Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, May 20, 2026 (part 6 of 7)

5480420
the Staff Report itself acknowledges. Staff Report, p. 9. Therefore, LUP Policy 3.35 does not apply, and cannot be used to justify the reduction in the front yard setback.

D. Irrelevance of LIP § 4.6.1 (A)
Similarly, staff misplaces reliance on LIP § 4.6.1(A) to support the MM. This section governs buffer requirements for developments adjacent to specific habitats, such as stream/riparian areas. See LIP § 4.6.1(A). Since no such habitats exist on or near the Project site, no legitimate reason exists for invoking LIP 4.6.1(A). The Agenda Report concedes that no streams exist in the area, making this provision irrelevant to the project. Staff Report, p. 9. The fact that City staff still seek to apply this provision constitutes an unjustified effort to approve the MM without proper basis.

E. Evidence in the Record Does Not Support the Required Findings Even if the Applicant properly justified the requested setback reduction, which it cannot, the Planning Director cannot make the following findings required to approve the MM under LIP § 13.27.5(B):

1. Flawed Finding 1: The Project is Consistent with the Malibu LCP The resolution claims that the MM is necessary to avoid construction on slopes steeper than 4 to 1, which it asserts are considered sensitive resources under LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP §

4.6.1(A). Resolution No. 24-64, p. 3. As discussed above, this is incorrect. LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP 4.6.1(A) pertain to stream protection, and there are no streams on or near the Project site.

Therefore, the Planning Director cannot find the Project consistent with these policies as they do not, and cannot, apply. Moreover, the classification of slopes as sensitive resources without any supporting evidence or ecological basis undermines the integrity of the LCP’s resource protection provisions. Consequently, the first required finding cannot be made.

2. Flawed Finding 2: The Project Does Not Adversely Affect Neighborhood Character
The second finding relies heavily on the argument that the setback reduction will result in a building placement consistent with neighborhood character. Id. However, the Applicant’s primary motivation for seeking this setback reduction is not to preserve neighborhood character or avoid environmental impacts, but rather to build a larger project than would otherwise be allowed under the standard setback requirements. By shifting the building closer to Heathercliff Road, the 344
City of Malibu Planning Commission
October 4, 2024

Page 6 ends

5480420
applicant would avoid more restrictive development requirements that would apply to construction on steeper slopes. See MMC §§ 17.40.040(A)(20), 17.62.070. This approach does not align with the LCP’s purpose, which is to balance development with environmental protection and community character. See LIP § 1.2. Moreover, approving the MM would allow a deviation from the standard setback without a legitimate planning or environmental justification, which could set a precedent for future applicants to circumvent the City’s development standards.

3. Flawed Finding 3: The Project Complies with All Applicable Requirements of State and Local Law
The third finding asserts that the project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law. Resolution No. 24-64, p. 3. As discussed above, the Applicant conducted illegal grading on the Project without a permit in violation of the LCP. Further, in light of the title dispute discussed above, Applicant cannot comply with LIP §§ 13.6.2(A), 13.6.2(B). The Planning Director cannot make the required finding for this reason alone.

Further, this finding assumes that the MM can be lawfully granted, which, as explained above, it cannot. The improper application of LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP § 4.6.1(A) invalidates the legal basis for the setback reduction. Without the MM, the Planning Commission cannot approve the Project in its current form as it would not meet the required front yard setback. See LIP §

3.6(F). Additionally, the Applicant’s desire to avoid additional regulatory scrutiny drives the Project’s design -- rather than the need to balance the Project with the concept of protecting sensitive environmental resources. See, e.g., See MMC §§ 17.40.040(A)(20), 17.62.070. This undermines the Project’s compliance with the spirit of the LCP and state coastal laws, which prioritize resource protection and thoughtful development. See LIP § 1.2.

IV. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Planning Commission cannot approve the Project in its current form. The Applicant has engaged in illegal unpermitted grading, which violates both the LCP and MMC, and undermine the legitimacy of the Project's approval. Additionally, an unresolved title dispute exists concerning the encroachments onto the Adams property, for which no valid legal rights have been demonstrated. Further, the justification for the Minor Modification, essential for CDP approval, remains factually and legally unsupported. City staff's misclassification of steep slopes as "sensitive resources" and the inappropriate reliance on LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP § 4.6.1(A) cannot serve as a basis for granting the setback reduction. Without a valid Minor Modification, the Planning Commission cannot make the necessary findings required to approve the CDP.
345
City of Malibu Planning Commission
October 4, 2024

Page 7 ends

5480420
Accordingly, we respectfully urge the Planning Commission to deny the Project as currently formulated and request that City Code Enforcement thoroughly investigate the illegal grading work.

Very truly yours,
KENNETH A. EHRLICH,
a Professional Corporation of
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
KAE:jrt
Enclosures: Exhibit 1; Exhibit 2; Exhibit 3
346
EXHIBIT 1
347
5368272.3
Kenneth A. Ehrlich
D: 310.746.4412
Direct Fax: 310.746.4462
[email protected]
Ref: 15651-0001
May 23, 2024

VIA E-MAIL AND FEDEX
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 And Minor Modification No. 20-001
Dear Director Mollica:

Our office represents Brian and Pamela Adams, the owners (collectively, “Client”) of the real property located at 29327 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, California, also identified at APN No. 4468-011-012.

Applicant Alan Hajjar, on behalf of ACS International LLC (collectively, “Applicant”), seeks to construct a new 4,050-square-foot, split-level, 18-foot tall, two-story single-family residence with an attached 390- square-foot garage, a swimming pool, landscaping, hardscape, retaining walls, grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system, and requests a minor modification for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback (“Project”). The Applicant seeks to construct the Project at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, California, also identified as APN No. 4468-011-011 (“Site”) We write to express our Client’s objections and concerns regarding the Project. Specifically, our Client objects to the Project and respectfully requests that the Planning Director deny Project approval on the following grounds:

1. The City Failed to Apply the Hillside and Ridgeline Development Standards, Which Preclude the Project. The Malibu Municipal Code (“MMC”) and the City of Malibu’s (the “City”) Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”) specify Hillside and Ridgeline Development Standards, and these standards apply to the proposed Project. The City failed to apply these standards during the Project review. As discussed below, the Project cannot comply with these standards. For these reasons alone, the Planning Director should not approve the Project.

2. No Basis Exists for the Front Yard Setback Modification. No proper basis exists for the Planning Director to approve the Applicant’s request for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback. No evidence suggests that the proposed setback reduction is necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, as the LIP requires. Instead, the Applicant seeks to reduce the setback solely to maximize the size of the Project footprint and single-family residence. Moreover, the Project depends on 348
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
May 23, 2024

Page 2 ends

5368272.3
the proposed significant reduction of the front setback, and the Applicant could not construct it without it.

The Planning Director should reject the Project.

3. CDP Variance Required. To the extent that the Project cannot comply with the LIP’s standards or requirements, it requires a variance. However, the Applicant has not sought any variance associated with the Project. The Planning Director should reject the Project for this reason as well.

I. The Project Fails To Comply With Applicable Ridgeline Development Standards A. LIP Hillside and Ridgeline Development Standards Apply to the Project LIP chapter 6 codifies the Scenic, Visual, And Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance. LIP section

6.2 provides that chapter 6 applies as follows:

All Coastal Development Permit Applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road, or public viewing area shall be governed by the policies, standards and provisions of this chapter in addition to any other policies or standards contained elsewhere in the certified LCP which may apply. The hillside development standards of this chapter shall apply to properties where the project site includes any area of slope over 20 percent.

Where applicable, Coastal Development Permits shall be conditioned to require compliance with any policy, standard or provision contained herein.

LIP § 6.2.

Here, Applicant-submitted Project documents reveal that the Project would be visible from a designated scenic road, Pacific Coast Highway. Specifically, an Applicant-submitted photo showing the view of the Site from Pacific Coast Highway, with a rendering of the Project buildings (“Project Rendering”), specifically shows visibility from PCH. We attach a true and correct copy of the Project Rendering as Exhibit A. The Project Rendering also demonstrate that the Project would be visible from Pacific Coast Highway, which the City’s LCP Land Use Plan (“LUP”) defines as a scenic road. LUP § 6.3 (“The following roads within the City are considered Scenic Roads: a. Pacific Coast Highway.”).

Consequently, LIP chapter 6 unambiguously applies to the Project.

Further, areas of slope over 20 percent characterize significant portions of the Site. See, e.g., Project Site Plan. Consequently, the LIP chapter 6 hillside development standards also apply to the Project. 349
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
May 23, 2024

Page 3 ends

5368272.3
LIP section 6.5(C) specifies hillside development standards and provides as follows:

1. Ridgelines
a. New development shall be sited and designed to prohibit construction of structures on a primary or secondary ridgeline. Any structures shall be located a minimum of 300 feet (measured horizontally) or 100 feet (measured vertically) from the top of a primary ridgeline, and shall maintain the roof or top of structure below a primary ridgeline when viewed from a public street or highway.
b. Where there are no feasible building site that can conform to the requirements of Section a, or where the only feasible building site would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, then a variance may be approved for a building site that does not conform to these standards, with design measures that minimize the visual resource impacts. Any structures approved on such a building site shall be limited to one-story in height.

LIP § 6.5(C).

LIP section 2.1 defines Primary Ridgeline and Secondary Ridgeline as follows:

RIDGELINE, PRIMARY - a hill, ridge or promontory which drops on either side of the top of this landform feature, and includes at least one of the following conditions: 1) forms a distinct part of the skyline when viewed from a public street or highway; or, 2) is seen as a distinct and prominent edge against a backdrop of land at least 500 feet behind it when viewed from a public street and contains an average slope of at least 3:1.

RIDGELINE, SECONDARY - a hill, ridge, or promontory other than a primary ridgeline, but on which the elevation drops more than 10 feet in 100 feet horizontally on either side of the top of this landform feature.

LIP § 2.1
Here, the Site meets the criteria for a Primary Ridgeline since the Site forms a distinct part of the skyline when viewed from a public street. The Project rendering illustrates that the Site constitutes part of the skyline viewable from Pacific Coast Highway, a public road. See, e.g., Exhibit A. Further, even if the Site does not constitute a Primary Ridgeline, it undoubtedly meets the criteria for a Secondary Ridgeline. 350
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
May 23, 2024

Page 4 ends

5368272.3
In this regard, the Site is situated upon a hill where the elevation drops more than 10 feet in 100 feet horizontally on either side of the top of the landform feature. See, e.g., Project Site Plan. Consequently, LIP section 6.5(C)(1) ridgeline development standards apply to the Project regardless of whether the Site constitutes a Primary or Secondary Ridgeline.

B. MMC Ridgeline Development Standards Apply To The Project MMC section 17.40.040 outlines development standards applicable to all residential development and provides as follows regarding ridgeline development:

8. Ridgelines.

1. Primary Ridgelines.
a. A primary ridgeline shall be defined as follows: a hill, ridge or promontory which drops on either side of the top of this landform feature, and includes at least one of the following conditions:
i. Forms a distinct part of the skyline when viewed from a public street or highway; or
ii. Is seen as a distinct and prominent edge against a backdrop of land at least 500 feet behind it when viewed from a public street and contains an average slope of at least 3:1.
b. Structures shall be located a minimum of 100 feet (measured horizontally) from the top of a primary ridgeline, and shall maintain the roof or top of structure below a primary ridgeline when viewed from a public street or highway.

2. Secondary Ridgelines.
a. A secondary ridgeline is defined as hills, ridges, and promontories other than primary ridgelines, but on which the elevation drops more than 10 feet in 100 feet horizontally on either side of the top of this landform feature.
b. Any structures proposed on secondary ridgelines shall be subject to the planning director’s review. If the structure projects above the top of the secondary ridgeline, as viewed from a public or private street, the planning 351
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
May 23, 2024

Page 5 ends

5368272.3
director may impose conditions to minimize potential scenic impacts based on such factors as the prominence of the site and structure, the severity of visual impact to public view, and the existing development pattern in the surrounding area. These conditions would be based on the following secondary ridgeline development criteria:
i. Proposed structures are encouraged to be maintained at a low profile to mitigate visual impacts of the secondary ridgeline.
ii. The proposed design of the structure, including grading of the site should incorporate development techniques which sensitively conform to the natural terrain, including such measures as split level designs or second stores which are stepped back as viewed from the downhill side of the property, reduced building pads and roof pitches which parallel existing slopes.

MMC § 17.40.040.

Since the Project proposes a new single-family home for residential use in the Rural Residential zone, it constitutes residential development subject to MMC section 17.40.040. For the same reasons discussed in Section I. A. above, the Site constitutes either a Primary Ridgeline or a Secondary Ridgeline.

Consequently, the MMC section 17.40.040 ridgeline development standards apply to the Project regardless of whether the Site constitutes a Primary Ridgeline or Secondary Ridgeline.

C. The City Failed to Apply Applicable Ridgeline Development Standards As discussed above, the LIP and MMC's ridgeline development standards unambiguously apply to the Project. However, the City failed to apply these ridgeline standards during its review of the Project. See, e.g., email correspondence between City staff and the Applicant attached as Exhibit B. Consequently, the Project received no City review for compliance with applicable ridgeline development standards, and the City failed to conduct the analysis and reach the findings required to approve a CDP application subject to LIP chapter 6.

LIP section 6.4 provides that the City must conduct an analysis and reach certain findings which address the specific project impacts relative to the applicable development standards identified in Section

6.5 of the Malibu LIP. Moreover, a Coastal Development Permit for proposed development subject to LIP chapter 6 may only be granted if the City makes certain findings specified in LIP section 6.4.

