Drawing File
Scale
Drawn By
Job
Sheet
Issued Description
krb
n/a
A0.3
loubek
Sheet Title
Project Name
Martin and Costin Residence 29066 Cliffside Drive Malibu,
California 90265
title 24 energy calculations
Lot 05 1024 harding ave. no. 202
venice, california 90291
310.663.6692
10.20.09 permit set submittal
06.21.10 plan check corrections
06.28.11 progress set
STATE OF CALIFORN
IA
LICE
NSED ARCHITECTKIRK!
BLASCHKE
C-30765REN. 04.30.13
TITLE XXIV
PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE: Residential (Part 1 of 5) CF-1R Project
Name Building Type Single Family Addition Alone Date
Multi Family Existing+ Addition/Alteration
Project Address California Energy Climate Zone Total Cond. Floor
Area Addition # of Stories
FIELD INSPECTION ENERGY CHECKLIST Yes No HERS Measures -- If
Yes, A CF-4R must be provided per Part 2 of 5 of this form.
Yes No Special Features -- If Yes, see Part 2 of 5 of this form
for details.
INSULATION Area Special Construction Type Cavity (ft2) Features
(see Part 2 of 5) Status
FENESTRATION U- Exterior Orientation Area(ft2) Factor SHGC
Overhang Sidefins Shades Status
HVAC SYSTEMS Qty. Heating Min. Eff Cooling Min. Eff Thermostat
Status
HVAC DISTRIBUTION Duct Location Heating Cooling Duct Location
R-Value Status
WATER HEATING Qty. Type Gallons Min. Eff Distribution Status
Central Furnace
119.2
0.96
Ducted
none
13.0 SEER
none
0.360
Large Gas
0.360
6.0
New
R-25
96% AFUE
0.360
Front (N)
New
New
Rear (S)
Ducted
none
Roof
5.0
New
1
Skylight
none
Setback
ZONE 3 HVAC
0.28
New
4,146
0.28
813
Bug Screen
Split Air Conditioner
150.0
Attic, Ceiling Ins, vented
Wood Framed
Bug Screen
418.5
Wood Framed w/o Crawl Space
New
Bug Screen
5.0
Central Furnace
Ducted
none
Perim = 462'
13.0 SEER
none
0.360
6.0
New
0.360
New
None
96% AFUE
0.360
All Pipes Ins
Rear (S)
New
Ducted
none
Left (E)
none
Slab
New
1
Right (W)
119
Setback
none
ZONE 1 HVAC
0.28
0.28
New
CA Climate Zone 06
5,408
n/a 2
MARTIN RES.
29066 CLIFFSIDE DR. MALIBU
6/23/2011
1
Split Air Conditioner
0.28
5,921
351.9
Bug Screen
378.0
Attic, Ceiling Ins, unvented
Wood Framed Attic
User Number: 1348
Bug Screen
Central Furnace
20.3
New
1.0
ID: 122506
Ducted
EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft
Floor
13.0 SEER
0.360
6.0
New
R-19
0.360
RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24
New
R-19
96% AFUE
Rear (S)
New
Ducted
none
Wall
Right (W)
none
New
1
Setback
none
ZONE 2 HVAC
0.28
New
0.28
4,742
Bug Screen
Split Air Conditioner
0.28
New
156.0
Attic, Ceiling Ins, vented
Bug Screen
Page 3 of 27
387.5
Unheated Slab-on-Grade
New
None
none
PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE: Residential (Part 1 of 5) CF-1R Project
Name Building Type Single Family Addition Alone Date
Multi Family Existing+ Addition/Alteration
Project Address California Energy Climate Zone Total Cond. Floor
Area Addition # of Stories
FIELD INSPECTION ENERGY CHECKLIST Yes No HERS Measures -- If
Yes, A CF-4R must be provided per Part 2 of 5 of this form.
Yes No Special Features -- If Yes, see Part 2 of 5 of this form
for details.
INSULATION Area Special Construction Type Cavity (ft2) Features
(see Part 2 of 5) Status
FENESTRATION U- Exterior Orientation Area(ft2) Factor SHGC
Overhang Sidefins Shades Status
HVAC SYSTEMS Qty. Heating Min. Eff Cooling Min. Eff Thermostat
Status
HVAC DISTRIBUTION Duct Location Heating Cooling Duct Location
R-Value Status
WATER HEATING Qty. Type Gallons Min. Eff Distribution Status
Split Heat Pump
Ductless / with Fan
16.0 SEER8.00 HSPF
1
Newn/a
New
Ductless / with Fan
16.0 SEER
n/a
8.00 HSPF
Ductless
1
Setback
ZONE 4 HVAC
CA Climate Zone 06 n/a 2
MARTIN RES.
29066 CLIFFSIDE DR. MALIBU
6/23/2011
Split Heat Pump
5,921
User Number: 1348
Split Heat Pump
ID: 122506EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft
n/a
RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24
Ductless
Setback
ZONE 5 HVAC
New
Split Heat Pump
n/a
Page 4 of 27
New
PERFORMANCE CERTIFICATE: Residential (Part 2 of 5) CF-1R Project
Name Building Type Single Family Addition Alone Date Multi Family
Existing+ Addition/Alteration
SPECIAL FEATURES INSPECTION CHECKLIST The enforcement agency
should pay special attention to the items specified in this
checklist. These items require special written justification and
documentation, and special verification to be used with the
performance approach. The enforcement agency determines the
adequacy of the justification, and may reject a building or design
that otherwise complies based on the adequacy of the special
justification and documentation submitted.
HERS REQUIRED VERIFICATION Items in this section require field
testing and/or verification by a certified HERS Rater. The
inspector must receive a completed CF-4R form for each of the
measures listed below for final to be given.
RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24 ID: 122506
The DHW System Heat Transfer Products PH199-119 is a non-NAECA
large storage gas water heater. Verify DHW details.
User Number: 1348
MARTIN RES. 6/23/2011
EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft Page 5 of 27
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Residential (Part 4 of 5) CF-1R
Project Name Building Type Single Family Addition Alone Date Multi
Family Existing+ Addition/Alteration
OPAQUE SURFACE DETAILS Surface U- Insulation Joint Appendix
Type Area Factor Cavity Exterior Frame Interior Frame Azm Tilt
Status 4 Location/Comments
FENESTRATION SURFACE DETAILS ID Type Area U-Factor1 SHGC2 Azm
Status Glazing Type Location/Comments
(1) U-Factor Type: 116-A = Default Table from Standards, NFRC =
Labeled Value (2) SHGC Type: 116-B = Default Table from Standards,
NFRC = Labeled Value
EXTERIOR SHADING DETAILS Window Overhang Left Fin Right Fin ID
Exterior Shade Type SHGC Hgt Wd Len Hgt LExt RExt Dist Len Hgt Dist
Len Hgt
0.76
NewSlab
90
NFRC
Window
R-19
NFRC
5.0
0
150.0
New
2 - First Floor
R-19
0.360
180
0.074
16
14
1.00
NFRC
6
0.76
4.4.7-A1
NFRC
0.360
Marvin Wood - LoE
NFRC
New
Wall
3 - First Floor
0
16.5
4.3.1-A5
New
Wall
2 - First Floor
Window
Marvin Wood - LoE
14
New
1 - First Floor
NFRC
50.8
0.048
4.3.1-A5
0
7
0.1
90
8
0.074
NFRC
1
None
NFRC
Marvin Wood - LoE
8.0
180
52.2
MARTIN RES.
