20] And do you want to reserve any time for

[2:21:22] rebuttal or just let everyone

[2:21:27] step up to the step up to the mic?

[2:21:43] » That's fine. We'll go.

[2:21:44] >> I think he's probably more more

[2:21:46] productive for you guys for any

[2:21:47] questions you might have rather than me

[2:21:49] go on and tell you about something

[2:21:50] pretty straight forward.

[2:21:51] >> What we're going to do after that is

[2:21:52] we're going to there's some public

[2:21:54] speakers possibly so we'll hear from

[2:21:55] them and then you can come up and speak

[2:21:57] again and then we'll call you up if we

[2:21:59] have any question.

[2:21:59] >> Yeah, I'll save this for rebuttal. I'll

[2:22:01] get questions from Thank you.

[2:22:07] » Two raised hands. First is Joe

[2:22:08] >> Dr.

[2:22:17] Joe, you're a little quiet. If you want

[2:22:19] to talk a little closer to your

[2:22:20] microphone,

[2:22:22] >> we can hear you. Just Yeah,

[2:22:26] » a little bit, but we can hear you.

[2:22:56] So

[2:23:15] very

[2:23:17] Come on.

[2:25:36] And you are at

[2:25:43] Jamie Smith

[2:26:06] or Those

[2:26:20] are all the raised hands.

[2:26:29] » Good evening, commissioners. Thank you

[2:26:30] for hearing this out. Uh, I guess this

[2:26:33] first question is directed to Danny.

[2:26:37] I gonna do that with him. Is that what

[2:26:40] we're doing?

[2:26:41] >> Yeah, you can answer those however you

[2:26:42] want.

[2:26:43] >> So Danny, regarding the uh septic system

[2:26:46] and also with Joe Drummond, it's

[2:26:49] basically the system that's the most

[2:26:52] efficient environmentally and the system

[2:26:53] that is going to be able to disperse the

[2:26:57] effluence in the most e ecologically

[2:27:00] efficient way. and Kevin Sloenberger is

[2:27:03] the designer. We went through all of the

[2:27:07] uh permitting process for the city of

[2:27:09] Malibu. Um I think that we're up to

[2:27:13] I think it's hard to say when you when

[2:27:16] you deal with a 7,000gallon tank, which

[2:27:18] is what I think people questioning. It's

[2:27:20] not the capacity that is really the

[2:27:23] danger. It's the dispersal. So where

[2:27:25] does the water go is the big thing. And

[2:27:28] this thing has probably

[2:27:31] I can't remember off. I think we have

[2:27:33] five active pits that are going to

[2:27:35] disperse this water. So,

[2:27:37] environmentally, I I think that the size

[2:27:39] of the tank isn't the issue. Uh it's not

[2:27:42] the the load that we're going to be

[2:27:44] doing on this on this project. That's

[2:27:46] really uh the issue here to speak of. Uh

[2:27:50] regarding the size of the property that

[2:27:52] people keep talking about, it's a 4 acre

[2:27:54] parcel and it's been morphed over many years. U the owner Charles is here

[2:28:02] tonight. He's owned it for almost 50

[2:28:04] years and prior to him owning it, it was

[2:28:08] done back in the 20s and in the 30s they

[2:28:11] had done a a whole amphitheater and and

[2:28:13] changed the property. So we're down to a

[2:28:16] portion of the property which is almost

[2:28:18] on the highway. So when people talk

[2:28:20] about this setback uh of 50 or 100 ft,

[2:28:23] we're utilizing this property in the

[2:28:25] least uh you know intrusive basis for

[2:28:30] what what what this land will allow. You

[2:28:33] know, there's plenty of room for it.

[2:28:34] It's not oversized to the land. It's

[2:28:36] quite a a square footage is is relevant,

[2:28:39] but is it's all one flat unit and it

[2:28:42] doesn't really take away views. You got

[2:28:45] full blue water views. It's quite a

[2:28:48] lovely

[2:28:50] Um,

[2:28:52] let's see. That's that. What else did

[2:28:55] they bring up? I think the biggest thing

[2:28:57] that that I I like to argue about or

[2:28:59] that I I feel arguing is is this waste

[2:29:02] water. I mean, we all know that NA is

[2:29:05] very very stringent on on dealing with

[2:29:07] our septic systems. And I think that we

[2:29:09] are are of that same mentality is to

[2:29:12] make this the most ecological efficient

[2:29:15] uh wastewater dispersal that you can do.

[2:29:18] Uh what else do we have here?

[2:29:21] Uh just oh one thing that I know that's

[2:29:23] very important. People keep saying

[2:29:25] though that we withdrew this project or

[2:29:28] they're insinuating that we withdrew

[2:29:30] this project because of an easement

[2:29:31] issue. This was withdrawn at the coastal

[2:29:33] commission because we worked with the

[2:29:34] coastal commission and uh the geology

[2:29:37] department uh along with all the

[2:29:39] planners so that we could get this bluff

[2:29:41] set back because we actually are a

[2:29:43] project that is setting a new president.

[2:29:46] Uh Lauren has been dealing with this

[2:29:48] kind of plus uh the bluff top setback

[2:29:51] for 30 years the same way that we did in

[2:29:53] our previous property our previous

[2:29:55] application. So we adjusted to what the

[2:29:57] coastal commission is now saying that

[2:29:59] they want to inter

[2:30:02] So, we move this project back

[2:30:03] considerable in order to comply with

[2:30:05] that. So, any other questions? I'm happy

[2:30:07] to answer.

[2:30:09] All right. Well, um we're going to go

[2:30:11] ahead and close public comment this time

[2:30:12] and Eric will call you up if we need

[2:30:14] you. Thank you very much. Commissioners,

[2:30:20] » um I have a question for staff. The what

[2:30:22] Joe mentioned about the contradiction in

[2:30:25] the map and that the property says it

[2:30:29] has trail and then the map says it

[2:30:33] doesn't have a trail and the map says it

[2:30:34] does and they also say it does. What's

[2:30:36] that contradiction? What is that?