Here, correspondence between City staff and the Applicant unequivocally shows that the City failed to apply the ridgeline development standards during its review of the Project. See Exhibit B. Although the 352
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
May 23, 2024

Page 6 ends

5368272.3
City acknowledges that the ridgeline development standards arguably apply to the Project, the City, nevertheless, decided that it would “argue that the ridgeline standards do not apply.” Id. The City's claimed grounds for its decision not to apply ridgeline standards to the Project were that “[t]he Code is ambiguous, but staff believes that it would not meet the intent of the code to apply the ridgeline standards in this already developed area of the city.” Id. In other words, City staff unilaterally determined not to apply the ridgeline development standards in developed areas of the City.

This make no practical or legal sense. Nothing in the LIP or MMC specify that these standards only apply in “undeveloped” areas of Malibu or do not apply to "developed" areas of the City. Clearly, the City must analyze this Project under the ridgeline development standards. By failing to conduct the required analysis, the City violated the law by failing to make any of the findings required by LIP section 6.4.

Since the City failed to conduct the required analysis of the Project’s compliance with applicable ridgeline standards, let alone reach the necessary findings, the Planning Director should deny the Project.

D. The Project Cannot Comply With Applicable Ridgeline Standards The Project cannot comply with the applicable ridgeline standards.

For example, the LIP and MMC require that new development on a Primary Ridgeline “shall maintain the roof or top of structure below a primary ridgeline when viewed from a public street or highway.” LIP § 6.5(C)(1)(a); MMC § 17.40.040(A)(8)(1)(b). Here, the Project Rendering clearly shows that the Project’s roof and a significant portion of the building would be visible from Pacific Coast Highway. See Exhibit B. Additionally, other aspects of the Project fail to comply with applicable ridgeline standards without an appropriate variance, which Applicant has not sought here. For example, structures must be located a minimum of 300 feet (measured horizontally) or 100 feet (measured vertically) from the tope of a primary ridgeline. LIP § 6.5(C)(1)(a). Accordingly, the Project cannot comply with the applicable ridgeline development standards. Should Applicant wish to avoid these standards, it must apply for a variance. It has not done so.

Since the Project cannot comply with the applicable ridgeline development standards, the Planning Director must deny the Project.

II. No Proper Basis Exists For Approval Of A Front Yard Setback Reduction A. Applicant Failed To Provide A Proper Justification For The Requested Front Setback Reduction
LIP section 3.6(F) specifies setback requirements applicable to the Property. Based on the 353
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
May 23, 2024

Page 7 ends

5368272.3
dimensions of the Site, the front setback for the Project would be 59.2 feet. Here, the Applicant requests approval of a front setback reduction by up to 50% -- for a front setback of 29.6 feet.

Additionally, LIP section 3.6(F)(5) provides that “[M]odifications to required yards/setbacks standards shall be permitted where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources.” Here, neither the Applicant's submitted documents nor City staff analysis reference any sensitive resources. Instead, the Applicant attempts to justify the front yard setback reduction by asserting that reducing the front setback is necessary “to be able to build this project on the area of the site where the slope is less than 4 to 1.” See true and correct copy of the Applicant’s January 6, 2020 letter to City staff, attached as Exhibit C.

The Applicant’s justification does not constitute a proper basis for approving the requested front setback reduction. The LIP provides that the only adequate basis for the Planning Director to approve a front setback reduction is “to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources.” LIP section 3.6(F)(5).

Here, the Applicant fails to even make the bare assertion that the requested front setback reduction is necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, let alone provide any evidence in support.

Instead, the Applicant reveals that his sole reason for requesting the front setback reduction is that he wants to build the Project significantly larger than it could be if he complied with the applicable setback requirements. Further, the Applicant’s justification implies that he seeks to avoid site plan approval requirements that would be triggered if the proposed Project complied with setback requirements and built portions of the Project.

Moreover, no known or apparent sensitive resources exist in the portion of the Site subject to the front setback requirements. Granting the Applicant’s requested front setback reduction would do nothing to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources, and would ignore applicable law. Consequently, no proper basis exists for granting the requested front setback reduction, let alone any front setback reduction whatsoever. If the applicants want to reduce the front yard setback, it should apply for a variance. It has not done so.

B. The Planning Director Cannot Make The Necessary Findings Even if Applicant properly justified the requested setback reduction, which he cannot, the Planning Director cannot make the findings necessary to approve a setback reduction for the Project.

LIP section 13.27.1(B) provides that the Planning Director may grant minor modification permits authorizing the reduction of front setbacks by no more than 50%. In approving such front setback reduction, LIP section 13.27.5(B) provides that the Planning Director must make findings that the proposal meets all of the following: (1) that the project is consistent with the policies of the Malibu LCP; (2) that the project does not adversely affect neighborhood character; (3) the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law. LIP § 13.27.5(B) (emphasis added). 354
Mr. Richard Mollica
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
May 23, 2024

Page 8 ends

5368272.3
As discussed above, the Project does not comply with the hillside and ridgeline development standards contained in the LIP. Consequently, the Planning Director cannot find that the Project is consistent with the policies of the LCP. Further, the Project’s proposed front setback reduction would drastically affect the neighborhood’s character. For example, the Project would be extremely close to the existing homes and the only home on the hillside between the existing homes and Pacific Coast Highway.

Therefore, the Planning Director cannot find that the Project does not adversely affect the neighborhood's character. Moreover, as discussed above, the Planning Director cannot find that the Project complies with the applicable ridgeline standards and, therefore, the Project cannot comply with all applicable state and local law requirements.

Since the Planning Director cannot make any of the findings required to approve the Applicant’s requested front setback reduction, let alone all of them, the Planning Director should not grant the requested setback reduction. Since the Applicant cannot construct the Project as proposed without the requested front setback reduction, the Planning Director must deny the Project.

III. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, our Client respectfully requests that the Planning Director deny the Project.

Very truly yours,
KENNETH A. EHRLICH,
JUSTIN R. TRUJILLO
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
KAE:jrt
Attachments: Exhibit A (Project Rendering); Exhibit B (Email Correspondence); Exhibit C (Discretionary Request Letter)
cc: John G. Mazza (via email only)
355

EXHIBIT A
356
357

EXHIBIT B
358
1 Lilly Rudolph
From: Lilly Rudolph
Sent: Wednesday, April 7, 2021 10:55 AM
To: David Kellen
Cc: Alan ACS
Subject: Re: 29329 Heathercliff review
Attachments: LCP_MMC Story Pole Policy.pdf
Hi David and Alan,
Good news. We are going to argue that the ridgeline standards do not apply. The Code is ambiguous, but staff believes that it would not meet the intent of the code to apply the ridgeline standards in this already developed area of the city.

The next step is to submit a story pole plan per the City's story pole plan policy (attached) I located an approval from Public Works. The Water District referral is outstanding.

The Notice of application for a CDP (green sign) would need to be posted and documented.

Thank you,
Lilly
Lilly Rudolph, Contract Planner
805‐947‐4828
[email protected]
From: David Kellen < >
Sent: Monday, April 5, 2021 8:40 AM
To: Lilly Rudolph <[email protected]>
Cc: Alan ACS < >
Subject: Re: 29329 Heathercliff review

Hi:

I looked over the definitions and do feel that 1) our project is definitely not a Primary Ridgeline and 2) that our project should not be considered a Secondary Ridgeline.

Also, we have been working on this project for well over two years and at no time has any of the Planning Staff brought this up.

We would like to know that we have full support from the Planning Department for the project as it has been submitted.

I feels things are dragging as just when we have provided what we are asked for, something new seems to show up. This has happened more than once. We feel that if something new is being required for developments, we should only be required to provide what we were told at are early Planning Department meetings.

359
360
3 skyline when viewed from a public street or highway; or (2) is seen as a distinct and prominent edge against a backdrop of land at least five hundred feet (500′) behind it when viewed from a public street and contains an average slope of at least 3:1.

RIDGELINE, SECONDARY - a hill, ridge, or promontory other than a primary ridgeline, but on which the elevation drops more than ten feet (10′) in one hundred feet (100′) horizontally on either side of the top of this landform feature.

Standards:

LIP Section 6.5 (C)

MMC Section 17.40.040

8. Ridgelines.

1. Primary Ridgelines.
a. A primary ridgeline shall be defined as follows: a hill, ridge or promontory which drops on either side of the top of this landform feature, and includes at least one of the following conditions:
i. Forms a distinct part of the skyline when viewed from a public street or highway; or ii. Is seen as a distinct and prominent edge against a backdrop of land at least five hundred (500) feet behind it when viewed from a public street and contains an average slope of at least 3:1. b. Structures shall be located a minimum of one hundred (100) feet (measured horizontally) from the top of a primary ridgeline, and shall maintain the roof or top of structure below a primary ridgeline when viewed from a public street or highway.

2. Secondary Ridgelines.
a. A secondary ridgeline is defined as hills, ridges, and promontories other than primary ridgelines, but on which the elevation drops more than ten (10) feet in one hundred (100) feet horizontally on either side of the top of this landform feature.
b. Any structures proposed on secondary ridgelines shall be subject to the planning director’s review. If the structure projects above the top of the secondary ridgeline, as viewed from a public or private street, the planning director may impose conditions to minimize potential scenic impacts based on such factors as the prominence of the site and structure, the severity of visual impact to public view, and 361
362
363
364
365
366
367

EXHIBIT C
368
369
EXHIBIT 2
370
371
EXHIBIT 2
372
373
4  Page 9 of deed shows easement parcel 4 the road and parcel 3 both easement toward Adams and toward Roth
 Site topo : that you should have. if you zoom in to the corner between road and adams property ( see below also ) you
clearly will see the chain link fence and hammerhead and you can see that I need to push the fence only 3ft to the east on a length of 10 ft and that in this area there is no structure , you can also see that the fence encloses part of the easement which I am ok with that as I told the Adams
Alan Hajjar, MSCE
www.myacsinc.com
USA:

From: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Alan ACS < >
Subject: Site Visit ‐ 29329 Heathercliff

Hi Alan ‐ Thanks for meeting me at the site today. When you send me the revised plans lowering the building to 18 feet, please also note that you would like to cancel your SPR request for additional height.

Thanks.

Please note that I will be out of the office from 4/10 through 4/15. 374
5 Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805‐415‐1991
[email protected]

‐‐
Larry
375
October 4th, 2024
City of Malibu
23815 Stuart Ranch Rd.

Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 – Item 5A – Planning Commission Hearing October 7th, 2024
Dear Chair Leonard and Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express my support for the approval for Item 5A on Monday’s agenda, for the proposed single-family residence for the property located at 29329 Heathercliff Road.

The proposed design is complementary to the Point Dume neighborhood on Heathercliff Road and it is imperative for homeowners to be given the right to develop to build their dream home as long as they abide by the City of Malibu’s LCP and Regulations.

The proposed design is consistent with majority of the single-family residences surrounding this property on Heathercliff Road. The design is conscientious of the height limits for the City of Malibu and is designed consistently with the mission and culture of Malibu.

Additionally, the proposed design is a modest sized home for Malibu. I support this project and recommend approval.

Sincerely Yours,
__________________________
Elie Braidi
20296 pacific coast Hwy
Malibu , Ca 90265
376
October 6
th
, 2024
City of Malibu
RE: Item 5A
Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to express that the project located at 29329 Heathercliff Road should be approved.

The proposed design is a "dream" home for the property owner and I know they have worked very hard to come this far to build it. The design is good and the size is modest for a malibu home. The project is consistent with other single-family residences in the surrounding area on Heathercliff Road.

I support this project and recommend approval.

Sincerely Yours,
__________________________
Elie Samaha
20288 pacific coast Hwy
Malibu, CA 90265
377
From: Larry Roth
Subject: Re: Story Poles - 29329 Heathercliff Project
Date: April 3, 2024 at 5:02PM
To: Allison Cook [email protected]
Cc: Heather Roth
Hi Allison. Saturday morning is fine. What time were u thinking? I’m more concerned about the steepness of the slope on parts of the development. Seems like some parts are steeper than 4-1.

Particularly parts of the easement we share.

Please let me know what time works for you. Earlier is better. Thanks! Larry
On Apr 3, 2024, at 4:41PM, Allison Cook <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi - when might I be able to come by to check the views to the story poles from your PVD location? If you aren’t home during the weekdays I can come by this Saturday AM? Thanks.

Please note that I will be out of the office from 4/10 through 4/15.

Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805-415-1991
[email protected]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, Apr 3, 2024 at 2:34PM
Subject: Story Poles - 29329 Heathercliff Project
To: Heather Roth >, Larry Roth
Good Afternoon - I am in your area this afternoon taking photos of the story poles for the project at 29329 Heathercliff. I saw wondering if you are around this afternoon and if I could see the view of the story poles from your PVD? Thank you! Please note that I will be out of the office from 4/10 through 4/15.

Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805-415-1991
[email protected]
378
379
following up with the city.

Larry
On Sep 26, 2024, at 11:22 AM, Allison Cook
< > wrote:

They are doing weed clearing for fire prevention.

Please note that I will be out of the office on October 1st and 2nd. I will return your message when I'm back in the office on October 3rd. Thank you.

Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
On Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 11:21 AM Larry Roth >
wrote:

Allison there is a bobcat vehicle moving dirt right now on this lot. Does Alan have a grading permit? He’s moving dirt right now.

Larry
On Sep 26, 2024, at 10:59 AM, Allison Cook
wrote:

Hi - I’m cc’ing Gail Duncan in the Planning Dept. Can you please confirm Larry and Heather Roth are on the email list? They are interested parties in the Development Database for the case. Thanks.