0
6/23/2011
1 - First Floor
Marvin Wood - LoE
Bug Screen
NFRC
441
0.28
9
NFRC
New
Floor
90
Window
None
0.76
270
0
270
0.360
180
0.074
15
NFRC
New
Marvin Wood - LoE
0.76
3
0.76
4.4.2-A4
Marvin Wood - LoE
New
Wall
3 - First Floor
Window
676
49.0
Page 7 of 27
Marvin Wood - LoENew
Wall
180
180Window
4.3.1-A5
NFRC
22
New
R-19
1 - First Floor
NFRC
0.730
4.3.1-A5
6
0.1
418.5
4.3.1-A5
2 - First Floor
0.360
Bug Screen
NFRC
11
0.28
1 - First Floor
Marvin Wood - LoE
Bug Screen
New
14.3
R-19123
150.0
0
20.3
0.28
0.28
12
New
Roof
3 - First Floor
5.0
Window
NFRC
Marvin Wood - LoE
0
0.074
90
90
0.28
NFRC
New
13
0.76
4.2.1-A7
Bug Screen
NFRC
174
New
Wall
3 - First Floor
Skylight
0.28
0.360
New
Wall
1 - First Floor
Window
1 - First Floor
Bug Screen
None
180
180
0.038
9
50.28
85.0
0.360
90
NFRC
0.76
4.3.1-A5
1 - First Floor
1 - First Floor
127
0.28
0
1 - First Floor
NFRC
Bug Screen
New
0
133
0.28
156.0
Wall
R-19
Marvin Wood - LoE
5
1 - First Floor
New
3
180
Window 35.0
R-19
90
90
0.360
0.730
4.3.1-A5
13
Marvin Wood - LoE
New
1.0
NFRC
22
Bug Screen
NFRC
New
36.0
Floor
2 - First Floor
Window
665
18.8
102.6
0.28
1 - First Floor
New
Wall
90
Window
0.074
180
10
NFRC
0.360
0.074
4.4.2-A4
4
0.76
90
4.3.1-A5
1 - First Floor
NFRC
Bug Screen
New
2,929
0.28
2.0
1 - First Floor
Marvin Wood - LoE
Marvin Wood - LoE
8.0
0.28
2 - First Floor
0
Window
Bug Screen
R-19
NFRC
90
New
2
180
R-19
90
0.360
0
NFRC
0.360
2 - First Floor
180
Bug Screen
0.048
4.3.1-A5
12
Marvin Wood - LoE
New
3 - First Floor
Bug Screen
0
EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft
NFRC
150
New
9.6
New
Slab
90
Window
19.5
R-19
16
0.1
New
90
Window
0.074
0.360
R-25
NFRC
90
0.074
4.4.7-A1
0.360
5.0
0.76
R-19
1 - First Floor
NFRC
Bug Screen
New
96.0
5.0
1 - First Floor
0.28
0.28
Wall
Window
User Number: 1348
7
NFRC
0.76
New
1
2 - First Floor
NFRC
0.76
ID: 122506
0.360
R-25
180
0.038
4.3.1-A5
11
2 - First Floor
0.76
NFRC
New
5.0
NFRC
3 - First Floor
Bug Screen
8.0
Marvin Wood - LoE
11
0.280.28
0.360
New
Roof
90
90
Window
293
3 - First Floor
0.76
15
2.0
New
R-19
90
Wall
0.074
8
0.360
0
270
10
0.074
4.2.1-A7
2
Bug Screen
0.76
25
4
0.76
RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24
1 - First Floor
Marvin Wood - LoE
Bug Screen
New
151
291
24.0
0.360
R-19
02,908
3 - First Floor
5.0
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Residential (Part 4 of 5) CF-1R
Project Name Building Type Single Family Addition Alone Date Multi
Family Existing+ Addition/Alteration
OPAQUE SURFACE DETAILS Surface U- Insulation Joint Appendix
Type Area Factor Cavity Exterior Frame Interior Frame Azm Tilt
Status 4 Location/Comments
FENESTRATION SURFACE DETAILS ID Type Area U-Factor1 SHGC2 Azm
Status Glazing Type Location/Comments
(1) U-Factor Type: 116-A = Default Table from Standards, NFRC =
Labeled Value (2) SHGC Type: 116-B = Default Table from Standards,
NFRC = Labeled Value
EXTERIOR SHADING DETAILS Window Overhang Left Fin Right Fin ID
Exterior Shade Type SHGC Hgt Wd Len Hgt LExt RExt Dist Len Hgt Dist
Len Hgt
0.76
NewWall
NFRC
Window
R-19
NFRC
0
51.3
New
5 - Second Floor
R-19
0
30
0.76
NFRC
22
0.76
4.3.1-A5
NFRC
0.360
Marvin Wood - LoE
NFRC
New
Floor
5 - Second Floor
270
19.5
4.3.1-A5
New
Wall
4 - First Floor
Window
Marvin Wood - LoE
30
New
3 - First Floor
96.0
0.074
4.4.2-A4
0
23
90
24
0.074
NFRC
17
Bug Screen
NFRC
Marvin Wood - LoE
806
84.0
MARTIN RES.
90
6/23/2011
4 - First Floor
Marvin Wood - LoE
Bug Screen
NFRC
996
0.28
25
NFRC
Wall
22
Window
R-19
0.76
270
90
0
0.360
0
0.038
NFRC
New
Marvin Wood - LoE
19
0.76
4.3.1-A5
Marvin Wood - LoE
New
Slab
5 - Second Floor
Window
201
21.0
Page 8 of 27
Marvin Wood - LoENew
Slab
90
180Window
4.2.1-A7
NFRC
90
New
R-19
3 - First Floor
0.074
4.4.7-A1
22
43.9
4.4.7-A1
5 - Second Floor
0.360
Bug Screen
NFRC
27
0.28
4 - First Floor
Marvin Wood - LoE
Bug Screen
New
R-25514
19.0
180
9.2
0.28
0.28
28
Wall
5 - Second Floor
Window
NFRC
Marvin Wood - LoE
270
0.074
90
0
0.28
NFRC
New
29
0.76
4.3.1-A5
NFRC
New
Roof
5 - Second Floor
Window
0.28
0.360
New
Roof
4 - First Floor
Window
3 - First Floor
Bug Screen
R-19
0
0.074
25
210.28
15.0
0.360
180
NFRC
4.2.1-A7
5 - Second Floor
4 - First Floor
334
0.28
0
4 - First Floor
NFRC
Bug Screen
New
180
454
0.28
56.0
R-19
Marvin Wood - LoE
21
4 - First Floor
New
19
90
Window 20.0
R-19
90
180
0.360
0.074
29
Marvin Wood - LoE
New
NFRC
90
NFRC
New
Wall
5 - Second Floor
Window
106
24.0
0.28
4 - First Floor
New
Wall
90
Window
0.048
90
26
NFRC
0.360
0.074
4.3.1-A5
20
0.76
4.3.1-A5
4 - First Floor
Bug Screen
209
0.28
4 - First Floor
Marvin Wood - LoE
0.28
4 - First Floor
90
Bug Screen
None
NFRC
90
New
18
90
None
180
0.360
270
NFRC
0.360
5 - Second Floor
270
Bug Screen
0.074
4.2.1-A7
28
Marvin Wood - LoE
New
Bug Screen
270
EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft
NFRC
228
New
New
Wall
180
Window
R-25
New
180
Window
0.730
0.360
R-19
NFRC
0.730
4.3.1-A5
0.360
0.76
R-19
4 - First Floor
Bug Screen
New
56.0
3 - First Floor
0.28
0.28
Wall
User Number: 1348
23
NFRC
0.76
New
17
5 - Second Floor
NFRC
0.76
ID: 122506
0.360
R-19
0
0.074
4.3.1-A5
27
5 - Second Floor
0.76
NFRC
New
NFRC
Bug Screen
Marvin Wood - LoE
212
0.360
New
Wall
22
0
Window
313
5 - Second Floor
0.76
New
22
Roof
0.038
24
0.360
90
0
26
0.038
4.3.1-A5
18
Bug Screen
0.76
21
20
0.76
RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24
4 - First Floor
Bug Screen
New
249
996
15.0
R-25
180194
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE: Residential (Part 5 of 5) CF-1R
Project Name Building Type Single Family Addition Alone Date Multi
Family Existing+ Addition/Alteration
BUILDING ZONE INFORMATION Floor Area (ft2)
System Name Zone Name New Existing Altered Removed Volume Year
Built
Totals
HVAC SYSTEMS System Name Qty. Heating Type Min. Eff. Cooling
Type Min. Eff. Thermostat Type Status
HVAC DISTRIBUTION Duct Ducts
System Name Heating Cooling Duct Location R-Value Tested?