[2:30:40] >> Well, there's no mapped trail on the

[2:30:42] property uh similar to what we would

[2:30:44] normally see on the other side of BCH

[2:30:46] leading up into the ridge line. But

[2:30:48] every single property along the beach

[2:30:50] technically has the California Coastal

[2:30:53] Trail along side of it. Um, but usually

[2:30:56] that is tied into the wet sand area that

[2:30:59] people can traverse along. Um, or if

[2:31:01] there's a lateral easement, they have

[2:31:03] access to that. Uh, so when we talk

[2:31:05] about map trails, we're talking about

[2:31:06] the ones that are officially recognized

[2:31:08] by the city, whereas the California

[2:31:10] Coastal Trail just goes throughout the

[2:31:11] state uh on all properties along the

[2:31:14] beach. And there's more protections

[2:31:16] around the mapped trails that the city

[2:31:19] recognizes where there would be no

[2:31:21] development allowed near them and

[2:31:23] easements would have to be maintained

[2:31:25] whereas there's no easement uh for the

[2:31:27] California coastal trail in the same

[2:31:29] way. Uh so

[2:31:31] >> we also got a letter about um ride horse

[2:31:34] equestrian trails um being being part of

[2:31:37] this. Is that not is that accurate or

[2:31:39] not accurate?

[2:31:40] >> That that's not accurate. I think that u

[2:31:42] member of the public was referencing a

[2:31:44] different that's on tonight's agenda.

[2:31:47] Not actually this one because there's no

[2:31:48] horse trails on this property. There's

[2:31:50] no fencing that's being taken down to

[2:31:52] interrupt a horse trail. So, I think

[2:31:54] that was just not accurate. It was

[2:31:56] relating to a different project.

[2:32:00] » Since I wasn't here in I guess 2019,

[2:32:03] John, so um I know that the planning

[2:32:07] commission at the time approved the

[2:32:08] project and I know it was appealed to

[2:32:11] city council and it was approved by city

[2:32:13] council. So I guess

[2:32:16] I I think what I'm trying to understand

[2:32:18] is then it went to an appeal to the

[2:32:21] coastal commission. So I hear that you

[2:32:23] moved the project um the setback to

[2:32:27] comply with the coastal commission's

[2:32:29] interpretation.

[2:32:30] What else about the project changed if

[2:32:32] anything?

[2:32:34] >> That's a question for Eric. Yeah,

[2:32:40] » we previously had had the guest house a

[2:32:42] little bit far uh further seward. So, we

[2:32:45] actually moved that and made it the ADU.

[2:32:47] Uh we actually moved that uh as part of

[2:32:50] the building and condensed it so that it

[2:32:52] wasn't so separated and put all over the

[2:32:55] place. Um pretty much that's and we you

[2:32:58] know we moved the property everything

[2:33:00] back. Uh nothing the all the engineering

[2:33:03] was pretty much the same geologically

[2:33:05] and the uh safety system uh we adjusted

[2:33:08] the driveway the fire uh driveway made

[2:33:10] that a little bit more of an easy uh

[2:33:13] entrance and access to the property.

[2:33:15] Other than that building's about the

[2:33:17] same

[2:33:18] >> you have the same 7,000 uh gallon tank.

[2:33:22] >> Yes. Yes. Same. It's the same system.

[2:33:24] >> Okay. So, just to clarify, so you you

[2:33:26] moved the house, you you changed the

[2:33:28] setback, you attached the ADU

[2:33:31] and you widened the fire driveway. Is

[2:33:35] that correct?

[2:33:35] >> No, we just made an easier curve for it

[2:33:38] easier

[2:33:39] >> moved the the turn the turn and also the

[2:33:42] entrance to it. We moved that into a

[2:33:44] better location closer to the home. Not

[2:33:46] that it was required, it just designwise

[2:33:48] it worked better.

[2:33:51] » I'd like to comment on that a little.

[2:33:56] The one of the big issues

[2:34:01] back then

[2:34:08] was or was not the amphitheater

[2:34:14] 96 years

[2:34:19] was in question as far as line

[2:34:33] That was a big question. The other

[2:34:35] question, and you can see this if you

[2:34:37] look on

[2:34:39] figure,

[2:34:41] if you look at the blue line,

[2:34:44] that was the original

[2:34:47] line,

[2:34:51] bottom blue line. They moved it back to

[2:34:53] the red line above it. But if you notice

[2:34:56] on that

[2:34:59] go

[2:35:02] back

[2:35:04] now

[2:35:11] whether or not

[2:35:19] in this case there's a question about

[2:35:20] whether

[2:35:32] That's that's probably going to be

[2:35:43] all the way

[2:35:48] of the problem.

[2:35:50] I believe

[2:35:54] propos

[2:35:58] instruction,

[2:36:09] but that's only from memory that looks

[2:36:11] like

[2:36:14] that blue line.

[2:36:20] Apparently

[2:36:23] we everything

[2:36:33] seems like

[2:36:39] that's really not proposed

[2:36:44] lines. There was also a question about

[2:36:47] if you look at the figure three you'll

[2:36:50] sort of a white line going all the way

[2:36:52] around and that was that was

[2:36:55] theoretically a step in the block which

[2:36:59] you explain

[2:37:02] that there is no step in the block and I

[2:37:05] think it's probably still true to the

[2:37:08] step

[2:37:13] and that was so old you couldn't tell

[2:37:18] anyway

[2:37:20] memory from eight years ago, but it does

[2:37:23] show up in these two these two planes.

[2:37:27] And while I'm at it, u

[2:37:32] the question about the shoreline,

[2:37:37] I would assume is a bigger question now

[2:37:39] since the last eight years.

[2:37:43] I have friends that live up in that

[2:37:44] area. The last eight years, the beach

[2:37:46] has succeeded.