Please note that I will be out of the office on October 1st and 2nd. I will return your message when I'm back in the office on October 3rd. Thank you.
380
381
From: Gail Duncan
<[email protected]>
Date: Thu, Sep 26, 2024 at 9:38 AM
Subject: 29329 Heathercliff Rd / CDP 20-003 -
Planning Commission Notice of Public Hearing
- October 7, 2024
To:

You have received this email because you
are on file with the City of Malibu Planning
Department as an interested party for a
project to be considered at the October 7,
2024 Planning Commission meeting.

Please refer to the attached public hearing
notice for further project details.

Should you have any questions, please
contact the case planner listed on the notice.

Sign up for the City of Malibu’s e-notifications
to stay up-to-date on emergency and traffic
alerts, public meetings and City events at
www.malibucity.org/news.

Regards,
382
October 6, 2024
Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
[email protected]
Maureen Tamuri [email protected]
Rebecca Evans [email protected]
Gale Duncan [email protected]
Drew Leonard
John Mazza
Skylar Peak
Kraig Hill
Dennis Smith
Doug Cleavenger [email protected]
Allison Cook [email protected]
SUBJECT: Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 And Minor Modification No. 20-001
We are opposing this project for the following reasons. 1) Unpermitted o.site grading on adjacent parcels without apparent consent. a. On 9/26/2024 we noticed grading activity on 29329 Heathercli\ Rd. We reached out to the developer (owner) and he said he was just “cleaning site shrubs for fire dept”. He had a bobcat and a dump truck on the property and was moving dirt.
b. It is important to note that this grading was done months after the story poles were erected so the argument that less than 50 cubic yards can be graded in allow for story pole installation is invalid. The story poles have been up since April.
c. Doug Cleavenger and Allison Cook were notified immediately and again on 10/4, both responded. We reached out to the city to file and enforcement code and told the neighbor to stop grading. Shortly after the developer was warned, the vehicles left the property.
d. Site work seems to have been done prior to permits to get site conditions closer to the alternate topography noted in Exhibit A and Exhibit A Closeup, which is PDF page 57 of 124 in the sta\ report. In the exhibits, note the area marked “existing grade” and “proposed grade”. This is the area a\ected. The amount of grading is significant, there are visible scars in the ground. e. Ahead of this hearing, and site visits, the developer may have graded the easement knowing it was too steep using the cover of fire prevention. 383
f. Developer has owned this property for years and has never done fire abatement like this in the past. He has only used weed whackers and each time he has done this, we were notified in advance.
g. Maybe these plans should be considered in more detail before taking the time of the planning committee and everyone else involved. The grading has been well documented. The new altered site conditions have been verified by several members of the planning commission.
h. We have video of the equipment in action, we have a text chain where the owner/developer admits to equipment being on the property, and we have before and after pictures of the site.

Exhibit A
384
Exhibit A Closeup
385
2) Inconsistent data to supply su.icient slope study in area of hammerhead (emergency vehicle turn around)
a. Note all data referenced is sourced from the city sta\ report prepared by Allison Cook AICP, Contract Planner on 9/26/2024 and available on OnBase.

They were created by the developer and his team and provided to the city, hence on record. They are stamped by professionals.
b. In reviewing the sta\ report we noticed horizontal and spatial discrepancies in the actual location of the hammerhead from page to page. Please consider reviewing the di\erences in hammerhead location between page 58 of 124 on the sta\ report PDF and page 66 of 124 of the Sta\ report PDF. One shows the hammerhead lower down the hillside, one shows the hammerhead up higher on the hillside. A close review of these inconsistencies would be appreciated.
i. Note Exhibit 1(and Exhibit 1closeup) “Fire Access Exhibit” which is page 66 of 124 of the Sta\ Report PDF. This is dated 11/11/2020 and was submitted to LA County fire for approval. Also note on this page 2 notes in blue

1. “WILL ACCEPT NOW (CONCEPT) BUT BEFORE FINAL

APPROVAL DELINEATE SLOPE PERCENTAGE THOUGOUT
CURVE”.

2. “CIVIL ENGINEER MIGHT BE REQUIRED”
386
Exhibit 1
387
Exhibit 1 Closeup
388
ii. Note Exhibit 2 (and Exhibit 2 closeup)“Fire Access Exhibit” which is page 58 of 124 of the Sta\ Report PDF. This was created on 12/3/21.

On this page the hammerhead is presented to be further down the hill thus making the slope of the easement look flatter.

Exhibit 2
389
Exhibit 2 Closeup
c. It appears that sometime after the first conditional fire approval on 11/17/2020 the design team of the developer manipulated the fire access exhibit shown on PDF page 66 of 124 into the access exhibit shown on PDF page 58 of 124. It seems clear that the hammerhead is in a di\erent place on p58 than it is on p66. The hammerhead location di\erence should be enough of a reason to not approve this project at this hearing. These inconsistencies need to be clarified and corrected in the plans. We are talking about fire approval and emergency access here.
390
d. Exhibit 3 (and Exhibit 3 closeup) items to note: “Topographic Survey” dated 9/14/19 and plotted 9/20/23 which is on page 67 of 124 in the sta\ report.

Note the 200ft elevation marker on the chart in the area of the yellow easement.
e. Also note in the closeup where the hammerhead is placed in relation to the chain like fence, it is back higher up the slope.

Exhibit 3
391
Exhibit 3 Closeup
392
f. Exhibit 4 item to note: “Topographic Survey” dated 5/29/19 and plotted 3/03/20. This was pulled from OnBase for the property. Note again the 200ft elevation marker on the chart and the dashed line that runs through the easement area marking the 200ft elevation.

Exhibit 4
393
g. In Exhibit 5 (and Exhibit 5 closeup) we have provided an overlay to show apparent presentation of information that is di\erent than the actual conditions.
i. Using specific data points matching on each report, we have overlayed the Topographic Survey in Attachment 3 (on page 67 of 124 dated 9/14/19 and plotted 9/20/23) over the Topographic Survey pulled from OnBase in Attachment 4 dated 5/29/19 and plotted 3/3/20. It can be seen in this overlay that the 200ft contours do not line up as they should. Both reports are stamped by the same professional land surveyor (Elias Chaij 11778 White Mountain CT Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91737. Phone 909-278-3116). These
contours should line up as they are used for the same alleged design, but in fact, they do not line up. See the red markings on Exhibit 5 closeup showing the 200ft contours not lining up and appearing to be in two di\erent places.

Exhibit 5
394
Exhibit 5 Closeup
h. It seems that this apparent presentation of information being di\erent than the actual conditions is a way the developer and his design team may be attempting to get around the fire prevention engineering note on 11/17/2020 and/or any of the clear concerns stated previously that the area within the easement is too steep. The developer presented the information in a way to make the slope look more gradual. It is clear to the naked eye that the hammerhead is in two di\erent places in the report. The recent and unpermitted grading may have been intended to justify the di\erences in the design.
i. The fire department has intent to review these inconsistencies and is aware of these potential issues, we are waiting for their response. Please note, all of this data is sourced from the sta\ report and is public record. 3) General inconsistency of respective improvements across the entire plan set. a. Given the information presented by the design team and owner/developer, this report should not be considered as a valid representation of fact of what is proposed and what will actually happen as part of approval for this project. 395
4) The adjacent lots that the developer is taking for his hammerhead are significant.
a. We and others strongly ask that the city consider to review the facts presented to all parties involved to get this right as these plans do not tell a truthful story of the project.
b. O\-site improvements to the neighboring lots have not been considered, requested nor included reports for approvals.
c. The stakeholders involved have not been involved in the true aspects of this project including the city. These serious questions need to be explored and answered.
d. The planning committee needs to make the developer explain what’s really going on here. This plan should not be approved as it is presented, there are too many unanswered questions.

Based on the facts above, we respectfully request that this project be reconsidered and reviewed critically. A clear consistent plan set is needed so we can understand what will actually be built on this slope, especially given we know slopes that are greater than 4-1 are impacted. We feel there is a need to allow time for the fire department to complete their review. Significant safety issues with fire access are a grave concern with the community.

As residents who have lost one home and everything we owned to a wildfire up Corral Canyon and had damage from The Woolsey Fire we feel these concerns are valid. Wildfires aside, accuracy of these plans should be required even in case of a normal house fire as the developer here is asking for a reduction in front yard setback placing his home closer to neighboring structures.

Thank you to all involved in the planning department and planning commission for taking the time to read this report and for all your do for our city. 396
‬
Paul Azzi
6385 Zuma Mesa Drive
Malibu, CA 90265
397
1 Planning Commission
From: Larry Roth < >
Sent: Wednesday, October 9, 2024 5:08 PM
To: Planning Commission; Maureen Tamuri; Rebecca Evans; Gail Duncan; ; Skylar Peak; Kraig Hill; ; Douglas Cleavenger;
Allison Cook; Parker Davis; Yolanda Bundy; Building & Safety Recovery; Drew Leonard Subject: Re: Administrative Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 And Minor Modification No. 20-001
Chair Leonard, Interim Director Tamuri, members of the Planning Commision, and members of Building and Safety,
As I indicated in my last letter to the city I reached out to the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division. Today I was able to speak with Patricia Zapeda who is the Supervising Fire Prevention Engineering Assistant for the County of Los Angeles Fire Department Fire Prevention Division.

Ms. Zapeda informed me that she reviewed this project per my request and confirmed that this project in fact DOES NOT have fire approval currently. She has now marked the project expired in her department due to it being four years old, the original reviewer (Johnnie McGee) is no longer with the department and his successor on this project is also no longer in their office. There hasn't been anyone working on this plan since 2020. She told me that the applicant would have to start over with fire approval on this project. This is all public information.

She informed me that the project never had fire approval and was unsure how this project was able to get on the Planning Commision agenda. Remember, per the staff report this project was originally approved by Richard Mollica as an ACDP. This is quite concerning to us. Again, this is all public information.

I would also like to get it on record that due to the easement's narrow width, 15ft wide and not the required 20ft, two homes should never be approved on this site per Fire Department rules. Again this is public information provided by Ms Zapeda.

Lastly, she mentioned that due to the length of the easement, and it being only 15ft wide, they would have a difficult time with fire approval due to the increased risk and safety concerns. We will leave this part up to the planning process when they start over.

We have reported the unpermitted grading done on the property as well.

Based on this recent information and the recent behavior of the developer and his planning team (Unpermitted onsite grading on adjacent parcels without apparent consent), we feel that this project needs to be reviewed closely for other misstatements and errors. We suggest that this project be removed from the 11/18/24 Planning Commision agenda and sent back to the planning department. This is a matter of public safety.

Thank you all for your attention to this matter. We trust that the hard working members of the Planning Committee, Planning Department, and Building and Safety will take a close look at what has happened here.

Respectfully,
Larry & Heather Roth (and concerned neighbors on Heathercliff, Point Dume) On Sun, Oct 6, 2024 at 4:07 PM Larry Roth < > wrote:
>
> Chair Leonard, Interim Director Tamuri and members of the Planning Commision. 398
2 >
> Attached please find correspondence and additional attachments > regarding the project at 29329 Heathercliff. Planning Commision > Meeting 10-07-2024. Item 5.A.
>
> Mr. Davis, Can you please have the additional 9 attached documents > labeled "Exhibit..." loaded on the system so we can project them > tomorrow night. I will also be following up directly with additional > media to upload.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
> --
> Larry
--
Larry
399
‬
Tony Azzi
3775 Puerco Canyon Road
Malibu, CA 90265
400
401
1 Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
October 3rd, 2024
Attn: Rebecca Evans
Recording Secretary
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Cc: Allison Cook, Contract Planner & Raneika Brooks, Senior Planner RE: Response to Elkins Kalt letter for project case number ACDP No. 20-003 and Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001 for the property located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265 (APN: 4468-011-011).

Dear Ms. Rebecca Evans,
Our office represents the project Applicant, Mr. Alan Hajjar, Trustee of ACS International, for CDP No. 20- 003 and Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001 located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265. The project is scheduled for the Planning Commission hearing on October 7th, 2024.

We received a letter from one of the neighbor’s representatives, Mr. Kenneth A. Ehrlich, of Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben & Gartside LLP, on May 24th, 2024, objecting to our client’s proposed project design on several grounds. This neighbor resides immediately to the Southeast at 29329 Heathercliff Rd. (see Figure 1 below for location).

The following are our responses, point by point, to the neighbor’s comments.

1. Neighbor Comment: The City Failed to Apply the Hillside and Ridgeline Development Standards, Which Preclude the Project.

Applicant Response 1: The hillside and Ridgeline development standards do not apply to the project because the City Council Adopted Interpretation No. 16 provides that these standards do not apply in largely built out areas.

Pursuant to the City Council’s adopted LCP Interpretation No. 16 (attached hereto), the ridgeline development standards would not apply because the property is located within a largely built out area.

The Interpretation provides in pertinent part as follows:
402
2 “…staff will determine if a project site is located within a largely developed or built out area. According to LUP Section 6.4, ridgeline development standards are not applied to largely developed or built out areas.”
The Council Interpretation defines ‘largely developed or built out area’ as an area where, “…at least 65% of the parcels within a neighborhood are developed…”
The property is located within such an area [Point Dume], and there are 23 parcels located along Heathercliff Rd., within 500’ of the subject property, and all but 2 of those 23 parcels are developed; therefore, the ridgeline standards do not apply to the project (See below Figure 2 showing 21/23 parcels developed within 500’ – 91% built out).

Figure 1: Vicinity Map of the Project Site and Complaining Neighbor’s Residence Figure 2: 21/23 Properties Developed Within 500’ of the Property, along Heathercliff Rd. (91%) 403
3 Neighbor Comment #2: No Proper Basis Exists For Approval of a Front Yard Setback Reduction Applicant Response #2: The Neighbor’s Arguments Misinterpret the Code and rest on Faulty Logic.