Status
WATER HEATING SYSTEMS
System Name Qty. Type Distribution
Rated Input (Btuh)
Tank Cap. (gal)
Energy Factor or RE
Standby Loss or
Pilot
Ext. Tank
Insul. R-Value Status
MULTI-FAMILY WATER HEATING DETAILS HYDRONIC HEATING SYSTEM
PIPING
Control
Eff
. P
rem
ium
Hot Water Piping Length (ft)
Ad
d
In
sula
tion
System Name Pipe
Length Pipe
Diameter Insul. Thick. Qty. HP Plenum Outside Buried
Ducted
0
New
ZONE 4 HVAC Split Heat Pump
6.0
Central Furnace
n/a
Split Heat PumpNew
676
0.96
ZONE 5 HVAC
Ducted
ID: 122506
ZONE 1 HVAC
514
Ductless
13.0 SEER
ZONE 2 HVAC
ZONE 1 HVAC
ZONE 5 HVAC
ZONE 4 HVAC
96% AFUE
Large GasHeat Transfer Products PH199-119
5 - Second Floor
Setback
0.0
Attic, Ceiling Ins, unvented
1
1 - First Floor
Setback
Page 9 of 27
9,9614 - First Floor
New
Split Air Conditioner
1
Ducted
Ducted
New
Split Heat Pump
6.0
Central FurnaceNew
n/a
Split Heat PumpNew
996
119
Ducted
0
ZONE 2 HVAC13.0 SEER
Ductless
16.0 SEER
ZONE 3 HVAC
ZONE 2 HVAC
96% AFUE
16.0 SEER8.00 HSPF
ZONE 5 HVAC
8.00 HSPF
MARTIN RES. 6/23/2011
Attic, Ceiling Ins, vented
1
n/a
Setback
29,285
n/a
1
2 - First Floor
User Number: 1348
8,064
0.78 %
New
All Pipes Ins
Split Air Conditioner
Ductless / with Fan
EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft
6.0
Central FurnaceNew
2,929
New
Ductless / with Fan
New
806
Ducted
13.0 SEER
ZONE 1 HVAC
ZONE 4 HVAC
199,000
5,921
ZONE 3 HVAC
96% AFUE
RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24
Setback
Attic, Ceiling Ins, vented
0
1
Setback
6,760
ZONE 3 HVAC
1
3 - First Floor
New
Split Air Conditioner
4,114
MANDATORY MEASURES SUMMARY: Residential (Page 1 of 3) MF-1R
Project Name Date NOTE: Low-rise residential buildings subject to
the Standards must comply with all applicable mandatory measures
listed, regardless of the compliance approach used. More stringent
energy measures listed on the Certificate of Compliance (CF-1R,
CF-1R-ADD, or CF-1R-ALT Form) shall supersede the items marked with
an asterisk (*) below. This Mandatory Measures Summary shall be
incorporated into the permit documents, and the applicable features
shall be considered by all parties as minimum component performance
specifications whether they are shown elsewhere in the documents or
in this summary. Submit all applicable sections of the MF-1R Form
with plans.
Building Envelope Measures:
116(a)1: Doors and windows between conditioned and unconditioned
spaces are manufactured to limit air leakage. 116(a)4: Fenestration
products (except field-fabricated windows) have a label listing the
certified U-Factor, certified Solar Heat Gain Coefficient (SHGC),
and infiltration that meets the requirements of 10-111(a).
117: Exterior doors and windows are weather-stripped; all joints
and penetrations are caulked and sealed.
118(a): Insulation specified or installed meets Standards for
Insulating Material. Indicate type and include on CF-6R Form.
118(i): The thermal emittance and solar reflectance values of the
cool roofing material meets the requirements of 118(i) when the
installation of a Cool Roof is specified on the CF-1R Form.
*150(a): Minimum R-19 insulation in wood-frame ceiling or
equivalent U-factor.
150(b): Loose fill insulation shall conform with manufacturers
installed design labeled R-Value.
*150(c): Minimum R-13 insulation in wood-frame wall or
equivalent U-factor.
*150(d): Minimum R-13 insulation in raised wood-frame floor or
equivalent U-factor.
150(f): Air retarding wrap is tested, labeled, and installed
according to ASTM E1677-95(2000) when specified on the CF-1R
Form.
150(g): Mandatory Vapor barrier installed in Climate Zones 14 or
16. 150(l): Water absorption rate for slab edge insulation material
alone without facings is no greater than 0.3%; water vapor
permeance rate is no greater than 2.0 perm/inch and shall be
protected from physical damage and UV light deterioration.
Fireplaces, Decorative Gas Appliances and Gas Log Measures:
150(e)1A: Masonry or factory-built fireplaces have a closable
metal or glass door covering the entire opening of the firebox.
150(e)1B: Masonry or factory-built fireplaces have a combustion
outside air intake, which is at least six square inches in area and
is equipped with a with a readily accessible, operable, and
tight-fitting damper and or a combustion-air control device.
150(e)2: Continuous burning pilot lights and the use of indoor air
for cooling a firebox jacket, when that indoor air is vented to the
outside of the building, are prohibited. Space Conditioning, Water
Heating and Plumbing System Measures: 110-113: HVAC equipment,
water heaters, showerheads, faucets and all other regulated
appliances are certified by the Energy Commission. 113(c)5: Water
heating recirculation loops serving multiple dwelling units and
High-Rise residential occupancies meet the air release valve,
backflow prevention, pump isolation valve, and recirculation loop
connection requirements of 113(c)5. 115: Continuously burning pilot
lights are prohibited for natural gas: fan-type central furnaces,
household cooking appliances (appliances with an electrical supply
voltage connection with pilot lights that consume less than 150
Btu/hr are exempt), and pool and spa heaters.
150(h): Heating and/or cooling loads are calculated in
accordance with ASHRAE, SMACNA or ACCA.
150(i): Heating systems are equipped with thermostats that meet
the setback requirements of Section 112(c). 150(j)1A: Storage gas
water heaters rated with an Energy Factor no greater than the
federal minimal standard are externally wrapped with insulation
having an installed thermal resistance of R-12 or greater.
150(j)1B: Unfired storage tanks, such as storage tanks or backup
tanks for solar water-heating system, or other indirect hot water
tanks have R-12 external insulation or R-16 internal insulation
where the internal insulation R-value is indicated on the exterior
of the tank. 150(j)2: First 5 feet of hot and cold water pipes
closest to water heater tank, non-recirculating systems, and entire
length of recirculating sections of hot water pipes are insulated
per Standards Table 150-B. 150(j)2: Cooling system piping (suction,
chilled water, or brine lines),and piping insulated between heating
source and indirect hot water tank shall be insulated to Table
150-B and Equation 150-A. 150(j)2: Pipe insulation for steam
hydronic heating systems or hot water systems >15 psi, meets the
requirements of Standards Table 123-A.
150(j)3A: Insulation is protected from damage, including that
due to sunlight, moisture, equipment maintenance, and wind.
150(j)3A: Insulation for chilled water piping and refrigerant
suction lines includes a vapor retardant or is enclosed entirely in
conditioned space.
150(j)4: Solar water-heating systems and/or collectors are
certified by the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation.
User Number: 1348 RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24 ID: 122506
6/23/2011MARTIN RES.
Page 10 of 27EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft
MANDATORY MEASURES SUMMARY: Residential (Page 2 of 3) MF-1R
Project Name Date
150(m)1: All air-distribution system ducts and plenums
installed, are sealed and insulated to meet the requirements of CMC
Sections 601, 602, 603, 604, 605 and Standard 6-5; supply-air and
return-air ducts and plenums are insulated to a minimum installed
level of R-4.2 or enclosed entirely in conditioned space. Openings
shall be sealed with mastic, tape or other duct-closure system that
meets the applicable requirements of UL 181, UL 181A, or UL 181B or
aerosol sealant that meets the requirements of UL 723. If mastic or
tape is used to seal openings greater than 1/4 inch, the
combination of mastic and either mesh or tape shall be used
150(m)1: Building cavities, support platforms for air handlers, and
plenums defined or constructed with materials other than sealed
sheet metal, duct board or flexible duct shall not be used for
conveying conditioned air. Building cavities and support platforms
may contain ducts. Ducts installed in cavities and support
platforms shall not be compressed to cause reductions in the
cross-sectional area of the ducts. 150(m)2D: Joints and seams of
duct systems and their components shall not be sealed with cloth
back rubber adhesive duct tapes unless such tape is used in
combination with mastic and draw bands.