[2:37:48] as much wetlands wet sand there used to

[2:37:51] be between the two 1200 I guess 1200 ft

[2:37:57] apart lateral axis between those two

[2:38:00] axis couple points around

[2:38:07] but that's basically

[2:38:09] it the other thing is once you make a

[2:38:13] motion I didn't see anything about

[2:38:16] maintenance of

[2:38:18] on a condition maintenance of they have

[2:38:20] to keep the the

[2:38:23] road clear. Everything has to be below

[2:38:26] level. You can't grow any plants above

[2:38:28] highway level. And when we did it before

[2:38:30] on the house about three months ago, we

[2:38:32] put in you don't mow it down every time.

[2:38:37] Yeah. You lose it. Something like that.

[2:38:43] Probably we should probably put in the

[2:38:47] just to give the compliance people a

[2:38:49] break

[2:38:49] >> specifically for the viewer commission

[2:38:52] is that

[2:38:52] >> no this is for the whole of the property

[2:38:55] nothing is supposed to go

[2:38:59] >> right so that's related to the vor

[2:39:01] requirement in this uh project they're

[2:39:03] electing to have a a structure that's

[2:39:06] completely below road grade so that's

[2:39:08] what we're referring to that was the

[2:39:10] same way that house has to do before

[2:39:11] when we said but you know there's stuff

[2:39:14] going on the highway we got to make

[2:39:19] We don't have that.

[2:39:22] >> It says you you're supposed to, but it

[2:39:24] doesn't have any penalties.

[2:39:29] » Yeah. The reason

[2:39:31] >> Yeah. So, no, I know what you're talking

[2:39:32] about, but that on that project, that

[2:39:34] one had a um

[2:39:36] >> that was specific to the view corridor.

[2:39:37] >> Yeah. That one had a view corridor,

[2:39:38] whereas this one the whole propert the

[2:39:40] whole site above the house is visible.

[2:39:43] So if you look at our view court

[2:39:44] recommendation, I think it captures

[2:39:45] everything, but if you want us to rebuff

[2:39:47] everything, rebuff it, we can. So

[2:39:48] basically structures, fences, and and

[2:39:50] vegetation cannot be maintained above

[2:39:53] road.

[2:39:53] >> Yeah, it says

[2:39:56] the only thing I was saying when we did

[2:39:57] that before

[2:40:01] » the same thing and if you don't do it,

[2:40:05] >> so take a look at 38 and let us know if

[2:40:08] you need that enhanced way.

[2:40:14] I what I'm saying is what I would put in

[2:40:16] there's

[2:40:24] no there's no law out there

[2:40:35] » so just to be clear they're not ever

[2:40:38] >> if you look at 38 it's pretty specific

[2:40:39] on the fact that the vegetation can't go

[2:40:42] above.

[2:40:42] >> Yeah.

[2:40:43] >> Right. What I'm saying is when we did it

[2:40:45] before.

[2:40:46] >> So what was if I think that was the job

[2:40:49] on clip side or

[2:40:51] >> coast

[2:40:54] >> that that driveway that was up where

[2:40:55] they had to remove that tree or

[2:40:56] whatever.

[2:40:57] >> Yeah.

[2:40:57] >> Could you maybe just pull up the

[2:40:58] language that we have from that and

[2:41:00] we'll go to some other questions but if

[2:41:02] we come back to that

[2:41:05] >> um in regards to the tennis court what

[2:41:09] are the What are the requirements to

[2:41:11] set?

[2:41:18] » Well, it depends. So, the um the uh

[2:41:22] impermanent surface itself

[2:41:29] onto the highway.

[2:41:30] >> The the setback in this case is related

[2:41:32] to I'm not sure where it's at on the

[2:41:34] property, but that's that's what would

[2:41:36] have to be the setback, not the not the

[2:41:38] court itself. I have a house being

[2:41:41] finished on my street where it's right

[2:41:43] on the street. The one foot

[2:41:46] >> the tennis court is set below the road

[2:41:48] grade and there's a 10ft fence on that

[2:41:50] side along PCH. So there'd be a 10 foot

[2:41:54] uh there's a retaining wall and then a

[2:41:56] foot uh fence on top of it and fences on

[2:41:58] all sides. So the the setbacks aren't

[2:42:01] quite the same because it's not a

[2:42:02] structure in the same way, but uh it's

[2:42:04] fully fenced uh 10 feet around.

[2:42:09] Did the ADU get counted as part of the

[2:42:11] TDSF? Is that Yes,

[2:42:13] >> it did.

[2:42:14] >> Um, and then could they build another

[2:42:17] like did they even need to add the ADU?

[2:42:20] Could they have just built this and then

[2:42:21] decided

[2:42:22] >> a month later to add an ADU?

[2:42:26] >> Uh, that would be the difference between

[2:42:28] a detached and attached one. Um, and

[2:42:30] they're deciding to do the attached one

[2:42:32] as part of this project.

[2:42:34] >> Okay. And if they wanted to add another

[2:42:36] ADU after they Could they?

[2:42:40] >> Yes, but they'd be limited on the square

[2:42:42] footage. It' be very very small.

[2:42:44] >> Okay. Oh, I thought that the

[2:42:47] >> So, you can um if this was approved, you

[2:42:50] could get a junior ADU by right now. Uh

[2:42:54] like after this house was built, um we

[2:42:57] do have to make some amendments to our

[2:42:58] ADU law, which is going to allow up to

[2:43:01] two ADUs on a property.

[2:43:04] >> So, they could potentially then put two

[2:43:06] 500 foot

[2:43:09] The question is, would they allow be

[2:43:10] allowed to build their TVs?

[2:43:13] >> The um this one's being counted. If this

[2:43:16] was reviewed, let's say this house was

[2:43:18] built and they decided to attach it or

[2:43:21] convert part of their square footage,

[2:43:23] that would not be counted towards their

[2:43:25] >> Let's say this was approved and they

[2:43:27] want to add another one

[2:43:29] >> and detach.