First, Mr. Erlich argues that to approve a Minor Modification Request, ANY Minor Modification Request, the applicant must prove that the request is strictly necessary to protect scenic views or environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA). He cites 3.6(F) of the LIP for this authority. This section provides as follows:
“Modifications to required yards/setbacks standards shall be permitted where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources.”
LIP 3.6(F) states that where necessary to protect Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) a Minor Modification request SHALL be permitted. This provision does not state that impacts to ESHA are requisite to approving the Minor Mod request (i.e., ‘may’ be permitted); rather, it states that where ESHA impacts may be reduced by reducing yard setbacks, such a request shall be approved.

The reasoning for LIP 3.6(F) is derived from Sections 30200(b) and 30007.5 of the Coastal Act (immediately below), which require that ESHA development Standards take precedence over all other development standards and policies in the Coastal Act and certified Local Coastal Programs. This is precisely why any discretionary request seeking relief from non-ESHA development standards (e.g., yard setbacks) must be approved where these requests are more protective of ESHA. That is the logic and the basis for LIP 3.6(F).

This provision clearly does not require ESHA impact reduction to approve the minor modification request.

For Mr. Erlich’s argument to be accurate, the language of this section would need to read “…shall be permitted only where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources.” The code does not use that language.

Coastal Act Section 30200(b) states as follows:
“(b) Where the commission or any local government in implementing the provisions of this division identifies a conflict between the policies of this chapter, Section 30007.5 shall be utilized to resolve the conflict and the resolution of such conflicts shall be supported by appropriate findings setting forth the basis for the resolution of identified policy conflicts.” Coastal Act Section 30007.5 states in pertinent part as follows:
“The Legislature further finds and recognizes that conflicts may occur between one or more policies of the division. The Legislature therefore declares that in carrying out the provisions of this division such conflicts be resolved in a manner which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal resources.” LIP 3.6(F) only applies to situations where a Minor Modification request is needed to avoid or minimize impacts to ESHA or Scenic Resources. This provision mandates approval under these circumstances; it does not preclude approval where ESHA or scenic resources are not present. Clearly, the City has approved hundreds if not thousands of Minor Modification requests throughout Malibu in instances where there are no ESHA or Scenic View Impacts. Mr. Erlich’s argument is based upon false logic, an improper reading of the plain language of the code and, his position ignores decades of precedent and practice.

Minor Modification requests are allowed to provide minor allowances and reductions to the following development Standards:
404
4 LIP 13.27.1(B) states as follows:

The planning manager may grant minor modification permits authorizing the following:

1. Reduce setback and open space requirement by no more than 20%, except that front yard setbacks may be reduced by no more than 50% and side setbacks shall not be reduced where part of a required view corridor.

2. Approve alternative to water saving fixture requirements upon the recommendation of the Building Official.

3. Approve a stringline modification request authorizing the use of an alternative stringline where the application of the stringline rule results in a stringline substantially inconsistent with adjacent development. The modification can result in selecting a different stringline end point than the nearest adjacent corner on the closest upcoast or downcoast property, or selecting the stringline end point on the next upcoast or downcoast property, which the Planning Manager has determined appropriate. (LIP

13.27.1(B)(1).

Clearly, granting a minor modification to allow for deviation from the low flow plumbing fixture requirements is not related to ESHA or Scenic Views. The same can be said, about stringline modifications, granting the applicant greater development area (not less) in situations where fairness warrants these grants.

What LIP 13.27 requires is two-fold: 1. Other than the Minor Mod request, the project must conform to all other LCP requirements and 2. The yard reduction request requires that the setback reduction to be consistent with the neighborhood character. The latter requires the City to evaluate yard setbacks in the neighborhood (within 500’ of the applicant’s property), to determine if the applicant’s proposed reduced setback is consistent with the average setbacks of nearby Properties (Neighborhood Character).

In this part of Point Dume, the front yard setbacks are significantly less than the required Front Yard setback of 59.2 feet. In fact, the average front yard setback of nearby homes on Heathercliff is less than what is proposed by the applicant with a 50% reduction (See Below Figure 3). The complaining neighbor’s front yard setback is approximately 22.5’ from their front property line, whereasthe applicant is proposing a 29.6’ front yard setback.
405
5 Figure 3: Showing existing Yard setbacks along Heathercliff (Averaging Calculations attached) Figure 4: yard setback for Project Compared to Neighborhood (Neighborhood Character) 406
6 In Conclusion, the neighbor’s comments do not have any merit. The Project is not located on a Primary or Secondary ridgeline, the Ridgeline standards do not apply to the project and the Minor Modification Findings for approval can be made.

The project height has been kept at the code required 18’ and no site plan review has been requested.

The project conforms to all other provisions of the LCP and should be approved.

Best,
Schmitz and Associates, Inc.

Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
407

FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:

TO: Los Angeles County Fire Department
City of Malibu Planning Department REVISED DATE 12/04/2024 TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Fire Prevention Engineering Assistant
Compliance with the conditions checked below is required prior to Fire Department approval.

The project DOES require Fire Department Plan Review and Developer Fee payment ______ The project DOES NOT require Fire Department Plan Review ______ The required fire flow for this project is ________ gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a 1 hour duration. (Provide flow information from the water dept.) ______ The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system. ______ Final Fuel Modification Plan Approval is required prior to Fire Department Approval ______ Conditions below marked “not approved” shall be corrected on the site plan and resubmitted for Fire Department approval.

App’d N/app’d
Required Fire Department vehicular access (including width and grade %) as shown from the public street to the proposed project. _____ ______ Required and/or proposed Fire Department Vehicular Turnaround _____ ______ Required 5 foot wide Fire Department Walking Access (including grade %) _____ ______ Width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates _____ ______ *County of Los Angeles Fire Department Approval Expires with City Planning permits expiration, revisions to the County of Los Angeles Fire Code or revisions to Fire Department regulations and standards. **Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project maintains compliance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the time revised plans are submitted. Applicable review fees shall be required. __________________________________ _____________________

SIGNATURE DATE
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of complete architectural plans.

The Fire Prevention Engineering may be contacted by phone at (818) 880-0341or at the Fire Department Counter:
26600 Agoura Road, Suite 110, Calabasas, CA 91302; Hours: Monday – Thursday between 7:00 AM and 11:00 AM Rev 04/21/10 mr
1,250
12/19/2024

ATTACHMENT D
408
APN 4468-011-011
APN 4468-011-009
APN 4468-011-012
APN 4468-011-010
APN 4468-011-009 APN 4468-011-012
10' 15'
F.D. URNAROUND
15'
20'
50' P.L. P.L. P.L. P.L.
5'
5'

10.3%

8.4%

2.1%

3.1%

7.6%

15.5'
15'
20'
15'
106' TO FIRE HYDRANT

15.5'
F.H.
20%
2%

0.4%
2%

1.6%
G.B.

G.B.

G.B.
185
175
180
4%
185
180
5' FD PATH

FD PATH
0% 2.5% 5% MAX. 5% MAX.
0%
2%
R=50'
R=65'
10' 20' PARCEL 3, APPURTENANT INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENT
9%

16.4%
2%
14'
5' 6% 12% 16%
2%
16% 12% 7.3% G.B. G.B. G.B. G.B. G.B. G.B. G.B. G.B. ADDRESS: APN: LCP ZONING DESIGNATION: GROSS LOT AREA= LOT DEPTH:= LOT WIDTH= PROPOSED FRONT YARD SETBACK= PROPOSED REAR YARD SETBACK= PROPOSED SIDE YARD SETBACK= CONSTRUCTION TYPE: VHFHSZ : OCCUPANCY: FIRE SPRINKLERS: FIRE FLOW BASED ON THE FIRE-FLOW CALCULATION AREA: REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS (MAXIMUM 50%): TOTAL FIRE FLOW REQUIRED : EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE: PROPOSED SQUARE FOOTAGE: GARAGE= FIRST FLOOR= SECOND FLOOR= OVERHANG ( > 6' ) TOTAL= 29329 HEATHERCLIFF ROAD, MALIBU, CA 90265 4468-011-010 & 4468-011-011 A1-1 33532 SQ. FT. (0.77 ACRES) 1289' 115' 25.6' FROM PROPERTY LINE 164' 17.4' (E), & 11.7' (W) V-B YES SINGLE FAMILY YES 1750 GPM 500 GPM 1250 GPM 0 S.F. 390 SQ. FT. 2,590 SQ. FT. 1,460 SQ. FT. 320 SQ. FT. 4,570 SQ. FT. PROJECT DATA 57.50' 10.00' 59.40' 26.00' 11.76' (220.11 ) TP (219.70 ) EP JOIN HEATHERCLIFF RD. C/L 24.87' 15.40' (219.90 ) 201.11 TP 202.01 TP 199.96 TP (219.54 ) (217.05) 7.24' 216.80 TP 49.00' 211.75 TP 218.99 TP DRIVEWAY CENTERLINE PROFILE SCALE: 1" = 10'

16.4% 2%
9%

10.3%

7.6%

3.1% 2.1% 220 210 200 190 220 210 200 190

8.4% VICINITY MAP PROJECT SITE ADDRESS: 29329 HEATHERCLIFF ROAD, MALIBU, CA 90265 APN: 4468-011-010 & 4468-011-011 OWNER: ARCHITECT: DAVID KALEN, AIA 2701 AIRPORT AVE., SUITE 202 SANTA MONICA, CA 90405 CIVIL ENGINEER: PLANEX ASSOCIATES, INC. 1330 OLYMPIC BLVD. SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 EXISTING BUILDING:0 S.F. PROPOSED BUILDING: 4,570 S.F. THIS PLAN CONFORMS TO THE COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPROVED BY THE CITY FOR SUBJECT PROJECT IN THE CITY OF MALIBU, CALIFORNIA ON _____________________ PROJECT START: N/A PROJECT COMPLETION: N/A PROJECT INFORMATION: ACCESS DRIVEWAY TYPICAL SECTION SCALE: 1" = 4' 15' MIN. OF 4" CRUSHED AGG. BASE @ 95% COMPACTION (CALTRANS CLASS II) MIN. 3" TYPE II, A.C. PVMT. NOTE: FINAL DRIVEWAY SECTION DESIGN FOR APPARATUS WEIGHING 25 TONS TO BE DETERMINED AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT'S SOILS ENGINEER PER FIELD TEST. 90% COMPACTED SUBGRADE ER LABORATORY COMPACTION STANDARD ASTM D-1557. EX. FENCE EX. FENCE 1.5% 1.5% 14. WALKING ACCESS USED TO CONNECT VEHICULAR ACCESS SHALL BE LEVEL, UNOBSTRUCTED BY LANDSCAPING, MINIMUM 5'-0" IN WIDTH, CLEAR TO THE SKY, ACCESSIBLE FOR FIREFIGHTING AND RESCUE PURPOSES. INDICATE ACCESS ON SITE PLAN. 15. ALL NEW SWIMMING POOLS, 5000 GALLONS OR MORE IN CAPACITY, LOCATED IN FIRE ZONE 4 OR VERY HIGH FIRE SEVERITY ZONE MAY REQUIRE AN AUXILIARY OUTLET. CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION OFFICE FOR SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS. 16. COMPLY WITH TITLE 24, 310.4 REGARDING ACCESS. 17. FIRE RESISTIVE ASSEMBLIES FOR PROTECTION OF OPENINGS TO COMPLY WITH TITLE 24, 713. 18. WALLS AND SOFFITS OF ENCLOSED USABLE SPACE UNDER INTERIOR STAIRWAYS THAT ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ENCLOSED BY BUILDING CODE 1006.12 SHALL BE PROTECTED ON THE ENCLOSED SIDE AS REQUIRED FOR ONE-HOUR RESISTIVE CONSTRUCTION. TITLE 24, 1003.3.3.9. 19. ALL REQUIRED PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE INSTALLED, TESTED AND ACCEPTED PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. FIRE CODE 501.4. 20. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL MEASURE 6"X4"X2-1/2", BRASS OR BRONZE, CONFORMING TO AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION STANDARD C503, OR APPROVED EQUAL, AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATION 8. 21. PLANS SHOWING UNDERGROUND PIPING FOR PRIVATE ON-SITE FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SPRINKLER PLAN CHECK UNIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. FIRE CODE 901.2, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT REGULATION 7 22. PROVIDE AN APPROVED AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM AS SET FORTH BY BUILDING CODE 903 AND FIRE CODE 903. PLANS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE SPRINKLER PLAN CHECK UNIT FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. REASON: RESIDENTIAL CODE & FIRE CODE 903.1 & FIRE FLOW REDUCTION TYPE OF FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM: 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2, 903.3.1.3 23. THE SECURITY GATE SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM ACCESS WIDTH OF 20 FEET. THE SECURITY GATE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH AN APPROVED MEANS OF EMERGENCY OPERATION, AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES AND REPLACED OR REPAIRED WHEN DEFECTIVE. ELECTRIC GATE OPERATORS, WHERE PROVIDED, SHALL BE LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL 325. GATES INTENDED FOR AUTOMATIC OPERATION SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F220. GATES SHALL BE OF THE SWINGING OR SLIDING TYPE. CONSTRUCTION OF GATES SHALL BE OF MATERIALS THAT ALLOW MANUAL OPERATION BY ONE PERSON. FIRE CODE 503.6. THE SECURITY MANUAL GATE OPERATOR SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR EMERGENCY OPERATION, AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES. FIRE DEPT. REQUIREMENTS 1. PROVIDE AND INDICATE ON SITE PLAN, FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS OR VEHICULAR TURN-AROUND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SPECIFICATIONS BELOW OR PROVIDE A MINIMUM, UNOBSTRUCTED WIDTH OF 20 FEET CLEAR TO SKY, VEHICULAR ACCESS TO WITHIN 150 FEET OF ALL PORTIONS OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS. FIRE CODE 503.1.1 & 503.2.1. 2. FIRE DEPARTMENT VEHICULAR ACCESS ROADS MUST BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED IN A SERVICEABLE MANNER PRIOR TO AND DURING THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION. FIRE CODE 901.3. 3. THE REQUIRED FIRE FLOW FOR FIRE HYDRANTS AT THIS LOCATION IS 1,250 GALLONS PER MINUTE, AT 20 PSI RESIDUAL PRESSURE, FOR A DURATION OF 2 HOURS, OVER AND ABOVE THE MAXIMUM DAILY DOMESTIC DEMAND. FIRE CODE 507.3 AND APPENDIX B105.1 APPENDIX B. FIRE FLOW MAY BE OBTAINED FROM PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANT FLOWING SIMULTANEOUSLY. 4. COMPLY WITH TITLE 24, 310.9.1 REGARDING FIRE WARNING SYSTEMS. SMOKE DETECTORS TO BE HAND WIRED WITH BATTERY BACKUP. WHEN MORE THAN ONE SMOKE ALARM IS INSTALLED, `THEY SHALL BE ARRANGED SO THAT THE OPERATION OF ANY SMOKE ALARM CAUSES THE ALARM IN ALL SMOKE ALARMS WITHIN THE DWELLING UNIT TO SOUND (CALIFORNIA ALARM CODE). PROVIDE NOTE ON SITE PLAN AND INDICATE ON FLOOR PLAN. 5. PROVIDE ONE HOUR FIRE RESISTIVE OCCUPANCY SEPARATION BETWEEN THE R-3 DWELLING AND THE GARAGE. (INDICATE ON FLOOR PLAN.) 6. EXIT DOORS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF OPENING WITHOUT THE USE OF A KEY OR ANY SPECIAL KNOWLEDGE OR EFFORT. BUILDING CODE 1003.3.1.8. 7. WIDTH AND HEIGHT OF REQUIRED EXIT DOORWAYS SHALL COMPLY WITH TITLE 24. (INDICATE ON DOOR SCHEDULE). 8. BUILDING ADDRESS NUMBERS TO BE PROVIDED ON FRONT OF ALL BUILDINGS AND SHALL BE VISIBLE AND LEGIBLE FROM THE STREET FRONTING THE PROPERTY. NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR BACKGROUND. FIRE CODE 901.4.4. 9. PROVIDE A KEY BOX AS REQUIRED BY FIRE CODE 904.2 LOCATION AT GATE. 10. PROVIDE APPROVED SIGNS OR OTHER APPROVED NOTICES OR MARKINGS THAT INCLUDE THE WORDS NO PARKING-FIRE LANE. SIGNS SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF 12 INCHES WIDE BY 18 INCHES HIGH AND HAVE RED LETTERS ON A WHITE REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND. SIGNS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS ROADS, TO CLEARLY INDICATE THE ENTRANCE TO SUCH ROAD, OR PROHIBIT THE OBSTRUCTION THEREOF AND AT INTERVALS, AS REQUIRED BY THE FIRE INSPECTOR. FIRE CODE 503.3 11. PRIVATE ROADS USED FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE WEIGHT OF A 25-TON VEHICLE. 12. FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS LESS THAN 10% SLOPE, AND NOT PAVED TO PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS, REQUIRE CERTIFICATION FROM A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER STATING THE ROAD MEETS OR EXCEEDS ALL-WEATHER STANDARDS OF LA CO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. 13. ALL FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS ROADS 10% OR GREATER SLOPE SHALL BE PAVED PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 22.00' 18.00' 35' DRIVEWAY CENTERLINE PROFILE (LOWER PORTION) SCALE: 1" = 10' 200 180 190 200.00 TP
199.30 TP 2%
189.80 TP
190.16 TP
192.88 TP
196.48 TP1.6%
20% 200 180 190 8' 8' 8' 8' 8' 8'
190.64 TP
191.60 TP6%
12%
16%
197.76 TP
198.72 TP
16%
12% 7.3% SANTA MONICA, CA 90404 TEL. (310) 664-9311 Associates 1330 OLYMPIC BLVD. C - These drawings are instruments of service and are the property of Planex Associates. All designs and other information on the drawings are for use on the specific project and shall not be used otherwise without written permission of Planex Associates c DATE:

BY NO. DATE REVISION PFN: 1909-495 SHEET OF
29329 HEATHERCLIFF RD. , MALIBU, CA 90265 11/27/2024

FIRE ACCESS EXHIBIT
1 FD SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: SIGNED
REGI E
D PROF
E
S I MO
S
A
HEBI NO. 33508 CIVIL
S RE
T

ONAL ENGINEER

CALIFORN
S
IA
TAT E
OF11/27/2024
1 1
1 1 11-27-24 MOVED F.D . TURN AROUND W'LY T O INSIDE EASEMENT, REPLACED V.C. WITH GRADE B REAKS, CONNECTED F.D.

WALK TO F.D. TURN AROUND.

M.S. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT

FIRE PREVENTION ENGINEERING

APPROVED

ACCESS REQUIREMENTS ONLY
By__________________________
Fire Prevention Engineer
Date________________________
12/19/2024 FEPC2024-3140
409
From: Jo Drummond
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans; John Mazza; Kraig Hill Cc: Patt Healy; Bill Sampson; Dru Ann Jacobson; Ann Doneen; Colin Drummond Subject: Fw: 29329 Heathercliff Rd - final opposition
Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 11:21:30 AM
Attachments: Video_2.mov
Video_1.mov
Video 2.mov
Screen Shot 2024-11-16 at 8.40.35 PM.png
Screen Shot 2024-11-16 at 9.19.42 PM.png
Screen Shot 2024-11-17 at 12.54.03 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-11-17 at 12.35.54 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-11-17 at 12.57.07 AM.png
slopecalculation.png
firehydrantdistance.png
proposedhammerheadsecondlot.png
ridgelinemockview.png
p 36 of staff report.pdf
MTCopposition29329Heathercliff.pdf
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
The Malibu Township Council requests that the item tonight NOT be heard and needs to be sent back to planning or withdrawn for the following reasons:

1. There is a current legal dispute of the property easement that is required by the applicant in order to build. His deed claims they have entitlement to an egress easement right on the neighbors' property at 29327 Heathercliff Road, The Adams, who have lived there for almost 25 years and have recently had a pool approved and built through the City within this alleged “easement” that is not on their own deed where all is shown as their property. The applicant would attempt to build a fire lane driveway on the Adams land and move the fence on their existing property line and cut into their pool and pool equipment and leave no setback between their home and the driveway which is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. The Adams have owned the property for over 5 years (25 years total) and paid property taxes on the entire lot this entire time therefore, have possession of the entire lot. Even the aerial view on p 89 of the staff report (attached) shows the proper boundaries of the proposed build lots and the adjacent lots. The City has no authority to grant entitlements for development on property which the applicant neither owns nor has rights to use.

2. The majority of the hammerhead driveway is being proposed on a second lot and there exists NO application for this grading, building and developing on this second lot. (see attached p 90 of staff report)
If you decide to hear this application, then please deny it for the following additional reasons:

1. The current extended driveway is less than 15 feet wide (see attached from p 36 of the staff report) where the fire department requires 20 feet and the applicant currently has a legal dispute with the property owners of 29327 Heathercliff Road over where the applicant wishes to extend into “their property.” Regardless the entire length of the driveway would need to be 20 feet wide and the applicant does not have any easement for the entire length of the current 14 foot wide driveway. At 14 feet wide

ATTACHMENT E
410
no fire truck would EVER come down that lane to put out any fires on the lot behind the homes along Heathercliff Road.

2. The fire hydrant is over 400 feet away from the new home with only a 14 ft. wide driveway (attached page 49 of staff report). This is certainly increasing the fire risk to the other homes in the area. The fire department cannot approve access down a long driveway – the fire code states that “The minimum width for a fire lane in California is 26 feet, with some exceptions:

Hydrants: The minimum width is 26 feet where a fire hydrant is located Dead ends: The minimum width is 20 feet for dead ends up to 150 feet long. For dead ends longer than 150 feet, the width and turnaround provisions depend on the length of the dead end
Turning radius: The fire code official determines the minimum turning radius Grade: The maximum grade is 10%, unless the fire chief approves a steeper grade Gates: Fire apparatus access road gates must be manually operated by one person, or have a means for emergency access by fire department personnel Other requirements for fire apparatus access roads in California include:

Vertical clearance of at least 13 feet 6 inches
Access routes must be within 15–30 feet of a building, and parallel to one side of the building. 2
The current access road (fire lane) is only 14 feet wide maximum and therefore CANNOT legally access the property which is at least 150 feet from Heathercliff Road. Again, the applicant DOES NOT OWN ANY of the easement of the upper portion of the driveway and therefore cannot legally widen the entire driveway to the 20 feet required.

3. The site for the new construction is within an ESHA buffer zone. Julie Clark, a renowned biologist of the local chapter of the National Plant Society, inspected the property on Nov 9 last week and found several species of native plants that had been recently bulldozed up to the edge of the build site. Native Plants and trees discovered are oak, Evergreen Cherry, Laurel sumac, coyote brush plus a rare form of coyote brush that requires extra protection. There are many different bird species living and breeding on the property including hawks, warblers, sparrows, wrens, flycatchers, etc. Thus, the project would require another variance to build within the protected ESHA buffer.

4. The applicant completed illegal grading (see attached videos) to lower the upper grade of the property without any excavation permit. They removed approximately 1-2 feet from the top of the slope at both the neighbors' fence lines. They also removed MANY rare and native plants in the process. They also completed grading on the section of the driveway owned by the adjacent neighbors, risking breaking the law in order to reduce the grade to get as close to the 10% required for the fire lane access.

5. The attached GIS-NET county map from 2016 and slope calculation shows the elevations of the lot in 2ft increments and indicates a 3.33:1 or 30% slope NOT 411
greater than 4:1 or 25% as the applicant’s current survey states. On page 5 of the staff report it states clearly, “Chapter 4 of the LIP addresses Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Section 4.6.1(A) of the LIP states, “However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.”
On page 6 of the Responses to the City’s Geotechnical Review Sheet – Jan. 29, 2020 (in google drive link below), it states under “site description - The site topography slopes gently down grade from Heathercliff Road to the north. At about the midpoint of the site the topography increases in downslope gradient to approximately 2H:1V (horizontal: vertical) or slightly steeper toward PCH and the commercial development to the north and west. Yet the plans for the home shows a much less steep grade which is not correct as seen in these photos attached from the staff report (p 48,138- 139) and the geotechnical report of Nov 27, 2019 from p. 40. (also in google drive link)

6. The plans apparently encompass a “cantilevered pool” (see p 35 & 228 of staff report attached) and would require retaining walls in the unstable ESHA cliffside and is also encroaching on the ridgeline as well as the neighbor’s property. On page 12 of the geotechnical report dated Nov 27, 2019, it states.”3.13 Erosion The project site is subject to erosion, runoff, and sedimentation due to the granular nature of the site soil…. Native vegetation should remain in place on these slopes upon completion of the construction to prevent erosion.” There have been landslides in the vicinity in the recent past above the commercial property to the north. Due to the ESHA native vegetation present a 100 ft setback is required and the erosion needs to be taken into consideration. Also in all the geotechnical reports it states that a “basement” is being built – however the plans in the staff report show the first level of the proposed house digging into the grade with necessary retaining walls.

LIP 4.7.2 Fencing or walls shall be prohibited within the following ESHA types:
riparian, bluff, canyons in Point Dume or coastal dunes, except where necessary for public safety or habitat protection or restoration."

The footing setback should be a minimum of 5 feet
for slopes up to 15 feet in height and vary up to 40 feet for slopes up to 120 feet in height.” This slope is well over 120 ft high at 2:1 slope ratio and needs a much further setback from the ridgeline.

8. This proposed build is on a ridgeline that is EXTREMELY viewable from PCH. The other homes behind this property are barely visible therefore have no scenic impacts however, this is the only (proposed) home in the area that can be seen fully from the highway and built ON the ridgeline (see attached photo from p 184 of the staff report and two photos taken Saturday afternoon from PCH plus mockup version) therefore another variance is required. The other homes have been properly set back at least 300 ft from the ridgeline. This cannot be ignored.
412
LIP Chapter 2 – Definitions:

RIDGELINE, PRIMARY - a hill, ridge or promontory which drops on either side of the top of this landform feature, and includes at least one of the following conditions: (1) forms a distinct part of the skyline when viewed from a public street or highway; or (2) is seen as a distinct and prominent edge against a backdrop of land at least five hundred feet (500′) behind it when viewed from a public street and contains an average slope of at least 3:1.

6.5 C. Hillside Development

1.Ridgelines
a. New development shall be sited and designed to prohibit construction of structures on a primary or secondary ridgeline. Any structures shall be located a minimum of 300 feet (measured horizontally) or 100feet (measured vertically) from the top of a primary ridgeline and shall maintain the roof or top of structure below a primary ridgeline when viewed from a public street or highway.
b. Where there is no feasible building site that can conform to the requirements of Section a, or where the only feasible building site would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, then a variance may be approved for a building site that does not conform to these standards, with design measures that minimize the visual resource impacts. Any structures approved on such a building site shall be limited to one-story in height.