150(m)7: Exhaust fan systems have back draft or automatic
dampers. 150(m)8: Gravity ventilating systems serving conditioned
space have either automatic or readily accessible, manually
operated dampers. 150(m)9: Insulation shall be protected from
damage, including that due to sunlight, moisture, equipment
maintenance, and wind. Cellular foam insulation shall be protected
as above or painted with a coating that is water retardant and
provides shielding from solar radiation that can cause degradation
of the material.
150(m)10: Flexible ducts cannot have porous inner cores. 150(o):
All dwelling units shall meet the requirements of ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 62.2-2007 Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Air Quality in
Low-Rise Residential Buildings. Window operation is not a
permissible method of providing the Whole Building Ventilation
required in Section 4 of that Standard.
Pool and Spa Heating Systems and Equipment Measures: 114(a): Any
pool or spa heating system shall be certified to have: a thermal
efficiency that complies with the Appliance Efficiency Regulations;
an on-off switch mounted outside of the heater; a permanent
weatherproof plate or card with operating instructions; and shall
not use electric resistance heating or a pilot light. 114(b)1: Any
pool or spa heating equipment shall be installed with at least 36
of pipe between filter and heater, or dedicated suction and return
lines, or built-up connections for future solar heating.
114(b)2: Outdoor pools or spas that have a heat pump or gas
heater shall have a cover. 114(b)3: Pools shall have directional
inlets that adequately mix the pool water, and a time switch that
will allow all pumps to be set or programmed to run only during
off-peak electric demand periods.
150(p): Residential pool systems or equipment meet the pump
sizing, flow rate, piping, filters, and valve requirements of
150(p).
Residential Lighting Measures: 150(k)1: High efficacy luminaires
or LED Light Engine with Integral Heat Sink has an efficacy that is
no lower than the efficacies contained in Table 150-C and is not a
low efficacy luminaire as specified by 150(k)2. 150(k)3: The
wattage of permanently installed luminaires shall be determined as
specified by 130(d). 150(k)4: Ballasts for fluorescent lamps rated
13 Watts or greater shall be electronic and shall have an output
frequency no less than 20 kHz. 150(k)5: Permanently installed night
lights and night lights integral to a permanently installed
luminaire or exhaust fan shall contain only high efficacy lamps
meeting the minimum efficacies contained in Table 150-C and shall
not contain a line-voltage socket or line-voltage lamp holder; OR
shall be rated to consume no more than five watts of power as
determined by 130(d), and shall not contain a medium screw-base
socket.
150(k)6: Lighting integral to exhaust fans, in rooms other than
kitchens, shall meet the applicable requirements of 150(k).
150(k)7: All switching devices and controls shall meet the
requirements of 150(k)7. 150(k)8: A minimum of 50 percent of the
total rated wattage of permanently installed lighting in kitchens
shall be high efficacy. EXCEPTION: Up to 50 watts for dwelling
units less than or equal to 2,500 ft2 or 100 watts for dwelling
units larger than 2,500 ft2 may be exempt from the 50% high
efficacy requirement when: all low efficacy luminaires in the
kitchen are controlled by a manual on occupant sensor, dimmer,
energy management system (EMCS), or a multi-scene programmable
control system; and all permanently installed luminaries in
garages, laundry rooms, closets greater than 70 square feet, and
utility rooms are high efficacy and controlled by a manual-on
occupant sensor. 150(k)9: Permanently installed lighting that is
internal to cabinets shall use no more than 20 watts of power per
linear foot of illuminated cabinet.
User Number: 1348EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft RunCode:
2011-06-23T12:06:24 ID: 122506
MARTIN RES.
Page 11 of 27
6/23/2011
MANDATORY MEASURES SUMMARY: Residential (Page 3 of 3) MF-1R
Project Name Date
150(k)10: Permanently installed luminaires in bathrooms,
attached and detached garages, laundry rooms, closets and utility
rooms shall be high efficacy. EXCEPTION 1: Permanently installed
low efficacy luminaires shall be allowed provided that they are
controlled by a manual-on occupant sensor certified to comply with
the applicable requirements of 119. EXCEPTION 2: Permanently
installed low efficacy luminaires in closets less than 70 square
feet are not required to be controlled by a manual-on occupancy
sensor. 150(k)11: Permanently installed luminaires located in rooms
or areas other than in kitchens, bathrooms, garages, laundry rooms,
closets, and utility rooms shall be high efficacy luimnaires.
EXCEPTION 1: Permanently installed low efficacy luminaires shall be
allowed provided they are controlled by either a dimmer switch that
complies with the applicable requirements of 119, or by a manual-on
occupant sensor that complies with the applicable requirements of
119. EXCEPTION 2: Lighting in detached storage building less than
1000 square feet located on a residential site is not required to
comply with 150(k)11. 150(k)12: Luminaires recessed into insulated
ceilings shall be listed for zero clearance insulation contact (IC)
by Underwriters Laboratories or other nationally recognized
testing/rating laboratory; and have a label that certifies the
lumiunaire is airtight with air leakage less then 2.0 CFM at 75
Pascals when tested in accordance with ASTM E283; and be sealed
with a gasket or caulk between the luminaire housing and ceiling.
150(k)13: Luminaires providing outdoor lighting, including lighting
for private patios in low-rise residential buildings with four or
more dwelling units, entrances, balconies, and porches, which are
permanently mounted to a residential building or to other buildings
on the same lot shall be high efficacy. EXCEPTION 1: Permanently
installed outdoor low efficacy luminaires shall be allowed provided
that they are controlled by a manual on/off switch, a motion sensor
not having an override or bypass switch that disables the motion
sensor, and one of the following controls: a photocontrol not
having an override or bypass switch that disables the photocontrol;
OR an astronomical time clock not having an override or bypass
switch that disables the astronomical time clock; OR an energy
management control system (EMCS) not having an override or bypass
switch that allows the luminaire to be always on EXCEPTION 2:
Outdoor luminaires used to comply with Exception1 to 150(k)13 may
be controlled by a temporary override switch which bypasses the
motion sensing function provided that the motion sensor is
automatically reactivated within six hours. EXCEPTION 3:
Permanently installed luminaires in or around swimming pool, water
features, or other location subject to Article 680 of the
California Electric Code need not be high efficacy luminaires.
150(k)14: Internally illuminated address signs shall comply with
Section 148; OR not contain a screw-base socket, and consume no
more than five watts of power as determined according to 130(d).
150(k)15: Lighting for parking lots and carports with a total of
for 8 or more vehicles per site shall comply with the applicable
requirements in Sections 130, 132, 134, and 147. Lighting for
parking garages for 8 or more vehicles shall comply with the
applicable requirements of Sections 130, 131, 134, and 146.
150(k)16: Permanently installed lighting in the enclosed,
non-dwelling spaces of low-rise residential buildings with four or
more dwelling units shall be high efficacy luminaires. EXCEPTION:
Permanently installed low efficacy luminaires shall be allowed
provided that they are controlled by an occupant sensor(s)
certified to comply with the applicable requirements of 119.
User Number: 1348 RunCode: 2011-06-23T12:06:24 ID: 122506
6/23/2011MARTIN RES.
Page 12 of 27EnergyPro 5.1 by EnergySoft
6/23/2011C-30765
Drawing File
Scale
Drawn By
Job
Sheet
Issued Description
krb
n/a
A0.4
martin and costin
Sheet Title
Project Name
Martin and Costin Residence 29066 Cliffside Drive Malibu,
California 90265
coastal development permit
Lot 05 1024 harding ave. no. 202
venice, california 90291
310.663.6692
coastal development permit
10.20.09 permit set submittal
06.21.10 plan check corrections
06.28.11 progress set
STATE OF CALIFORN
IA
LICE
NSED ARCHITECTKIRK!