[2:43:31] >> Detach would be counted and that would

[2:43:32] require

[2:43:33] >> Exactly. So, they would it would be they

[2:43:35] would be restricted on the TDSF for the

[2:43:37] property.

[2:43:38] as to what the size of that could be. It

[2:43:40] could be like 100 square feet, a couple

[2:43:41] hundred square feet or something.

[2:43:44] >> Just um kind of asking this because of

[2:43:47] one of the emails we got was a less

[2:43:49] environmentally

[2:43:51] damaging alternative to consider.

[2:43:53] >> Well, the project is below all

[2:43:55] thresholds established by the city for

[2:43:57] TDSF and the permeable square footage.

[2:44:00] Um, so and based on the previous project

[2:44:03] which was in a different spot on the

[2:44:05] property, this is in compliance with the

[2:44:08] 50 foot setback. Um, so it's not going

[2:44:12] over any thresholds that

[2:44:13] >> it's like 1% less than the threshold. So

[2:44:16] I'm just wondering if something less

[2:44:18] than like 99% was was just that was was

[2:44:23] it considered was anything less

[2:44:25] considered or was this what was

[2:44:27] considered and nothing else? Well, this

[2:44:29] is what was proposed, but uh we didn't

[2:44:32] the applicant didn't provide three

[2:44:34] different designs for the house. But in

[2:44:36] terms of it not going over any of

[2:44:38] thresholds,

[2:44:40] it doesn't require us to say that we

[2:44:42] need more redesigns in order to evaluate

[2:44:45] the property.

[2:44:46] >> What what bouncy?

[2:44:52] So, um just standard development.

[2:44:57] >> Any house those thousand square feet

[2:45:00] would require CVP.

[2:45:07] » If you're tearing down an existing house

[2:45:09] and building a new one,

[2:45:09] >> yes,

[2:45:10] >> it would still require CDP. Any new

[2:45:12] single family home would require CDP

[2:45:16] anything over 50%.

[2:45:23] » Anybody else? Any motions?

[2:45:27] We found the language.

[2:45:28] >> Okay. Yeah, let's go over that real

[2:45:30] quick.

[2:45:34] » Three violations of this condition. It

[2:45:37] would be an extra paragraph on condition

[2:45:40] number 38. Three violations of this

[2:45:43] condition by the same property owner

[2:45:45] will result in a requirement to

[2:45:47] permanently remove the vegetation

[2:45:49] >> vegetation or fencing.

[2:45:55] » I should probably vegetation fencing or

[2:45:58] view blockage.

[2:46:01] >> Is that cool, Kevin?

[2:46:07] » Regarding the septic, does everybody

[2:46:09] else but me understand why they need a

[2:46:11] 7500 square foot square gallon? Because

[2:46:14] I I don't understand if if a house that

[2:46:16] has 10 bedrooms gets a 3500

[2:46:20] gallon. I'm new to this whole subject

[2:46:22] everything and it sounds like that's a

[2:46:24] lot of gallons.

[2:46:27] Does everybody else understand

[2:46:30] this comes down to what the engineer

[2:46:31] designed for the project to work? I

[2:46:33] think what they're saying is that yeah,

[2:46:35] it does perk, but it may not perk at the

[2:46:37] rate that you want it to. So, it allows

[2:46:38] the tank to hold more on site and then

[2:46:41] push it out over time.

[2:47:04] Um, do we have we don't have the

[2:47:07] wastewater engineer available?

[2:47:11] » Yeah. Can he get on Zoom?

[2:47:13] >> Then he can answer your questions.

[2:47:16] Um, we would like that if that's

[2:47:19] possible. Um, Eric, you would have to

[2:47:22] click on the Zoom link on the agenda. I

[2:47:24] know it might take a second.

[2:47:28] Is it Kevin?

[2:48:09] How's this? We're going to take a five

[2:48:10] minute recess. You're going to get Kevin

[2:48:12] on the phone. Good. Three minutes.

[2:49:26] We're good. All right. So, uh Jake, if

[2:49:29] you can hear me, I think Parker has uh

[2:49:31] unmuted you.

[2:49:35] » Are you good? Are you there, Jake?

[2:49:37] >> Yeah, I'm here.

[2:49:38] >> Okay. Yeah. So, we had a a couple

[2:49:40] questions on understanding the size of

[2:49:42] the wastewater system.

[2:49:45] Um, and the reasoning for that, I don't

[2:49:47] know if you can answer that or not, but

[2:49:48] if you can, that'd be amazing.

[2:49:59] Important

[2:50:03] seven house

[2:50:18] designated

[2:50:24] by the size of the tank. Now these tanks

[2:50:27] need to be

[2:50:31] four times the capacity of the loading

[2:50:33] rate and these tanks in size

[2:50:39] goes to 5,000 gallons and the next model

[2:50:41] goes to 7200 gallons. So

[2:50:45] the capacity of the house needs

[2:50:51] to

[2:50:54] galling

[2:50:58] 7200

[2:51:00] just capacity

[2:51:02] load

[2:51:07] res

[2:51:09] most houses in they range from 750 to

[2:51:12] 1500 gallons per day every day.

[2:51:15] >> Awesome. Thank you very much. Does

[2:51:17] anybody else have any specific questions

[2:51:19] for Jake in regards to the system?

[2:51:23] >> Okay, Jake, thank you very much. We're

[2:51:24] going to mute you again and if we need

[2:51:26] you back, we'll let you know.

[2:51:28] if you can stay tuned for a little bit.

[2:51:32] >> Okay, John. Um, on figure two

[2:51:39] where we show the bluff line going

[2:51:40] across the canyon and the canyon is one

[2:51:43] to one.

[2:51:45] So,

[2:51:46] how was that considered a bluff line?

[2:51:53] » Which portion are you? What John's

[2:51:55] referring to is the east end of the

[2:51:58] project line.

[2:51:59] >> If you have north facing up,

[2:52:02] >> the part that isn't on

[2:52:03] >> where it goes to a straight line and

[2:52:05] comes off of where the topography is.