So at the very least the home should be reduced to one story and reduced in height by at least 3 feet AND apply for another variance. LCP Interpretation 16 states, “Parcels in neighborhoods that are considered largely developed or built out will not be subject to ridgeline standards, unless development of the project site could result in potentially significant impacts on visual resources.” As you can see in
the attached photos they DO IMPACT visual resources immensely. It also states, “For project sites on ridgeline features that include areas exceeding 20 percent slope, and meet all other LCP applicability thresholds for scenic resource protection, ridgeline development standards apply.”
The City's policy is to apply the most restrictive of the codes when there's a conflict.

9. No Basis Exists for the Front Yard Setback Modification. The slope above 4:1 is not a valid reason for a setback reduction of 50%. All the other homes in the area are ALONG Heathercliff Rd and have proper access to fire trucks, exit to PCH, etc. and cannot be compared to these two lone junk lots in a high fire hazard zone behind these homes.If the ESHA is recognized than this can be the basis for the reduced setback but it must be REDUCED in size and height and limited to one build on BOTH lots.

The least environmentally damaging project that can be built on that lot must be a small one-story home no more than 15 ft high that does not alter the landform with 413
unnatural grading into the hillside. This will require several variances. Also, there should be a restriction of building only one home on the two lots below due to 1. The narrow egress lane will not allow fire trucks to come down 2. So the hammerhead driveway can be moved OFF the neighbors’ property further back onto the second lot. 3. An accessible fire hydrant should be placed on the lot. Otherwise, I’m sure all the neighbors impacted would be willing to buy the land off the applicant to preserve the environmentally sensitive habitat area.

Thank you for considering ALL these facts. Please realize that the City Council majority is NOW a preservationist majority and do NOT want their time and the City's money wasted with egregious, illegal projects.

Jo Drummond Malibu Township Council President
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:0fa62a69-af7a-47f6-a5b4-ad9a5e11d3a9 29339 heathercliff - Google Drive
29339 heathercliff - Google Drive
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
5506537.2
Kenneth A. Ehrlich
D: 310.746.4412
Direct Fax: 310.746.4462
[email protected]
Ref: 15651-0001
November 14, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
E-Mail: [email protected]
Maureen Tamuri
Interim Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 and Minor Modification No. 20- 001
Dear Chair Leonard and Members of the Planning Commission:

On behalf of our clients, Brian and Pamela Adams, owners of the property located at 29327 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, California (the “Adams Property”), we submit this letter to underscore their opposition to ACS International LLC’s (“Applicant”) proposed development at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, California (the “Project”).

In addition to the numerous objections outlined in our prior submissions, the Adams emphasize their most substantial concerns:
- The Project necessitates the removal of the Adams' existing fence, pool, and pool equipment and requires substantial encroachment upon the Adams Property to accommodate the required fire access.
- The Adams do not consent to the construction of the Project’s proposed encroachments and have not granted permission to use the any portion of the Adams Property in any way.
- The Adams have not consented to any entry onto the Adams Property and have not granted permission to move their existing fence or alter any existing improvements on the Adams Property in any way.
- Any encroachment onto the Adams Property is unacceptable and constitutes a significant and insurmountable issue for the Adams.
423
City of Malibu Planning Commission
Maureen Tamuri
November 14, 2024

Page 2 ends

5506537.2
The Adams' have communicated repeatedly their objections, including to City staff and in public comments. Nonetheless, this core issue remains unresolved. The proposed encroachments and property modifications the Applicant requires to facilitate the Project’s proposed fire lane demonstrate a lack of respect for the Adams’ property rights and constitute a substantial intrusion into their private space and amenities. If built, the Project would create trespass and private nuisance claims, among other claims, between these parties. The Adams will defend their property rights and assert all appropriate legal claims against the Applicant if necessary.

Given the critical nature of the Project’s proposed encroachments and the impact it would have on the Adams’ property and use of such property we urge the Planning Commission to consider the points above, and the Adams’ previously specified legal claims, and deny the Project as currently formulated. The Adams are resolute in their opposition to the Project and any development requiring removal or alterations to their fence, pool, and related improvements, all of which lie within the Adams Property boundaries.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please contact our offices with any questions.

Very truly yours,
KENNETH A. EHRLICH,
JUSTIN R. TRUJILLO
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
KAE:jrt
cc: Allison Cook ([email protected]);
Rebecca Evans ([email protected])
424
From: Native Conservation
To: Rebecca Evans
Cc: John Mazza; Planning Commission; Kraig Hill
Subject: Resend to REvans of CDP-20-003
Date: Monday, November 18, 2024 7:59:17 AM
Attachments: 29329 Healthercliff Rd CDP-20-003.pdf
Good morning,
Please see attached our letter originally sent to this group, with a bounce and subsequent resend to you.

Sincerely,
--
Julie Clark
Conservation Co-Chair
Los Angeles/Santa Monica Mountains Chapter
California Native Plant Society
425
CNPS, LA/SMM Chapter. October 17, 2024, page 1
Los Angeles /Santa Monica Mountains Chapter
15811 Leadwell Street
Van Nuys, California 91406-3113
November 17, 2024
VIA EMAIL: [email protected]
RE: 29329 HEATHERCLIFF ROAD, CDP-20-003
Honorable Malibu Planning Commission;
California Native Plant Society is a 60-year old statewide organization with over 12,000 members in 35 chapters throughout the state. We are a science-based organization that advocates for horticultural use of California native plants and conservation of the state’s native habitat. The Los Angeles/Santa Monica Mountains Chapter has a long history of collaborating with governance, planners, policymakers, communities, and schools. We have been leaders in restoration, education, land use, and advocacy in the Malibu area for over 50 years.

One of our experts recently visited the proposed development site located at 29329 Heathercliff Road – CDP-20-003, with the following findings:

The site appears to have been relatively undisturbed from anthropogenic activity until recently. A few introduced plant species volunteering (establishing without being planted) from nearby homesites are on the property. Otherwise, native plants local to the Malibu area and specifically coastal bluffs dominate the existing vegetation. The prevailing plants comprise a rare habitat alliance (plant community that has limited establishment in the state): Baccharis/Prunus illicifolia/Leymus triticoides (Coyote bush/holly-leafed cherry/giant wild rye). This alliance can be associated with coastal bluffs.1 The intact plant community at the site is indicative of being an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as defined in the California Coastal Act.

Other native species were identified on the parcel including and not limited to laurel sumac and oak. Most plants found were perennials for two reasons: 1) Late season (autumn) timing of site inspection, with annual species having completed their life cycle earlier in springtime; 2) The parcel appeared to have been recently disked deep into the soil by heavy equipment, with all vegetative residual material removed in the process. It is highly probable the ESHA extended throughout much of the parcel prior to grading due to soil texture, slope gradient, and lack of prior development on the site. 1 JOSawyer, Keeler-Wolf T, Evens, JM. A Manual of California Vegetation. Pg. 421. 426
CNPS, LA/SMM Chapter. October 17, 2024, page 2
CNPS identified one native species on the property that is being examined by one of our rare plant botanists to determine if it is a special endemic of Malibu. A subsequent letter will be shared with the City, should the disposition of the plant be one of concern.

Based on existing story poles at the site, it is evident that construction of the edifice will require considerable ground disturbance and engineering due to bluff soil and steep slope. It is therefore highly likely there will be take of additional native habitat than what was destroyed earlier this year in the process.

As ever, CNPS is available to cooperate with the City on this and other proposed developments in the area to help ensure both environmental protections and smart development under the Local Coastal Plan.

Sincerely,
Julie Clark, Conservation Co-chair
Los Angeles/Santa Monica Mountains Chapter
California Native Plant Society
Cc: [email protected], John Mazza - [email protected], Kraig Hill - [email protected] 427
From:

To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: item 4A 11-18-24 29329 Heathercliff
Date: Friday, November 15, 2024 6:26:28 PM
Attachments: PC-29329 HEATHERCLIFF 11-18-23.pdf
Commissioners, attached are MCSG's comments on the above mentioned project.
428
To: Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth by Patt Healy
Re: item 4A 29329 Heathercliff
Date 11-18-24
Honorable Commissioners,
The Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth opposes this project for the following reasons:

1. It is premature to hear this project since there is an existing title dispute that has yet to be resolved between the applicant and the Owners of 29327 Heathercliff. Until this is resolved this project can’t proceed.

However, this project as designed should be denied if you decide to hear this project because:

2. It is not set back the required 100 ft. from the ESHA slope which is covered with native habitat.

3. It can’t meet the required frontyard setback.

4. This project is on a primary ridgeline that is visible from PCH, a scenic highway. Other visible structures are on this ridge but they were constructed prior to cityhood. Moreover , the Shopping Center and the Mobile Home Park’s homes which are on the ridge are not in the same neighborhood as the applicant’s project . The neighborhood where the proposed project would be built has no homes visible from PCH. All the existing residences in this neigborhood are all setback from the ridge and are not visible from PCH.

5. It blocks the ocean view of the neighbor at 29257 Heathercliff as shown in the photo on page 187 of 287 in the online staff report. 429
If the second story were removed it appears from the photo this ocean view wouldn’t be blocked.

6. The staff report states it is a 2 story residence but the geologic review sheet on page 165 0f 278 of the online report states they reviewed a single story structure. Therefore, the geotectonically review haS to be redone before this project can move forward.

7. The fire department requires a 20 ft. wide driveway entrance and this driveway is only 15 ft wide and there is no way a fire truck can access this property.

8. The proposed hammerhead is located not only the applicants lot but a portion of it is on is on the adjacent lot.

9. in conclusion, a CDP can’t be granted for this project since the finding can’t be made that this project is not the least damaging environmental damaging alternative.
430
&OLHQW

3URMHFWORFDWLRQ
'DYLG.HOOHQ$LUSRUW$YH6WH6DQWD0RQLFD&$

+HDWKHUFOLII5RDG0DOLEX&$
6FDOH
'DWH

COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC

505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C
Pasadena CA 91101
P: 818-788-9382
F: 818-788-3217
Licensed Landscape Architect #3620
S
ES L I NEC No. 3620 C
A
date
___________

AT E T F C O

NR F O LI I A
T
Paul A. Lewis

C LA D DS N E RA

ETI H C
AP
___________
Exp. 2-28-25
05/23/2023

TITLE SHEET
L-0.1

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
29329 HEATHERCLIFF ROAD
MALIBU CA 90265-4421
ASSESSOR'S ID No. 4468-011-011

LANDSCAPE WATER EFFICIENCY PLAN
PROJECT INFORMATION:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

GROSS LOT AREA: 33,532 SF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DROUGHT TOLERANT PLANTING ZONE: 4
SUNSET CLIMATE ZONE: 23

PROJECT AREA
NOTES:

1. TREE CANOPIES ARE SHOWN IN FULL MATURITY.

2. MATURE TREES TO REMAIN ON SITE PROTECTED IN PLACE DURING CONSTRUCTION.

3. THE TYPE OF SOIL IS SUITABLE FOR ALL THE PROPOSED PLANTS IN THIS LANDSCAPE.

4. THERE IS NO WATER FEATURE IN THIS PROJECT.

5. WATER PURVEYOR NAME:

WEST BASIN MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT
17140 SOUTH AVALON BLVD. SUITE 210
CARSON, CA 90746-1296
(310) 217-2411

6. STREET TREES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE TO BE PLANTED PER APPROVED STREET IMPROVEMENT PLANS.

7. ALL HARDSCAPE, RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOLS, AND/OR BLOCK WALLS MUST BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT.

8. MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY: ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS TO BE

CONTINUOUSLY PRIVATELY MAINTAINED
BY PROPERTY OWNER ON SITE & OFF SITE. NAME OF PERSON OR ENTITY RESPONSIBLE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. ________________________ __________ PROPERTY OWNER DATE SHEET INDEX:

L0.1 COVER SHEETL1.0 LANDSCAPE PLANL1.1 LANDSCAPE NOTES + DETAILSL1.2 FUEL MODIFICATION PLANL2.0 IRRIGATION PLANL2.1 IRRIGATION SCHEDULE & MWELOL2.2 IRRIGATION DETAILS

GREEN BUILDING COMPLIANCE

I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A COMPLETE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTATION PACKAGE. __________ ______________________ ________________

PAUL LEWIS, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT DATE

AREA SUMMARY
TOTAL LOT AREA = APPROX. 33,532 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA OF PROJECT = 7,119 SF

FUEL MODIFICATION
FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN IS REQUIRED PER:

OFFICE: CALABASAS
PHONE NO. (818) 880-0341
OFFICE ADDRESS: 26600 AGOURA RD. SUITE 110
CALABASAS, CA 91302
FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN: #FFFM:

VICINITY MAP
NTS

PROJECT AREA

LA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S MAP
NTS
2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set

ATTACHMENT
F
431

PLANTING LEGEND
SymbolBotanical Name/Common Name Quantity Size
TREES
SHRUBS
Agave vilmoriniana / Octopus agave 9 5g L Alt. 15g
spacing per plan
Calamagrostis acutiflora 'Karl Foerster' / 75 5g M
Feather reed grass, @ 30" o.c.

Juncus patens / California gray rush 41 1g L
@ 18" o.c.

Romneya coulteri / Matilija poppy 24 5g VL
@ 48" o.c.

Salvia leucantha / Mexican sage 25 5g L
@ 30" o.c.

GROUND COVER
Arctostaphylos 'Emerald Carpet'/ Manzanita 20 1g L
field spaced
Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' 236 1g L
536 sf @ 18" o.c.