BLASCHKE
C-30765REN. 04.30.13
CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 07-
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OFMALIBU
APPROVING COASTALDEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 05-060,SITE PLAN REVIEW NO.
06-028, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 07-022AND ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN REVIEW
NO. 07-095 - AN APPLICATIONTO REMODEL AN EXISTING 4 013 SQUARE FOOT
SINGLE-FAMILYRESIDENCE; CONSTRUCTION OF A 1 017 SQUARE
FOOTBASEMENT/SUBTERREAN GARAGE, A 1 373 SQUAR FOOT FIRT-FLOOR
ADDITION AND A 499 SQUARE FOOT SECOND-FLOORGUEST/SECOND RESIDENTIAL
UNIT; AND INSTALLATION OF ANAL TERNATIVE ONSITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT SYSTEM IN ARURAL RESIDENTIAL 1 ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT
29066
, CLIFFSIDEDRIVE (MARTIN)
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU DOES HEREBY FIN,
ORDER
AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
A. On May 17, 2005, an application was submitted to the Planning
Division forAdministrative Plan Review (APR) No. 05-012, and Site
Plan Review (SPR) No. 05-028 for a remodel of
the existing 4 013 square foot residence, a 1 904 square foot
first-story addition, and a 605 square foot28- foot high
second-story addition. It was determined on August 15 2005, that
the project would require
processing as a coastal development permit.
B. On April 19 , 2006 , an application was submitted for Coastal
Development Permit (CDP)No. 05-060 including SPR No. 06-028 and
Minor Modification (MM) No. 07-022 to remodel the existing
013 square foot single- family residence, construct a 1 017
square foot basement/subterranean garage, a
373 square foot first-floor addition, a 499 square foot
second-floor guest/second residential unit andinstall an
alternative onsite wastewater treatment system (AOWTS). APR No.
07-095 was added later toaccount for the basement request in
conjunction with a coastal development permit.
C. On October 8 - 2006, story poles were placed on the subject
property to demonstrate theheight of the proposed project and to
analyze visual impacts. Shortly thereafter, planning staff
wascontacted by Sam and Peggy Hall Kaplan, upslope neighbors at
29061 Cliffside Drive, who requested that
a primary view be established from their residence.
D. On October 17 , 2006 , the Notice of Application was posted
on the subject property andstaff took photos of the story poles as
well as the surrounding area.
E. On October 24, 2006 , staff went to the Kaplan ' residence
and established their primaryview according to the procedure
stipulated in Malibu Municipal Code (M. ) 17.40.040. 17
whichprovides protection for primary views.
Planning Commssion Resolution No. 07-
Page I of 23
Attachment 1
F. On October 25 2006, planning staff received a letter from the
Kaplans expressing theirconcerns with the scope and overall height
ofthe project. Staff contacted the applicant and conveyed
theKaplans ' concerns and directed the applicant to the M. C.
Section 17.40.040. 17.
G. On Januar 20 2007 , revised plans were submitted and on
February 3 2007 , story poleswere again placed on the subject
property. Staff revisited the Kaplans and took additional photos.
Therevised design of a lower single-story ridgeline appeared to
have less of an impact to the Kaplans primaryiew. However, Mr.
Kaplan indicated at this time that his neighbor at 29107 Cliffside
Drive, RalphHoman, had primary view concerns as well. Subsequently,
staff contacted Mr. Homan and establishedhis primary view. At that
time, it appeared that the Kaplans may have valid concerns with
regard to theheight of the structure in excess of 18 feet in
height. However, from Mr. Homann s residence, it did notappear that
any of the second-story portion would impact his view but rather
the most ocean-frontleading edge portion (proposed at 18 feet) may
block some blue water view. Since primary viewprotection does not
corne into effect until a project exceeds 18 feet in height, staff
determined that therewas no primary view impact to Mr. Homann s
residence. Staff conveyed this information to applicantwho adjusted
his design and story poles.
H. On April 12, 2007 staff revisited the Kaplan and Homann
residences and took anotherround of story pole photographs and
reassessed the primary view concerns. It appeared that by
reducing
the impact to the Kaplans the revised project would have an
impact to Mr. Homan s primar view. Thisinformation was conveyed to
the applicant who indicated that he would further revise his
project.
1. On April 25, 2007 , the applicant submitted a revised design,
which put the one-storyportion at 18 feet in height and the
two-story portion at 22 feet 9V2 inches.
J. On May 5 2007, the project was re-poled and on May 7th and
M;ay 22 , stafftook photosfrom the Homan and Kapl n residences
respectively.
K. On May 26 , 2007 , it was relayed to staff that the Kaplans,
Mr. Homann and the propertyowner, Bruce Martin had met to discuss
his latest proposal and that discussions centered on the
removal
or thinning oflarge (view blocking) trees and maintenance of the
existing vegetation at the proposed roofheight (to ensure existing
blue water views) which could mitigate the impacts of the proposed
second-
story structure.
L. On June 16, 2007, the final department review was received
and the application wasdeemed complete for processing.
M. On July 15 , 2007 , the project site was re-poled using
orange flags to indicate the height ofthe one-story portion at 18
feet and bright yellow flags to indicate the height of the proposed
second-
story at 22 feet 9V2 inches. The blufffront, leading edge ofthe
structure remained poled at 18 feet with a
wooden two by four, painted black extending the length the
structure.
N. On July 16, 2007, staff conducted a final site visit and took
another round of photos.Although difficult to see, the story poles
and colored flags demonstrated that the proposed structue
whenviewed from the elevations of the neighboring residents had the
same blue water view blockage at 18 feetas at 22 feet 9V2 inches.
This is discussed further in the Site Plan Review Findings and
Scenic and Visual
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 2 of 23
Findings.
O. On July 25 2007, a Notice of Public Hearing was published in
a newspaper of generalcirculation within the City of Malibu. In
addition, on July 25 2007, a Notice of Public Hearng wasmailed to
all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the
subject property.
P. On August 7, 2007, the public hearing was not opened and the
item was continued to adate certain of September 18, 2007.
Q. On August 8 , 2007 , staff facilitated a meeting between the
applicant and the Kaplans todiscuss a private maintenance agreement
for the trees on the subject property. A private agreement was
reached that consists ofthe onsite trees within the Kaplans'
line-of-sight be maintained at the rooflne ofthe proposed
addition/remodel so as to shield the Kaplans ITom the structure
while maintaining a viewacross the site. This private agreement is
not required by or enforceable by the City of Mali bu. It is
staffsunderstanding-that a similar private agreement was made with
Mr. Homann at 29107 Cliffside Drive.
R. On September 6, 2007, a Notice of Public Hearing was
published in a newspaper ofgeneral circulation within the City of
Malibu. In addition, on September 6, 2007, a Notice of PublicHearng
was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500- foot
radius of the subject propert
S. On September 18 2007 , the Planing Commission held a duly
noticed public hearing onthe subject application, reviewed and
considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written
reportspublic testimony, and other infonnation in the record.
Section 2. Environmental Review.
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the
California Environmental Quality Act GEQA"the Planing Division has
analyzed the proposal as described above. The Planning Division has
foundthat this project is listed among the classes of projects that
have been detennined not to have a signficantadverse effect on the
environment and are therefore, exempt ITom the provisions ofCEQA.
The PlanngDivision has further detennined that none of the six
exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption
applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).
Accordingly, a CATEGORICALEXEMPTION wil be prepared and issued
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 Class 1 ( e) and
(f) Existing Facilities - additions to an existing single-family
residence and a health and safety protectiondevice.
Section 3. Coastal Development Pennit Approval and Findings.
Based on substantial evidence contained within the record and
pursuant to Sections 13. B and 13.9 ofthe City Malibu LCP Local
Implementation Plan, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the
findings in
the staff report, the findings of fact below, and approves
Coastal Development Pennit No. 05-060.