[2:52:08] >> The question is why does the left line

[2:52:11] not follow the top of the block?

[2:52:12] >> Uh so that doesn't meet the that area

[2:52:14] does not meet the definition of a canyon

[2:52:16] block.

[2:52:17] >> That's coming back up the

[2:52:19] >> It's coming back into the canyon,

[2:52:21] >> right? It's not a one to one slope. It's

[2:52:23] not a one to one slope there. I looked

[2:52:25] at this with the city geologist and

[2:52:26] coastal engineer and they determined

[2:52:28] it's not a canyon block. So the canyon

[2:52:30] block setbacks do not apply.

[2:52:33] >> Similar to zumeir if you guys recall

[2:52:35] that one um where there's a difference

[2:52:37] between a canyon bluff and a canyon

[2:52:39] slope and so if it doesn't meet a

[2:52:41] certain amount of steepness it's still a

[2:52:43] canyon but it's just not a bluff. It's a

[2:52:46] slope. So, so that line is irrelevant.

[2:52:50] There is no set.

[2:52:54] » If it was uh steep enough to be

[2:52:55] determined to be a bluff, it would be a

[2:52:57] 25 foot setback for general bluff

[2:52:59] setback. It's not a coastal bluff. So,

[2:53:01] the 100 and the 50 ft wouldn't apply,

[2:53:04] >> right? So, my my question is the

[2:53:10] southern side of the bluff setback line

[2:53:13] and the bluff are basically

[2:53:17] Well, if you look at the green line and

[2:53:19] the top of bluff, you can see it

[2:53:20] connects to the bluff on the other end

[2:53:24] >> on the other side of of the ravine and

[2:53:26] the purple line is just following it as

[2:53:29] illustrative to show that the 50 ft is

[2:53:32] further back there.

[2:53:33] >> Yeah. But it's not a block that

[2:53:37] >> correct. Yeah, that is not as it relates

[2:53:39] to the east side. As far as

[2:53:41] >> this the setback is from the the green

[2:53:43] line that is uh contoured. Uh that's the top of block that's being measured

[2:53:49] from the 50 ft.

[2:53:51] >> Okay. Um do we have any other questions?

[2:53:54] >> I just thought of something I wanted to

[2:53:56] ask um Tyler. Um are we supposed to be

[2:54:00] taking into consideration that it wasn't

[2:54:03] considered to have a less

[2:54:05] environmentally damaging alternative?

[2:54:09] findings yesterday.

[2:54:10] >> Yeah. So, so can I'm I'm trying to use

[2:54:13] some of the emails that we got in my

[2:54:15] mind that are saying this wasn't

[2:54:17] considered and so are is our job though

[2:54:20] to say well since that wasn't considered

[2:54:23] no no nothing else was ever proposed

[2:54:25] that's less damaging and

[2:54:28] >> the threshold that that staff looks at

[2:54:30] is isn't substantial right I think

[2:54:32] there's arguments that can be made that

[2:54:34] a 1000 square foot house is there's

[2:54:38] arguments either way that that's less

[2:54:39] than

[2:54:40] uh less damaging than there's arguments

[2:54:42] that made the 3500 gallon tank is is

[2:54:45] more damaging than the 750 7,500 gallon

[2:54:49] tank. So there's arguments in both

[2:54:50] directions. What we look at is does a

[2:54:52] lesser a smaller house substantially

[2:54:55] lessen the environmental impact? The

[2:54:58] answer with these is generally no unless

[2:55:00] it triggers one of the other criteria.

[2:55:02] In this case, they're meeting like Adam

[2:55:04] said, all their thresholds, EDSF, their

[2:55:07] 18 ft. They're meeting new quarter

[2:55:09] requirements. So, they meet all the

[2:55:11] general code standards. There's no other

[2:55:13] alternative that would make that

[2:55:15] situation any better.

[2:55:16] >> Like, it seems like a good project in

[2:55:18] that it's below road grade. Um, but I'm

[2:55:22] just wondering, was it even considered

[2:55:24] something that's not 99% of the imp

[2:55:27] permeable?

[2:55:29] >> Yeah. Okay. I'm just saying because

[2:55:31] that's a finding we have to make.

[2:55:35] » Obviously, when you're designing

[2:55:37] something, you look at numerous

[2:55:39] different feasibility studies that are

[2:55:40] going to be cohesive. And I've been here

[2:55:44] for ever. And when I design something, I

[2:55:46] design it to the least environment. I

[2:55:48] love Malibu. I want it to look good. I

[2:55:50] want it to feel good. I want it not to

[2:55:52] be a an overbuilt project. I am with you

[2:55:56] guys. I hate these huge projects. Ours

[2:55:58] is a big one, but it's not big feeling

[2:56:00] when if you walk through the site you

[2:56:01] see it's really well cited but on the

[2:56:05] basis of of you know feasibility of of

[2:56:08] what could have been an alternative we

[2:56:10] really went through a lot of stuff and I

[2:56:13] think that that what we did by actually

[2:56:15] kind of want to thank John from the last

[2:56:17] time and bringing up the bluff that we

[2:56:19] redesigned it because it actually turned

[2:56:21] out to be a much more uh environmentally

[2:56:24] feasible project and a much better

[2:56:26] project on a lot of bases by moving and

[2:56:29] re rehabbing it. So, yeah, I've I went

[2:56:32] round and round on on different things

[2:56:36] to do. And we do that. I don't think

[2:56:39] it's up to the the staff to figure it

[2:56:41] because if it doesn't hit it, they're

[2:56:42] like, "No, it's not going to go. You got

[2:56:44] to redesign this because it won't make

[2:56:46] any sense." But that's our job is to

[2:56:49] come in with different stuff that we've

[2:56:50] come up with that's going to be to to

[2:56:52] the best usage of that property. And

[2:56:54] being four and a half acres, you know,

[2:56:56] you can do a lot with it, but we were

[2:56:58] really restricted because of all the,

[2:57:00] you know, the stuff John was talking

[2:57:01] about with the slopes and with the

[2:57:03] previous stuff and uh, you know, it's not a challenging site. It's a

[2:57:08] unique site. I hope that answers your

[2:57:11] question.