Carex divulsa / Berkeley sedge 24 flat L
1,110 sf @ 12" o.c. = 1,110 plants
Ceanothus griseus horizontalis 'Yankee Point' / 21 1g L Yankee Point, field spaced
Trachelospermum jasminoides / Star jasmine 4 flat M
160 sf @ 12" o.c. = 160 plants
Remarks
Geijera parviflora / Australian willow
WUCOLS
3 36" Box L
Platanus racemosa / California Sycamore 1 36" Box M
Cercidium 'Desert Museum' / 1 36" Box
Thornless Palo Verde
VL multi-trunk

HYDROSEED MIX
Botanical Name/Common Name
(Lbs/Ac)
Lotus scoparius (Acmispon glaber) / Deerweed x
Eschscholzia californica / California poppy x
Mimulus (aurauntiacus) longiflorus / Sticky x
Monkeyflower
Lupinus perennis / Perennial Lupine x
Salvia apiana / White sage x
Asclepias fascicularis / Narrow-leaved milkweed x
Eriophyllum confertiflorum / Golden yarrow xPseudognaphalium californicum / California x everlasting
Koeleria macrantha / June grass x
Gilia capitata / Globe gilia x
TOTAL SEED RATE: x
3,400 sf
Stover Seed Co.

PO Box 1579
9180 San Fernando Rd.

Sun Valley, CA
213-626-9668
Contact: Stephen Knutson
Seed Rate Remarks
&OLHQW
3URMHFWORFDWLRQ
'DYLG.HOOHQ$LUSRUW$YH6WH6DQWD0RQLFD&$

+HDWKHUFOLII5RDG0DOLEX&$
6FDOH
'DWH

COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC

505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C
Pasadena CA 91101
P: 818-788-9382
F: 818-788-3217
Licensed Landscape Architect #3620
S
ES
L
I
NEC No. 3620 C
A
date
___________

AT E T F C O NR F O LI I A
T
Paul A. Lewis
C LA
D
DS N E
RA
E
T
I H C
AP
___________
Exp. 2-28-25
1/8" = 1'-0"

LANDSCAPE PLAN
L-1.0 0'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
4' 8' 16'

EXISTING NATURAL TO REMAIN
07/07/2023
PAVING

POOL ABOVE

LARGE BOULDER

MAINTAIN HEIGHT OF
JASMINE TO LESSTHAN 18"
2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set 10803
Digitally signed by Leana SetianDN: C=US, [email protected],O=LACoFD Forestry, OU=Fuel Modification Unit, CN=Leana SetianDate: 2023.07.12 14:47:36-07'00' 432
&OLHQW

3URMHFWORFDWLRQ
'DYLG.HOOHQ$LUSRUW$YH6WH6DQWD0RQLFD&$

+HDWKHUFOLII5RDG0DOLEX&$
6FDOH
'DWH

COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC

505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C
Pasadena CA 91101
P: 818-788-9382
F: 818-788-3217
Licensed Landscape Architect #3620
S
ES
L
I
NEC No. 3620 C
A
date
___________

AT E T F C O NR F O LI I A
T
Paul A. Lewis
C LA
D
DS N E
RA
E
T
I H C
AP
___________
Exp. 2-28-25
1/8" = 1'-0"

NOTES & DETAILS
L-1.1

GENERAL PLANTING NOTES

9. FOR BIDDING AREA TO BE LANDSCAPED, THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS SHALL BE USED UNTIL CONTRACTOR IS PROVIDED WITH SOILS AGRONOMY REPORT.

AMENDMENTS SHALL BE UNIFORMLY BROADCAST AND THOROUGHLY INCORPORATED BY MEANS OF A ROTOTILLER OR EQUAL.

AMOUNT PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET 4 CU. YDS. NITROGEN STABILIZED ORGANIC AMENDMENT DERIVED FROM REDWOOD SAWDUST,FIR SAWDUST OR CEDAR SAWDUST. 15 LBS. SOIL SULFUR 15 LBS. 12-12-12 FERTILIZER

10. A MINIMUM 3" (THREE INCHES) LAYER OF SHREDDED BARK MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED ON ALL EXPOSED SOIL SURFACES OF PLANTING AREAS EXCEPT TURFAREAS, CREEPING OR ROOTING GROUNDCOVERS, OR DIRECT SEEDINGAPPLICATIONS WHERE MULCH IS CONTRAINDICATED. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT 1/2 CU.

FT BAG AS SAMPLE FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

11. THE PLANTING PITS FOR BOXED TREES SHALL BE EXCAVATED TWICE THE

DIAMETER OF THE ROOTBALL WITH A MAXIMUM OF THE HEIGHT OF THE ROOTBALL TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PLANTING PIT.

DO NOT OVER EXCAVATE!!!

THE BACKFILL MIX FOR USE AROUND THE ROOTBALL OF ALL TREES AND SHRUBS SHALL CONSIST OF THE FOLLOWING FORMULA:
6 PARTS ON-SITE SOIL 4 PARTS BY VOLUME ORGANIC AMENDMENT PER ABOVE SOIL PREPARATION 1 LB./CU.YD. OF MIX 12-12-12 COMMERCIAL FERTILIZER 2 LBS./CU. YD. OF MIX IRON SULFATE 10 LBS./CU. YD. OF MIX AGRICULTURAL GYPSUM

12. THIRTY (30) DAYS AFTER INSTALLATION ALL LANDSCAPE SHALL BE FERTILIZED WITH BEST FERTILIZER COMPANY 16-6-8 OR APPROVED EQUAL, APPLIED AT THE RATE OF SIX POUNDS (6 LBS.) PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OR PER SOIL AGRONOMY REPORT.

FERTILIZER APPLICATION SHALL BE CONTINUED THEREAFTER AT MONTHLY INTERVALS.

13. FOR ALL TREES, SEE DETAIL 1, THIS SHEET14. FOR ALL SHRUBS, SEE DETAIL 2 & 3, THIS SHEET.15. FERTILIZER TABLETS SHALL BE AGRIFORM, 21 GRAM TABLETS (20-10-5) IN QUANTITIES AS FOLLOWS:
1 GALLON SHRUBS 1 5 GALLON SHRUBS 3 15 GALLON SHRUBS 5 BOXED TREES 1 PER 4" OF BOX SIZE PLACE TABLETS AT HALF THE DEPTH OF THE ROOTBALL.

16. ALL EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREAS DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION

PROCESS WILL BE RECONDITIONED TO THEIR ORIGINAL STATE AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER.

17. INSTALL 24" DEEP ROOT BARRIER ON ALL TREES WITHIN 4 FEET OF PAVING.18. FOR SOILS LESS THAN 6% ORGANIC MATTER IN THE TOP 6" (SIX INCHES) OF SOIL, COMPOST AT A RATE OF A MINIMUM OF FOUR CUBIC YARDS PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF PERMEABLE AREA SHALL BE INCORPORATED TO A DEPTH OF SIX INCHES INTO THESOIL.

19. RECIRCULATING WATER SYSTEMS SHALL BE USED FOR WATER FEATURES.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN A QUALIFIED SUPERVISOR ON THE SITE AT ALL TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION THROUGH COMPLETION OF PICK-UP WORK.2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES LISTED FOR CONVENIENCE OF CONTRACTOR. ACTUAL NUMBER OF SYMBOLS SHALL HAVE PRIORITY OVER QUANTITY DESIGNATED.

3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH AND PAY FOR ALL CONTAINER GROWN TREES,

SHRUBS AND VINES, INCLUDING SEEDED AND SODDED TURF, HYDROMULCHES AND FLATTED GROUNDCOVERS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE AND PAYFOR: PLANTING OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS; THE SPECIFIED GUARANTEE OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS; THE STAKING AND GUYING OF TREES AND THE CONTINUOUS PROTECTION OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS UPON THEIR ARRIVAL AT THE SITE.

4. ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

5. ALL BOXED TREES IN PAVING SHALL BE SELECTED AND SPOTTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE IN CONJUNCTION WITHPAVING CONTRACTOR AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR. GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO ASSUME ALL LIABILITY FOR ACCURATE PLACEMENT OF TREES.

6. ALL VINE RUNNERS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THE NURSERY STAKES REMOVED AND VINE RUNNERS SHALL BE ESPALIERED TO THE ADJACENT WALL OR FENCE.

7. ALL SOIL PREPARATION SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PER THE SOIL AGRONOMY REPORT TO BE PROVIDED AND PAID FOR BY THE SUBCONTRACTOR. THE REPORT SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY FORWARDED TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UPON COMPLETION.

8. THE SOIL AMENDMENTS SPECIFIED ARE FOR BIDDING PURPOSES ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE FOR A SOILS AGRONOMY REPORT FROM WALLACESOILS LABORATORY (310) 615-0116 AND/OR ANY ADDITIONAL SPECIFICATION PROVIDED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF PLANTMATERIALS.

ALL GROUNDCOVER SHALL BE PLANTED AT EQUAL SPACING
12" (SHRUBS)8" (GROUNDCOVER)

SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
(MAX.) AT 1/2 "EQUAL"

EDGE OF PLANTING AREA
NOTE:

TYPICAL PLANT, SPACING VARIESSPACING AT IRREGULAR EDGES EQUAL

SEE PLANT LEGEND AND PLANS
EQUAL
EQUAL
EQUAL
'INFILL' PLANT, AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN

BACKFILLPLANT TABLETS PER SPECS

SCARIFY SUBGRADE
PLANTING PIT TO BE 2"

SHALLOWER THAN ROOTBALL

AT CENTER, BUT DEEPERAROUND HOLE'S EDGES TO
PREVENT SETTLING. PIT TOBE TWICE THE WIDTH OF THE
CONTAINER.

SET CROWN OF ROOTBALL 2"

ABOVE FINISH GRADE
3" DEEP TAMPED EARTH WATER

BASIN AROUND SHRUB, FILL WITHMULCHMULCH

FINISH GRADE
EDGES

LODGEPOLE PINE
APPROVED MULCH.

FINISH
MIN.
12"
RECEIVE A 4" LAYER OF
3" BASIN IN LAWN
AREA 12" FROM TRUNK
6" BASIN IN G. COVER

MAINTAIN TURF FREE
NOTE: ALL PLANT BASINS SHALL
(SEE SPECS.)

FINISH GRADEPUDDLE AND SETTLETO SET PLANT AT

PLANTING TABLETS

PLANTING BACKFILL
GRADE
MIN.
12"

TREE TIE
DETAIL

TREE TIE, NAIL TO STAKELODGEPOLE PINE STAKETREE TRUNK
(SEE SPECS.)BACKFILL MIX
10 FT FOR 36" BOX

GALVANIZED NAILSCINCH TIE, SECUREDTO STAKE WITH
STAKES, 2 PER TREE12 FT FOR 48" BOX
12"
ROOT3"
3" DRAIN CAP
1X
CAP W/GRAVEL PER PLANTING PLANPVC PIPE & SLIP3" PERFORATED2 PER TREE 2X ROOTBALL

DO NOT EXCAVATE DEEPER THAN SOIL IN BOXVERIFY SOIL DEPTH IN BOX PRIOR TO EXCAVATION BALL
TOP OF 3" ABOVE FINISH ROOT BALLGRADE
05/24/2023
2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set 433

Juncus patens / California gray rush 41 1g L
@ 18" o.c.

Romneya coulteri / Matilija poppy 24 5g VL
@ 48" o.c.

Salvia leucantha / Mexican sage 25 5g L
@ 30" o.c.

GROUND COVER
Arctostaphylos 'Emerald Carpet'/ Manzanita 20 1g L
field spaced
Bouteloua gracilis 'Blonde Ambition' 236 1g L
536 sf @ 18" o.c.

HYDROSEED MIX
Botanical Name/Common Name
(Lbs/Ac)
Lotus scoparius (Acmispon glaber) / Deerweed x
Eschscholzia californica / California poppy x
Mimulus (aurauntiacus) longiflorus / Sticky x
Monkeyflower
Lupinus perennis / Perennial Lupine x
Salvia apiana / White sage x
Asclepias fascicularis / Narrow-leaved milkweed x
Eriophyllum confertiflorum / Golden yarrow x
Pseudognaphalium californicum / California x
everlasting
Koeleria macrantha / June grass x
Gilia capitata / Globe gilia x
TOTAL SEED RATE: x
3,400 sf
Stover Seed Co.

PO Box 1579
9180 San Fernando Rd.