The proposed project has been reviewed by the City s Geologist,
Environmental Health AdministratorBiologist, and Public Works
Department, as well as the Los Angeles County Fire Department
(LACFD).
According to the City s archaeological resource maps, the
subject site has a low potential to containarchaeological
resources. The project is consistent with the LCP' s zoning,
grading, water quality, and
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 3 of 23
on site wastewater treatment requirements. The project has been
determined to be consistent with allapplicable LCP codes,
standards, goals, and policies.
General Coastal Development Permit (LIP - Chapter 13)
Pursuant to LIP section 13.9 the following four findings need to
be made on all coastal developmentpermits.
Finding 1. That the project as described in the application and
accompanying materials, as modifedby any conditions of approval,
conforms with the certifed City of Malibu Local Coastal
Program.
The project, as conditioned, and with approval of the SPR, MM
and APR requests complies with the
required residential standards of LIP Sections 3. , 3.6 and 6. 1
(see Table 2).
Finding 2. The project is located between the first public road
and the sea. The project conforms to the
public access and recreation policies of Chapter of the Coastal
Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections
30200 of the Public Resources Code).
The project is located between the first public road and the
sea. The proposed project and relatedconstruction activities are
not anticipated to interfere with the public s right to access the
coast, as the site
currently offers no public beach access. There is existing
vertical public access at the nearby Point Dume
State Beach to the west; therefore, the project conforms to the
public access and recreation policies.
Finding 3. The project is the least environmentally damaging
alternative.
Pursuant to the California Environmentally Quality Act (CEQA),
this project is listed among the classesof projects that have been
determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the
environment and iscategorically exempt trom CEQA. The proposed
project would not result in signficant adverse effects on
the environment, within the meaning of CEQA and there are no
further feasible alternatives that wouldfurther reduce any impacts
on the environment. The project wil not result in potentially
significantimpacts on the physical environment. The proposed
location is the least environmentally damaging
alternative.
The project as proposed has been found to be categorically
exempt under CEQA Sections 15301 ClassI(e) and (f) Existing
Facilities - additions to an existing single-family residence and a
health and safety
protection device. Therefore, the project as proposed has been
determined to be consistent with CEQA.
There are three alternatives that were considered to determine
the least environmentally damagingalternative.
1. No Project - The no project alternative would avoid any
change in the project site, and hence
any change in visual resources. The project site is zoned for
residential use and the "no project"
alternative would not accomplish the goals ofthe subject
application. Therefore, the "no project"
alternative is not feasible.
2. Alternative Designs - A second-story addition measuring
28-feet in height was originally
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 4 of23 .
proposed. Due to the project's potential to impact the neighbors
' primary view the project was
redesigned and a series of rooflne reorientations were evaluated
in order to lessen the impact on
views. In addition, alternative proposals did not involve the
relocation of the existing OWTS.
The OWTS is currently located in the grassy area ofthe middle
ofthe project site. A project that
impacts views and does not relocate the OWTS the furthest
landward possible does not result in
an environmentally superior project.
3. Proposed Project - The proposed project consists ofaremodel
to the existing 4 013 square foot
single- family residence, construction aI , 017 square foot
basement/subterranean garage, a 1 373
square foot first-floor addition, a 499 square foot second-floor
guest/second residential with an
elevated driveway. The proposed project utilizes the footprint
of the existing residence and does
not extend bluffward. The proposed first-floor addition is
behind the 50-foot bluffop setback and
exceeds the required 1.5 factor of safety. The proposed
second-floor addition is located above the
existing garage area and does not require further landform
alteration.
The project as currently proposed has been designed to have no
impact on the neighbors ' primarview, to provide a new 10- foot
public view corrdor at the intersection of Grasswood Avenue and
Cliffside Drive on the western side of the property, proposes to
maintain existing views from
Cliffside Drive through the 10- foot side yard setback on the
eastern side of the propert and
relocates the OWTS to the most landward location possible (in
the existing driveway area). The
proposed project is the least environmentally damaging
alternative.
Finding 4. If the project is located in or adjacent to an
environmentally sensitive habitat areapursuant to Chapter of the
Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with
therecommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does
not conform with therecommendations, findings explaining why it is
not feasible to take the recommended action.
The subject property does contain clam habitat that is mapped
ESHA as depicted on ESHA Overlay Map
2. However, the proposed project does not impact the ESHA as the
development is proposed on the
bluffop and not at sea level. Pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4.A
and B, the proposed scope of work is
exempt from Environmental Review Board (ERB) review
requirements.
Site Plan Review-Construction Above 18 Feet in Height (LIP
Section 13.27.
The LIP requires that the City make six findings in the
consideration and approval of a site plan review
for construction in excess of the City s base 18- feet in height
up to 24- feet for a flat roof and 28- feet for a
pitched roof (22 feet 9Y2 inches requested). The City requires
additional findings (M.M:C. Section
17.62.070). Staff believes the evidence in the record supports
the requested site plan review and the
following findings of fact for SPR No. 06-028 are made
below.
Finding 1. The project is consistent with policies and
provisions of the Malibu LCP.
The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP and
M. C. As discussed herein, and as
indicated in Tables 2 and 3 , the project, as proposed and/or
conditioned, conforms to the certified City of
Malibu LCP. The required findings for the MM request to permit a
reduced front yard setback and the
SPR request to permit building height greater than 18 feet up to
a maximum of22 feet 9Y2 inches can be
Planning Commssion Resolution No. 07-
Page 5 of 23
made. Based on submitted reports, visual impact analysis and
detailed site investigation, the project is
consistent with all policies and provisions of the Malibu
LCP.
Finding 2. The project does not adversely affect neighborhood
character.
Story poles were placed on the property to demonstrate the
project' s potential for aesthetic changes to the
site relative to neighboring properties. As discussed in the
chronology, staff visited the site andneighboring properties
numerous times, inspecting story poles and evaluating potential
public and private
view impacts as well as impacts to neighborhood character. Staff
found the existing neighborhood
character to consist of a mix of large residential estates and
smaller modest ranch-style homes. The
immediately adjacent ocean side neighbors consist of a two-story
and a parial two-story structure with
mature vegetation and similar setbacks. Since the setback of the
existing residence is consistent with
other homes in the neighborhood and the requested setback
modification affects only the second-story
(the first floor remains as existing), the proposed project wil
not adversely affect neighborhood character.
Finding 3. The project provides maximum feasible protection to
signifcant public views as required by
Chapter of the Malibu LIP.
There exists no alternative building site location where on site
development would not be visible. The
project has been designed to minimize adverse or scenic impacts
by proposing the second-story addition
in an area with the least impact to the primary views of the
neighbors while creating additional public
scenic viewing opportnities through the site.
The subject property is 103 feet in length with existing
development spanning approximately 75 feet (73
percent) across the site leaving a 10 foot six inch (1 0.3
percent) side yard setback to the east and a 16 foot
six inch (16.3 percent) side yard setback to the west. The
existing residence is currently located 12 feet
below the road grade at Cliffside Drive. The existing mature
vegetation does not allow a public view over
the site except for the visually permeable driveway gate area
and 10- foot side yard setback through which
a blue water view is visible. The existing structure is 14 feet
in height and the applicants ' request is to
raise the roof height of the single-story portion to 18 feet
with the second-story addition at 22 feet 9'i
inches. As the visual analysis shows (see Attachment 5 of the
associated Agenda Report), the location
(northwest comer of the site) of the proposed 499 square foot,
second-story addition at 22 feet 9'i inches
has the same visual impact to private views as the portion of
the structure proposed at 18 feet due to the
change in elevation (approximately 15 feet). There is no further
blue water view impact at the higher
height than that which is permitted by the strcture s leading,
bluff-front edge at 18 feet.
The proposal includes a new elevated driveway to the
second-story, guest unit/second residential unit to
allow for disabled access and provide additional off-street
parking. This driveway cut eliminatesapproximately 20 feet of the
existing mature vegetation at the street edge and creates a new
view corrdor
on the western side of the property allowing a new blue-water
ocean view when descending Grasswood .