[2:57:12] >> Yes, sir.

[2:57:12] >> Um, since you're so far from the ocean,

[2:57:17] >> why no?

[2:57:20] >> Because that's extortion.

[2:57:23] Let me finish my question because the

[2:57:26] MRCA

[2:57:27] Their appeal last last time was based on

[2:57:30] that and it doesn't seem like anybody

[2:57:32] would ever see anybody down there but

[2:57:35] semi inviting an appeal.

[2:57:38] >> So I'm sorry the question is why are you

[2:57:42] unwilling to grant a lateral ement on

[2:57:44] the beach? Well, it's an interesting

[2:57:46] question because that beach uh is still

[2:57:49] quite a a decent beach and so all of the

[2:57:53] coastal properties that we have have a

[2:57:55] mean high tide line to that. The the the

[2:57:59] east that would be granted would be of

[2:58:00] no use. They've already got it because

[2:58:02] the toe of the slope or of the bluff

[2:58:05] actually is about where that would be.

[2:58:08] So people already have access. You can

[2:58:09] use that all you want from the mean

[2:58:11] guide to where where you can't use

[2:58:14] property. So there's no it's kind of a

[2:58:16] moot point to to do that.

[2:58:18] >> I understand that it's just like

[2:58:21] a red flag

[2:58:25] saying why are you leaving yourself open

[2:58:27] to possibly being um sent to the Coastal

[2:58:31] Commission again?

[2:58:33] >> Well, that could happen either way.

[2:58:35] >> Yeah, it could happen either. I mean,

[2:58:37] you know, maybe it's a

[2:58:40] I I don't know. Yeah. Yeah. I mean I I I

[2:58:51] guess we could ask Charles that one, but

[2:58:53] uh if I were to say that it's there's no

[2:58:57] reason for it. There's no reason to

[2:58:58] grant the easement when it's already got

[2:59:01] everything there. You know that look, we

[2:59:03] want people to enjoy the benefit of the

[2:59:05] coast. You can. So why add more

[2:59:08] documentation, something that's going to

[2:59:10] cause more legal in my opinion? Any

[2:59:14] other questions?

[2:59:18] » He he brought up that sure this is maxed

[2:59:22] out project but it's also acre

[2:59:26] four and a half acres. He's not doing

[2:59:28] this on two acres.

[2:59:36] » Um is anybody going to make a motion?

[2:59:40] All

[2:59:43] right, I'll make

[3:00:01] you call.

[3:00:02] >> Yeah, please.

[3:00:05] >> Yes. Commissioner.

[3:00:08] >> Yes.

[3:00:10] Commissioner Leonard.

[3:00:12] >> Yes.

[3:00:13] >> Commissioner,

[3:00:16] >> yes. Vice Chair,

[3:00:18] >> yes.

[3:00:19] >> Motion carries.

[3:00:25] » Congratulations.

[3:00:28] We are now on item 5D,

[3:00:31] coastal development permit 26-020,

[3:00:34] an application for a new seaw wall

[3:00:37] repair as a followup to emergency CDP

[3:00:40] 25-001

[3:00:42] at 31656 Sea Level Drive.

[3:01:14] Good evening, Chair Peak and members of

[3:01:16] the planning commission. They're

[3:01:17] requesting for you for coastal

[3:01:18] development number 26-020

[3:01:22] located at 31656

[3:01:24] Double Drive to allow for seaw wall.

[3:01:30] The subject part is located on a

[3:01:31] rectangular shaped beach lot front

[3:01:34] beachfront parcel on the ocean side of

[3:01:36] PCH in the Lusa Beach residential

[3:01:40] neighborhood. The parcel is developed

[3:01:42] with a two-story single family residence

[3:01:44] with an attached garage. The parcel is

[3:01:47] access to sea level drive a private

[3:01:50] street which connected connects to Broad

[3:01:52] Beach and PCH to the north of the

[3:01:53] subject site.

[3:01:55] A bit of project background. In June

[3:01:57] 2025, the city received an application

[3:01:59] for an emergency coastal development

[3:02:01] permit number 25-011

[3:02:04] to repair a failed concrete seaw wall

[3:02:07] because the existing on-site wastewater

[3:02:10] treatment system serving the resident

[3:02:12] was in immediate danger of being damaged

[3:02:13] or destroyed from wave up.

[3:02:17] The LAP requires for a follow-up CDP to

[3:02:20] be processed after an ECDP is obtained.

[3:02:22] If a subject application is approved,

[3:02:24] CDP number 26 020 will memorialize the

[3:02:28] work completed under ECDP number 25-011.

[3:02:33] No other development is proposed in the

[3:02:35] city in the CDP that was not otherwise

[3:02:38] approved in the ECDP.

[3:02:41] Staff has also received a determination

[3:02:43] letter from the California state lands

[3:02:45] confirming that all proposed available

[3:02:47] will remain landward and landlord of the

[3:02:49] required land mean high mean high

[3:02:52] tideline setback as required from the LI

[3:02:54] section.

[3:02:59] The proposed work is to repair a full

[3:03:03] concrete seaw wall by excavating under

[3:03:04] the existing seaw wall and underpinning

[3:03:06] the concrete filled with geob bags.

[3:03:09] Installation of an imported compact and

[3:03:11] sand bag

[3:03:13] and filter rock filter rock material and

[3:03:18] repair a portion of the driver surface

[3:03:19] like the lake. All proposed development

[3:03:22] was previously completed as part of the

[3:03:23] ECDP number 25-01.

[3:03:28] Here we have the seaw wall repair site

[3:03:30] plan. On the left side you see the ocean

[3:03:32] side and on the right side we have the

[3:03:34] sea level dress. Here we have the

[3:03:37] existenc

[3:03:42] underneath. Here we show the OTS.

