[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.