Avenue toward Cliffside Drive. This view corrdor is similar to
the one located at the intersection of
Cliffside and Dume Drives. A condition for a deed restriction
has been added which requires theapplicant to continuously maintain
the vegetation in the view corrdor. In addition, no new
development
is proposed to encroach into the existing 10-foot eastern side
yard setback allowing this existing "view
corrdor" to remain unaltered.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 6of23
As discussed in the Chronology, story poles were placed on the
subject property during various stages ofthe design evolution to
demonstrate the height ofthe proposed project and to analyze visual
impacts and
staff visited the site on numerous occasions to evaluate
potential impacts.
The private view impacts have been addressed to the best of
staffs ability. Staff has worked with theapplicant and neighbors to
address these concerns. The primar view protection for private
views isfound in 17.40.040.A.17 and addresses only construction in
excess of 18-feet in height. There islanguage in the LCP Section
6.5 to protect views from scenic roads. Section 6. A. states
"Newdevelopment shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse
impacts on scenic areas from scenic roadsor public viewing areas to
the maximum feasible extent." Section 6. E. states "New development
onparcels located on the ocean side of public roads, including but
not limited to, Pacific Coast Highway,Malibu Road, Broad Beach
Road, Birdview Avenue, and Cliffside Drive shall protect public
oceanviews." Section 6. E.1 further states
1. Where topography of the project site descends from the
roadway, newdevelopment shall be sited and designed to preserve
bluewater ocean views over theapproved structures by incorporating
the following measures.
a. Structures shall extend no higher than the road grade
adjacent to the projectsite, where feasible.
b. Structures shall not exceed one story in height, as
necessary, to ensure thatbluewater views are maintained over the
entire site.
c. Fences shall be located away from the road edge and fences or
walls shallbe no higher than adjacent road grade, with the
exception of fences that arecomposed of visually permeable design
and materials.
d. The project site shall be landscaped with native vegetation
types that have amaximum growth height at maturity and are located
such that landscapingwil not extend above road grade.
2. Where the topography of the project site does not permit the
siting or design of astructure that is located below road grade,
new development shall provide an oceanview corrdor on the project
site by incorporating the following measures.
a. Building shall not occupy more than 80 percent maximum of the
linealfrontage of the site.
b. The remaining 20 percent of lineal frontage shall be
maintained as onecontiguous view corrdor.
c. No portion of any structure shall extend into the view
corrdor.
All of the quoted text above relates to public views and do not
apply to private views. In addition, sincethe existing structure
occupies 73 percent ofthe lineal frontage with 10.3 percent on one
side and 16.3percent on the other, a 20 percent lineal frontage
view corrdor is not possible, nor required. Howeverthe existing
10-foot view corrdor and the proposed driveway view corrdor
(approximately 10 feet inwidth) (Attachment 6 of the associated
Agenda Report - Proposed View Corrdor) combine to providethe
maximum feasible public view corrdor -almost 20 percent of the
lineal frontage.Given the enhancement in public views, the location
of the proposed addition and change in elevation of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-Page 7 of 23
the neighbors ' properties , the project as proposed wil have no
significant adverse scenic public or private
visual impacts.
Finding 4. The proposed project complies with all applicable
requirements of state and local law.
The project has received LCP confonnance review from the City s
Biologist, Geologist, Public Works
Department, Environmental Health Administrator and the LACFD.
The project must also be approved by
the LACFD and the City of Malibu Environmental and Building
Safety Division, prior to issuance of
building pennits. The proposed project complies with all
applicable requirements of state and local law.
Finding 5. The project is consistent with the City s general
plan and local coastal program.
The project is consistent with the General Plan s rural
residential designation for the site. As discussed
herein, the project is consistent with the LCP.
Finding 6. The portion of the project that is in excess of 18
feet in height does not obstruct visuallyimpressive scenes of the
Pacifc Ocean, offshore islands, Santa Monica Mountains, canyons,
valleys or
ravines from the main viewing area of any affected principal
residence as defined in MM C. Section
17.40. 040. 17.
As discussed in the chronology, and in Site Plan Review Finding
3 , story poles were placed on the site in
order to detennine if the project would have a visual impact.
Primary view protection does not apply
unless the request is in excess of 18 feet in height. The height
of the proposed second-story addition
exceeds 18 feet and has therefore been analyzed for its
potential to impact primary views. The subject
property is 12 feet below existing road grade and the
neighboring properties which were analyzed for
primary view impacts are approximately 15 feet up from road
grade at Cliffside Drive. The difference
between these two elevations (approximately 27 feet) means the
18 foot structural element encroaches
into blue water views more than the 22 feet 9Y: inch structural
element on the ocean side of the residence.
There is no advantage visually to limiting the structure to 18
feet in height in the foreground as there is
the same visual effect overall.
Based on the visual analysis and on-site evaluation and
analysis, it was detennined that the proposed
project would not obstruct visually impressive scenes of the
Pacific Ocean, off-shore islands, Santa
Monica Mountains, canyons, valleys , or ravines from the main
viewing area of any affected principal
residence as defined in M. C. Section 17 AO.040. 17.
Minor Modifcation - Reduction in Front Yard Setback (LIP Section
13.27.5)
Pursuant to LIP Section 13.27. 5 the Planning Commission may
approve or conditionally approve a minor
modification application only if the Planning Commission
affinnatively finds that the proposal meets all
of the following findings:
Finding 1. That the project is consistent with policies of the
Malibu LCP.
The project has been reviewed and analyzed for confonnance with
the LCP by Planning Division staff
the City Geologist, City Environmental Health Specialist, City
Biologist, City ofMalibu Public Works
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 8 of 23
Department and the LACFD and has been detennined to be
consistent with the policies and provisions ofthe LCP (see Tables 2
and 3). The project design proposes a 43 percent reduction in the
front yard from65 feet to 28 feet, two inches for the second-story
addition only (the first floor remains as existing).These
reductions are requested due to the constraints ofthe 30-foot
easement on Cliffside Drive. It does
not appear from the development patterns on Cliffside Drive that
the easement has been previouslyremoved from the front yard
calculations during past years. Staff has confinned that a
minormodification was requested in order to pennit the recent,
second-story portion over the existing first floorportion of the
structure at 29060 Cliffside Drive. Pursuant to Malibu LIP Section
13.27 . B a MinorModification may be granted to reduce setback
requirements by no more than 50 percent for front yards.The
proposed project meets this requirement.
Finding 2. That the project does not adversely affect
neighborhood character.
The setback of the existing residence is consistent with other
homes in the neighborhood. Since therequested setback modification
affects only the second-story (the first floor remains as
existing), theproposed project wil not adversely affect
neighborhood character.
Finding 3. The proposed project complies with all applicable
requirements of state and local law.
The project has received LCP confonnance review from the City s
Biologist, Geologist, Public Works
Department, Environmental Health Administrator and the LACFD.
The project must also be approved bythe LACFD and the City of
Malibu Environmental and Building Safety Division, prior to
issuance ofbuilding pennits. The proposed project complies with all
applicable requirements of state and local law
Basements with Coastal Development Permits (M. C. Section
17.62.060)
The M. C. states that "development projects which require a
Coastal Development Pennit and whichpropose a basement shall obtain
an administrative plan review utilizing the procedures set forth in
Section17.62.030. . For purposes of this section only, an APR maybe
approved or conditionally approved ifthe project is consistent with
M. C. Section 17 AO.040.A.13 . c- f. This section shall only apply
to those
development projects for which an application is complete on or
after October 27 2004.
The subject application was deemed complete on June 16 2007, and
includes a basement in conjunctionwith the CDP request and
therefore must also obtain an APR. APR No. 07-095 was assigned to
thisproject subject to the aforementioned provision of the M. C.