[3:03:47] Here we have a section of the seaw wall

[3:03:54] staff is recommending that the planning

[3:03:55] commission adopt planning commission

[3:03:57] resolution number 26 37 determining the

[3:04:01] project is cate categorically exempt

[3:04:03] from squa and approve CDP number 26-020

[3:04:07] for the repair of the sale concrete seaw

[3:04:09] wall as part of the followup

[3:04:11] number 25-011

[3:04:13] located in a single family medium zoning

[3:04:16] district at 31656

[3:04:19] Level Drive. This concludes my

[3:04:22] presentation. Staff and applicants are

[3:04:24] available for

[3:04:26] >> Thank you very much. Any disclosures?

[3:04:38] » None.

[3:04:40] Um,

[3:04:42] do you want a question before the

[3:04:44] applicant?

[3:04:47] » Answers, right?

[3:04:49] >> Uh, yeah, you have a public speaker,

[3:04:50] too.

[3:04:51] >> Oh, we do.

[3:04:52] >> Okay. So, uh, Charles,

[3:04:56] do you want to make any public comments

[3:04:57] or you just want to ask answer

[3:04:58] questions? Okay. Norm

[3:05:11] First of all, I'm not a consultant on

[3:05:13] this project or uh the engineer on the

[3:05:16] project, but I do know a great deal

[3:05:19] about this particular beach. And

[3:05:23] um I think that the only way that a

[3:05:25] single family home can be built on this

[3:05:27] property uh is if the [clears throat]

[3:05:31] existing seaw wall were to be repaired.

[3:05:33] So I see it as a repair and maintenance

[3:05:37] issue rather than a uh a seaw wall that

[3:05:42] was never there. So, um those are my

[3:05:46] comments. Um

[3:05:49] I think project should be approved.

[3:05:52] Thanks, Tom. Um Charles, do you have any

[3:05:54] follow up to that?

[3:06:01] » So, last last year

[3:06:04] Earlier in the year in the winter, owner

[3:06:06] came home and noticed

[3:06:10] in front of the garage

[3:06:26] and she got under the garage. So we had

[3:06:30] to jump on it.

[3:06:33] in October of last year and they did the

[3:06:36] work,

[3:06:40] but it could have gone up into

[3:06:47] thank you. Um, we have nobody on Zoom.

[3:06:50] All right, we're going to go ahead and

[3:06:51] close public comment. We'll call you up

[3:06:52] if we have any other questions. John,

[3:06:55] take a couple questions.

[3:07:00] It doesn't appear that they filed their

[3:07:07] Emergency

[3:07:24] is this house part of the

[3:07:28] bigger seaw wall repair we had

[3:07:35] 11

[3:07:42] permit. So there's

[3:07:45] two walls.

[3:07:49] » I think just in this individual case

[3:07:51] there are other that have been

[3:07:53] compromised but this was an individual

[3:07:55] property owner that's trying to take

[3:07:57] care of this portion.

[3:08:01] Move approval.

[3:08:03] >> I

[3:08:05] roll call.

[3:08:10] » Yes.

[3:08:11] >> Vice chairman.

[3:08:13] >> Yes.

[3:08:18] » Unanimous.

[3:08:35] All right. So, we're now CDP number

[3:08:37] 26.023 and demolition permit 26.014

[3:08:41] application removing existing single

[3:08:43] family residence and associated

[3:08:45] development 23826 Mile Road.

[3:08:59] Good evening, Chair Peak and members of

[3:09:00] the planning commission. My name is

[3:09:02] Courtney Brown and I am the planner who

[3:09:04] processed this application and I will be

[3:09:06] presenting on CDC uh 26-023

[3:09:10] and demolition permit 26-014.

[3:09:16] The subject parcel is currently

[3:09:18] developed with a twostory single family

[3:09:20] residence and a twotory detached garage

[3:09:22] with a secondary unit. The surrounding

[3:09:25] area is zoned single family medium and

[3:09:28] commercial general. Existing development

[3:09:30] east and west consists of twotory single

[3:09:33] family residence with detached accessory

[3:09:35] structures and the parcel to the north

[3:09:38] is developed at the commercial shopping

[3:09:40] center at webway. The subject site is

[3:09:42] currently located within a vertical

[3:09:45] public access between PCH and the

[3:09:48] Pacific Ocean. And along the vertical

[3:09:51] axis, the subject parcel includes a

[3:09:53] lateral public access along the beach

[3:09:55] landward of the main high line.

[3:09:59] A little project background. On

[3:10:01] September 10th, 2025, the applicant

[3:10:04] submitted an over- theounter for the

[3:10:06] interior and exterior remodel of the

[3:10:08] residence. The over the counter was

[3:10:11] approved on December 23rd, 2025 and the

[3:10:14] project proceeded to building plan check

[3:10:17] on March 9th, 2026. While in building

[3:10:20] plan check, the scope of work was

[3:10:22] revised to include the partial

[3:10:24] foundation repair to the single family

[3:10:26] residence. And on March 30th, the OC

[3:10:28] approval was voided in the extent of the

[3:10:31] development was no longer eligible for a

[3:10:33] CDP exemption. In response, the

[3:10:36] applicant submitted a CDP in a

[3:10:38] demolition permit for the interior and

[3:10:40] exterior remodel and foundation repair.

[3:10:43] On June 29th, planning staff conducted a

[3:10:46] site visit and identified it identified

[3:10:48] unpermitted landscaping in a

[3:10:50] pre-fabricated spa installed within the

[3:10:52] wave up zone without the benefit of a

[3:10:54] permit. And on August 5th, the planning

[3:10:57] division approved an after the fact uh

[3:11:00] for the removal of the unpermitted

[3:11:02] landscaping and pre-fabricated

[3:11:07] The CDP and demolition permit proposes

[3:11:10] the following. The demolition of

[3:11:12] approximately 4.4 exterior walls for the

[3:11:15] detached garage and second floor unit

[3:11:18] and approximately 5.6% of the exterior

[3:11:20] walls of the residence. The exterior and

[3:11:23] interior remodel of the residence and

[3:11:25] detached garage and second unit. repair

[3:11:28] of approximately 247 square ft of the

[3:11:31] single family residence with existing

[3:11:33] foundation pad and footings and

[3:11:35] replacing decking pavers and deck

[3:11:37] railing.

[3:11:41] Depicted here is the proposed site plan

[3:11:44] where the proposed scope of work would

[3:11:45] remain entirely within the existing

[3:11:47] development area.

[3:11:52] And on June 25th, 2026, the planning

[3:11:54] division did receive a jurisdictional

[3:11:57] determination letter from the California

[3:11:58] State Lands Commission confirming that

[3:12:00] all proposed development would remain

[3:12:03] landward at the required 10 foot mean

[3:12:06] height lines that back in and any

[3:12:08] requirements uh stated in the LI.

[3:12:13] Here are the proposed north and south

[3:12:15] elevations of the single family

[3:12:16] resident.

[3:12:18] And here are the proposed west and

[3:12:20] eastern elevations.

[3:12:23] Here is the um proposed north and south

[3:12:26] elevation of the detach garage and

[3:12:29] secondary unit.

[3:12:32] And here are the west and east

[3:12:34] elevations.

[3:12:37] This is a partial foundation plan of the

[3:12:39] existing single family residence which

[3:12:41] proposes repair and maintenance to the

[3:12:44] existing foundation pad and put

[3:12:48] and as mentioned previously work was

[3:12:50] conducted without the benefit of a

[3:12:52] permit. seen on the left is a Zillow

[3:12:54] posting from 2024 which does not show

[3:12:57] any tall landscaping along the western

[3:12:59] property line. And on the right is the

[3:13:02] documented um landscaping depicted or

[3:13:06] identified during the Dream Point 26

[3:13:08] site visit.

[3:13:11] Seen on the left is the prefabricated

[3:13:14] spa on top of the rear deck and on the

[3:13:17] right shows the deck um was cut in and

[3:13:21] then the pre-fabricated spa was placed

[3:13:24] into that opening where the

[3:13:26] pre-fabricated spa was located within

[3:13:28] the wave upbrush zone

[3:13:32] and the removal of the unpermitted work

[3:13:35] uh was processed and approved under

[3:13:37] OC26-108.

[3:13:43] Staff is recommending the planning

[3:13:44] commission adopt resolution number 26-39

[3:13:48] and determine the project is

[3:13:49] categorically exempt from SQA and

[3:13:51] approve CDP number 26-023

[3:13:54] and demolition permit number 26-014.

[3:13:59] This concludes my presentation. Staff

[3:14:01] and the applicant team are available for

[3:14:03] any questions. Thank you.

[3:14:06] um disclosures.

[3:14:10] Another

[3:14:14] » question.

[3:14:21] So you guys did code enforcement on your

[3:14:24] site inspection or

[3:14:27] >> um so it was actually staff who

[3:14:30] identified the unpermitted work during

[3:14:33] the site inspection because I did notice

[3:14:37] that the landscaping did And also the

[3:14:40] pre-fabricated sp was a little strange

[3:14:43] if you looked at the photographs. It

[3:14:45] didn't look like it would would have

[3:14:47] been permitted by the city.

[3:14:50] >> Um do go ahead.

[3:14:54] >> Um

[3:14:56] so this is 100%.

[3:15:02] So this is a remodel only

[3:15:08] of the That's the way it was before.

[3:15:12] » So

[3:15:15] the house

[3:15:19] you would have to bring it with the LCP.

[3:15:23] >> Um, all right. Is the applicant on Zoom?

[3:15:26] >> Can I also ask why a pref

[3:15:32] » location?

[3:15:33] >> Yeah. Location. Yeah. because it was in

[3:15:35] the wave uprush zone, but um they could

[3:15:38] have easily kept it on top of the

[3:15:41] surface of the deck.

[3:15:45] » Um are they on Zoom? The applicant

[3:15:54] » we can hear you, but we can

[3:16:00] » No, no, we can we can hear you now.

[3:16:02] We're good.

[3:16:05] I

[3:16:07] person

[3:16:32] needed.

[3:16:34] That's why we only

[3:16:39] wanted

[3:16:43] essentially

[3:16:44] and upgrade everything.

[3:16:50] Sorry,

[3:16:53] but it's very nice.

[3:17:07] resistance.

[3:17:12] The only reason

[3:17:16] is because in order to up

[3:17:23] very small

[3:17:36] over the counter

[3:17:38] and the uncitted items

[3:17:47] and the

[3:17:49] other

[3:17:51] will

[3:17:53] approve us

[3:17:55] and we appreciate how much work

[3:17:59] I do have

[3:18:06] questions that are more

[3:18:12] » All right. Well, um, we'll get you guys

[3:18:15] back on here in a minute. I don't Are

[3:18:16] there any other comments

[3:18:19] on Zoom?

[3:18:20] >> Jen Da has her hand raised. I'm not sure

[3:18:23] if she's

[3:18:23] >> Is she part of the applicant team?

[3:18:35] Yeah, we can hear you. Is Jen part of

[3:18:37] your team?

[3:18:50] » Okay. So, we'll call on you if we need

[3:18:51] you.

[3:18:55] » No questions. Move for approval.

[3:19:01] » Second

[3:19:02] call.

[3:19:07] » Commissioner Ma,

[3:19:09] >> yes.

[3:19:10] >> Commissioner,

[3:19:12] >> yes. Commissioner Leonard,

[3:19:13] >> yes.

[3:19:14] >> Vice Chair Cameron,

[3:19:16] >> yes.

[3:19:18] >> All right, we're going to adjourn. Thank

[3:19:20] you very much. I hope everybody has a

[3:19:21] good night. We'll see you in a few

[3:19:23] weeks.

Planning Commission Regular Meeting - August 17, 2026

Agenda

Transcript