The project has been reviewed forconsistency with M. C. Section
17AO.040. 13. f. This specific section details
developmentrequirements pertaining to the construction of
basements, subterranean garages, cellars and combinations
of all three. The proposed project confonns to each item
enumerated in M. C. Section17AO.040.A.13.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Overlay (LIP -
Chapter 4)
The subject property does contain clam habitat that is mapped as
ESHA as depicted on the ESHAOverlay Map 2. However, the proposed
project does not impact the ESHA as the development isproposed on
the blufftop and not at sea level. The project will result in less
than significant impacts to;sensitive resources; loss of vegetation
or wildlife; or encroachments into an ESHA. Therefore,
according
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-Page 9 of 23
to LIP Section 4. 6(C), the supplemental ESHA findings are not
applicable.
Native Tree Protection Ordinance (LIP - Chapter 5)
The proposed project does not require the removal of any native
trees. Therefore, according to Section
, the native tree findings are not applicable.
Scenic Visual and Hilside Resource Protection Ordinance (LIP
- Chapter 6)
The Scenic, Visual and Hilside Resource Protection Ordinance
governs those CDP applicationsconcerning any parcel ofland that is
located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any
scenic
area, scenic road, or public viewing area. This project is
visible from a scenic road (Cliffside Drive);
therefore, the Scenic, Visual and Hilside Resource,Protection
Ordinance applies and the five findings set
forth in LIP Section 6.4 are hereby made below.
Finding 1. The project, as proposed, wil have no signifcant
adverse scenic or visual impacts due toproject design, location on
the site or other reasons.
As discussed in Site Plan Review Finding 3 , there exists no
alternative building site location where onsite
development would not be visible. The project has been designed
to minimize adverse or scenic impacts
by proposing the second-story addition in an area with the least
impact to the primary views of theneighbors while creating
additional public scenic viewing opportnities through the site.
The project as currently proposed has been designed to have no
impact on the neighbors ' primar view , toprovide a new 10- foot
deed restricted public view corrdor at the intersection of
Grasswood Avenue and
Cliffside Drive on the western side of the propert, and to
maintain existing views from Cliffside Drive
through the 10-foot side yard setback on the eastern side of the
property. The project as designed and
proposed wil have no significant adverse scenic impacts.
Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, wil not have signifcant
adverse scenic or visual impacts due to
required project modifcations, landscaping or other
conditions.
The project has been designed to avoid any adverse or scenic
impacts. The proposed additions aredesigned to be compatible with
the existing residence and be compatible with the residential
character of
the surrounding neighborhood. Approval of the project is subject
to a condition requiring a deedrestriction to maintain the
landscaping and vegetation in the offered view corrdor on the
western propertedge (Condition No. xx).
Finding 3.
alternative.
The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least
environmentally damaging
As discussed in A. General Coastal Development Pennit, Finding
3. the project as proposed or asconditioned is the least
environmentally damaging alternative.
Finding 4. There are no feasible alternatives to development
that would avoid or substantially lessen any
signifcant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 10 of23
Drawing File
Scale
Drawn By
Job
Sheet
Issued Description
krb
n/a
A0.5
martin and costin
Sheet Title
Project Name
Martin and Costin Residence 29066 Cliffside Drive Malibu,
California 90265
coastal development permit
Lot 05 1024 harding ave. no. 202
venice, california 90291
310.663.6692
coastal development permit
10.20.09 permit set submittal
06.21.10 plan check corrections
06.28.11 progress set
STATE OF CALIFORN
IA
LICE
NSED ARCHITECTKIRK!
BLASCHKE
C-30765REN. 04.30.13
As discussed above in G. Scenic Resources, Finding 1 , the
proposed project as conditioned wil result inless than significant
impacts on scenic and visual resources.
Finding 5. Development in a specifc location on the site may
have adverse scenic and visual impacts butwil eliminate, minimize
or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource
protection policies
contained in the certifed LCP.
As discussed above in G. Scenic Resources, Finding 1 , the
proposed project as conditioned wil result inless than significant
impacts on scenic and visual resources.
Transfer Development Credits (LIP - Chapter 7)
Pursuant to section 7.2 of the LIP the regulations requiring a
transfer development credit apply to any
action to authorize a coastal development pennit for a land
division. The proposed coastal development
pennit does not involve a land division. Therefore, Chapter 7 of
the LIP does not apply to thisapplication.
Grading (LIP - Chapter 8)
There are no findings required by LIP Chapter 8. Table 3
provides the specifications for the exempt and
non-exempt grading quantities proposed. The project is
consistent with the LCP' s grading provisions.
Hazards (LIP - Chapter 9)
The project was analyzed by City staff, for the hazards listed
in the LIP Section 9 . 7. The projectsite is not subject to
significant geologic hazards. The project is set back to the 1.5
factor of safety line
and is not within the wave uprush zone. No substantial risks to
life and/or property are anticipatedprovided the recommendations of
the geotechnical reports prepared for the project are followed.
Finding 1. The project, as proposed wil neither be subject to
nor increase instability of the site orstructural integrity from
geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to project design, location on
the site orother reasons.
The project was analyzed by staff for the hazards listed in the
LIP Section 9.2.A (1-7). Analysis oftheproject hazards included
review of the following documents/data, which are available on file
with theCity: 1) existing City Geologic data maintained by the
City; 2) Preliminary Engineering Geologic and
Geotechnical Report prepared by Donald Kowalewsky dated March
15, 2006; Addendum Response toGeology and Geotechnical Engineering
Review dated June 7 2006; and Addendum No.2 to
PreliminarEngineering Geologic and Geotechnical Report dated July 3
, 2006. Based on the reports referencedabove, the property is not
located within an active earthquake fault zone and no known active
faults exist
beneath the proposed project.
The project has been reviewed by the City Geologist and the City
Public Works Department for erosion
hazards and bluff retreat. In infonnation submitted by Mr.
Kowalewsky, the applicant's geotechnicalconsultant, he states
that
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 11 of23
There are several lines of evidence that indicate that the
average rate of bluff
retreat along this portion ofDume Cove has a lesser rate than
other parts ofthe
point.
1. Because this is almost the exact middle of the cove, a broad
sand beach
exists, therefore, limiting wave uprush against the base of the
seacliff.
2. A moderate amount of talus has accumulated at the toe of the
bluff. This
indicates that wave erosion at the base of the bluff is
infrequent.
3. The propert has a beach cabana/storage building that is
visible on aerial
photographs taken in 1952 (as well as 1972). That structure is
located in the
toe of the slope and has remained unaffected by erosion for over
50 years.
4. Bedrock strata is dipping into the slope at low angles. A
condition that is
very favorable for long term stability.
.. .
Based on the above observations and site conditions it would
appear that no retreat has
occurred in 50 years.
The City Geologist is in agreement with this assessment as
indicated on the LCP-LIP Geotechnical
Conformance Review Sheet dated August 8, 2006, which states that
the project is "Approved from a
geotechnical perspective. Based on the reports submitted and
review by the appropriate CityDeparments and LACFD , the project,
as proposed, wil neither be subject to nor increase instability
of
the site or structural integrty from geologic, flood, or fire
hazards due to project design, location on the
site or other reasons.
Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, wil not have signifcant
adverse impacts on site stability orstructural integrity from
geologic, flood or fire hazards due to required project
modifcationslandscaping or other conditions.
As stated in J. Hazards Finding 1 , the proposed project as
designed, conditioned, and approved by the
City Geologist, City Public Works Department and the LACFD, wil
not have any significant adverseimpacts on the site stability or
structural integrty.
Finding 3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the
least environmentally damaging alternative.
As discussed previously, the proposed project as designed,
conditioned, and approved by the CityGeologist, City Public Works
Department and the LACFD, the project wil not result in
potentiallysignificant environmental impacts because site and
construction design measures have been incorporated
which substantially lessen any potential for adverse effects of
the development on the environment. The
project as proposed or conditioned is the least environmentally
damaging alternative.
Finding 4. There are no alternatives to development that would
avoid or substantially lessen impacts
site stability or structural integrity.
As stated in J. Hazards Finding 1 , the proposed project as
designed, conditioned, and approved by the
City Geologist, City Public Works Department and the LACFD, wil
not have any significant adverse
Planning Commission Resolution No. 07-
Page 12 of23
impacts on the site stability or structural integrty.
Finding 5. Development in a specifc location on the site may
have adverse impacts but wil elimi