Sun Valley, CA
213-626-9668
Contact: Stephen Knutson
Seed Rate Remarks
&OLHQW
3URMHFWORFDWLRQ
'DYLG.HOOHQ$LUSRUW$YH6WH6DQWD0RQLFD&$

+HDWKHUFOLII5RDG0DOLEX&$
6FDOH
'DWH

COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC

505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C
Pasadena CA 91101
P: 818-788-9382
F: 818-788-3217
Licensed Landscape Architect #3620
S
ES
L
I
NEC No. 3620 C
A
date
___________

AT E T F C O NR F O LI I A
T
Paul A. Lewis
C LA
D
DS N E
RA
E
T
I H C
AP
___________
Exp. 2-28-25
1" = 16'

FUEL MODIFICATION
PLAN
L-1.2
0'
SCALE: 1/16" = 1'-0"
8' 16' 32'
07/07/2023
ZONE A

EMBER RESISTANT ZONE
ZONE B
ZONE C

MULTI-LEVEL NEW RESIDENCE
ZONE B
2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set 434

SYMBOL DESCRIPTION

CST COOL SEASON TURF

WST WARM SEASON TURF

HWUS HIGH WATER USING SHRUB/TREE

MWUS MEDIUM WATER USING SHRUB/TREELWUS LOW WATER USING SHRUB/TREE

VLWUS VERY LOW WATER USING SHRUB/TREE

HYDROZONE LEGEND

IRRIGATION LEGEND
MFG. MODEL NUMBER/ DESCRIPTION REMARKS
APPROVED PVC SCH. 40 LATERAL LINE; SEE PLAN FOR SIZE SEE DETAIL IAPPROVED PVC SCH. 40 MAINLINE SLEEVE; 2 AT EACH LOCATION 2X THE DIA. OF PIPE TO BE SLEEVED SEE NOTES 1, 2 SYMBOL
M
A
FEBCO LF825-YA, 1" REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE SEE DETAIL DAPPROVED METER HUNTER HQ-33DLRC, 3/4" QUICK COUPLER. SEE DETAIL CHUNTER ICZ-101-40, 1" DRIP REMOTE CONTROL VALVE (1" ICV FILTER SENTRY GLOBE W/1" HY100 FILTER+REGULATOR) SEE DETAIL B NIBCO APPROVED BRONZE 150 PSI RATED BALL VALVE; LINE SIZE IN VALVE BOX. SEE DETAIL C RAINBIRD XFD-09-12-xxx DRIPLINE W/ COPPER SHIELD EMITTERS; EMITTERS @12" O.C. & 12" ROW SPACING. SEE DETAIL H MV HUNTER ICV-101G, 1" MASTER CONTROL VALVE SEE DETAIL A HUNTER ICV-101G, 1" REMOTE CONTROL VALVE. SEE DETAIL A
APPROVED MAINLINE: 1) UNDER CONCRETE DECK (IN GARAGE) - TYPE L COPPER FOR SIZES 1-1/2" AND SMALLER SEE DETAIL I 2) INSIDE WALLS AND BETWEEN FLOORS (DECK PENETRATIONS) - TYPE K COPPER 3) BETWEEN WATER MAIN AND BACKFLOW - TYPE K COPPER4) DOWNSTREAM FROM BACKFLOW - SCHEDULE 40 PVC BURIED IN SOIL SIZE 1 1/2" AND

SMALLER, SIZE NOTED

VALVE / CONTROLLER SEQUENCE
------ GPM

VALVE SIZE
MWUS
DRIP

HYDROZONE TYPE

IRRIGATION TYPE
xx sf AREA
NETAFIM TL050-MFV AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE IN VALVE BOX AT LOW POINT. SEE DETAIL GRAINBIRD AR VALVE KIT; 1" AIR/ VACUUM RELIEF VALVE IN VALVE BOX AT HIGH POINT. SEE DETAIL G FS HUNTER HFS-FCT-100, 1" PVC FLOW SENSOR SEE DETAIL E

HUNTER ECO-ID DRIP SYSTEM INDICATOR SEE DETAIL J
xx in/hr
40 psi

APPLICATION RATEDESIGN OPERATING PRESSURE
ECO
WATER MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE; 120 VAC POWER TO THE CONTROLLER LOCATION BY OTHERS.

HUNTER HC-1200i, FIXED 12 STN. INDOOR WALL MOUNT WIFI CONTROLLER W/ HYDRAWISE WEATHER BASED SEE DETAIL F GENERAL IRRIGATION NOTES:1. ALL MAINLINE PIPING AND CONTROL WIRES UNDER PAVING SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SEPARATE SLEEVES. ALL SLEEVING SIZES SHALL BE AS INDICATED ON THE PLANS. ALL SLEEVES SHALL BE AT A DEPTH OF 18" MINIMUM BELOWSUB GRADE.

2. ALL LATERAL LINE PIPING UNDER PAVING SHALL BE PVC SCHEDULE 40 AND SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO PAVING.

THE PIPING SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 12" BELOW SUB GRADE.

3. PIPE SIZES SHALL CONFORM TO THOSE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF SMALLER PIPE SIZES SHALL BE PERMITTED BUT SUBSTITUTIONS OF LARGER SIZES MAY BE APPROVED. ALL DAMAGED AND REJECTED PIPESHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AT THE TIME OF THE REJECTION.

4. THE 120 VAC ELECTRICAL POWER SOURCE AT THE CONTROLLER LOCATION SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR. MAKE THE FINAL CONNECTION FROM THE SOURCE TO THE CONTROLLER OR AS ALLOWED BY LOCALCODES.

5. ALL SPRINKLER HEADS SHALL BE SET PERPENDICULAR TO FINISH GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED OR DIRECTED.

6. THIS DESIGN IS DIAGRAMMATIC. ALL PIPING, VALVES, OR OTHER SIMILAR APPURTENANCES SHOWN IN PAVED AREAS IS FOR DESIGN AND GRAPHIC CLARIFICATION AND SHALL BE INSTALLED IN IRRIGATED PLANTING AREAS. WHEREVER POSSIBLE INSTALL ALL VALVES AND BOXES IN SHRUB AREAS AND NOT IN TURF AREAS.

7. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO FAMILIARIZE HIMSELF WITH ALL GRADE DIFFERENCES, LOCATION OF WALLS, RETAINING WALLS, STRUCTURES AND UTILITIES OF THE SITE. COORDINATE

WORK WITH OTHER TRADES AND CONTRACTORS FOR THE LOCATION AND INSTALLATION OF ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. REPAIR AND/OR REPLACE ALL ITEMS DAMAGED BY WORK PERFORMED.

8. DO NOT WILLFULLY INSTALL THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM WHEN IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FIELD CONDITIONS VARY FROM

THE DRAWINGS AND THAT UNKNOWN OBSTRUCTIONS, GRADE DIFFERENCES OR DIFFERENCES IN THE AREA DIMENSIONS EXIST THAT HAVE NOT BEEN INDICATED ON THE ENGINEERING. SUCH ITEMS SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. ASSUME FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY NECESSARY REVISIONS IN THE EVENT THAT THIS NOTIFICATION IS NOT HEEDED.

9. FLUSH AND ADJUST ALL SPRINKLER HEADS AND VALVES FOR THEIR OPTIMUM OPERATION.

10. THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM DESIGN IS BASED ON A MINIMUM OPERATING PRESSURE OF 40 PSI AND A MAXIMUM FLOW DEMAND OF 18.6 GPM. VERIFY WATER PRESSURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. REPORT ANY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN

THE WATER PRESSURE SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND THE PRESSURE READING IN THE FIELD TO THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE.

11. ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT NOT OTHERWISE DETAILED OR SPECIFIED HEREIN SHALL BE INSTALLED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

12. REFER TO THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILED INFORMATION.13. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE IN HIS BID FOR A ONE-YEAR (1-YEAR) MAINTENANCE PERIOD.14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL MAINLINES IN LANDSCAPE AREAS AND NOT UNDER PAVING UNLESS IT IS A NECESSARY CROSSING OF A STREET OR WALK. THE MAINLINE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE DEPTH NOTED IN THE IRRIGATION DETAILS AND AT A HORIZONTAL DISTANCE OF 12"-24" FROM THE EDGE OF ALL CURBS OR WALKS. ALL MAINLINE AND VALVES SHALL BE LOCATED BEHIND THE PROPERTY LINE.

15. AUTOMATIC LANDSCAPE IRRIGATORS SHALL BE INSTALLED IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOESN'T SPRAY ON THE BUILDING.

GREEN BUILDING NOTES:

1. I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE DESIGN PLANS.

2. PRESSURE REGULATING DEVICES ARE REQUIRED IF WATER PRESSURE IS BELOW OR EXCEEDS THE RECOMMENDED PRESSURE OF THE SPECIFIED IRRIGATION DEVICES.

3. AFTER INSTALLATION, INSTALLER TO PERFORM PRESSURE TESTING AND VERIFY WATER COVERAGE OF ENTIRE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

INSTALLER SHALL ADJUST OR REPLACE ANY DEVICES TO ENSURE EFFICIENT, COMPLETE AND PROPER WORKING OF THE SYSTEM.

4. CHECK VALVES OR ANTI-DRAIN VALVES ARE REQUIRED ON ALL SPRINKLER HEADS WHERE LOW POINT DRAINAGE COULD OCCUR.

5. A DIAGRAM OF THE IRRIGATION PLAN SHOWING HYDROZONES SHALL BE KEPT WITH THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER FOR SUBSEQUENT MANAGEMENT PURPOSES.

6. THE CONTROLLER IS SHIPPED WITH A COMPLETE OPERATIONS MANUAL WHICH SHALL BE GIVEN TO OWNER OR KEPT ON SITE PER OWNER'S REQUEST.

7. A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION SHALL BE FILLED OUT AND CERTIFIED BY EITHER THE DESIGNER OF THE LANDSCAPE PLANS, IRRIGATION PLANS OR THE LICENSED LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT.

8. AN IRRIGATION AUDIT REPORT SHALL BE COMPLETED AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION.

A-1 Drip-M

HYDROZONES
A-2 Drip-MA-3 Drip-MA-4 Drip-M
POOL/SPA Drip-H
A-6 Spray-LA-7 Spray-LA-8 Spray-L
A-5 Drip-MA-9 Spray-L
PRESSURE @ POC
HIGH = x psi
LOW = x psi

STATIC WATER

IRRIGATION SPRAY HEAD LEGEND
SYMBOL MFG. MODEL NUMBER/ DESCRIPTION P.S.I. REMARKS G.P.M. RADIUS NOZZLE HUNTER 12" SHRUB RISER W/MPR, 90° 40 SEE DETAIL L .21 14 FT MP-1000 MAROONHUNTER 12" SHRUB RISER W/MPR, 180° 40 SEE DETAIL L .42 14 FT MP-1000 MAROON HUNTER 12" SHRUB RISER W/MPR, 360° 40 SEE DETAIL L .84 14 FT MP-1000 OLIVE DRIP
MWUS
1"
A-1

18.6 1.44 in/hr
40 psi
1,242 sf

M MV FS
DRIP
LWUS
1"
A-3

13.1 1.44 in/hr
40 psi
874 sf
SPRAY
LWUS
1"
A-8

3.4 40 psi
850 sf
SPRAY
LWUS
1"
A-7

6.7 0.41 in/hr
40 psi
1700 sf
SPRAY
LWUS
1"
A-6

3.8 40 psi
850 sf
DRIP
MWUS
1"
A-2

15.8 1.44 in/hr
40 psi
1,056 sf
DRIP
LWUS
1"
A-4

5.8 1.44 in/hr
40 psi
387 sf
DRIP
MWUS
1"
A-5

2.4 1.44 in/hr
40 psi
160 sf

LOCATE ON SITE PER LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT & OWNER. 110V BY OTHERS
AT LOCATION OF CONTROLLER, PROVIDE 3/4"

CONDUIT TO ROOF FOR SOLAR SYNC

IRRIGATION CONTROL WIRE
A

PROVIDE A DEDICATEDLANDSCAPE WATER METER
AS REQUIRED BY MWELO.

INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER

SPECS MINIMUM DISTANCE AND

PIPE REQUIREMENTS

0.41 in/hr

0.41 in/hr
POOL

NEW RESIDENCE
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
ECO
NOTE:

FOR DIAGRAMMATIC PURPOSES ONLY.

INSTALL ALL MAINLINE AND ALL VALVES
ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. NO MAINLINESOR IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT IN PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OR NEIGHBORINGPROPERTY.
&OLHQW
3URMHFWORFDWLRQ
'DYLG.HOOHQ$LUSRUW$YH6WH6DQWD0RQLFD&$

+HDWKHUFOLII5RDG0DOLEX&$
6FDOH
'DWH

COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC

505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C
Pasadena CA 91101
P: 818-788-9382
F: 818-788-3217
Licensed Landscape Architect #3620
S
ES
L
I
NEC No. 3620 C
A
date
___________

AT E T F C O NR F O LI I A
T
Paul A. Lewis
C LA
D
DS N E
RA
E
T
I H C
AP
___________
Exp. 2-28-25

IRRIGATION PLAN
L-2.0 1/8" = 1'-0"
0'
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
4' 8' 16'
07/07/2023
2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set 435
&OLHQW

3URMHFWORFDWLRQ
'DYLG.HOOHQ$LUSRUW$YH6WH6DQWD0RQLFD&$

+HDWKHUFOLII5RDG0DOLEX&$
6FDOH
'DWH

COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC

505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C
Pasadena CA 91101
P: 818-788-9382
F: 818-788-3217
Licensed Landscape Architect #3620
S
ES L I NEC No. 3620 C
A
date
___________

AT E T F C O

NR F O LI I A
T
Paul A. Lewis

C LA D DS N E RA

ETI H C
AP
___________
Exp. 2-28-25
IRRIGATION SCHEDULE +
MWELO
L-2.1 1/8" = 1'-0" 05/24/2023
2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set 436
PVC SCH. 80 SxSxT TEE.
3" PVC SCH. 80 NIPPLE.

PVC SCH. 80 TxT ELL.PVC SCH. 80 NIPPLE. LENGTH AS REQ.PVC SCH. 80 TxT ELL. 3" PVC SCH. 80 NIPPLE.

BRASS TxT ELL.
10" ROUND PLASTIC VALVE BOX WITH
"Q.C." EMBOSSED INTO LID (2" MIN. HIGH).
1"
18"
PVC MAINLINE.
3"

QUICK COUPLER

FINISH GRADEROUND PLASTIC VALVE BOX WITH LOCKING

COVER BY AMETEK OR APPROVED EQUAL
BRANDED W/ "GATE VALVE"PVC MALE ADAPTOR
VALVE BOX EXTENSION; LENGTH AS REQUIRED
BALL VALVE; LINE SIZE
1" 18" MIN.

PVC MAINLINE.
3/4" Ø PEA GRAVEL; 1 CUBIC FT. MIN.

BALL VALVE

ET IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
WALL
NOTE: FOR AUTOMATIC CONTROLLERS WITH INTERNAL TRANSFORMERS, PLUG 120 VOLT POWER CORD DIRECTLY INTO CONVENIENCE OUTLET.

FLOOR
POWER CORD WITH 3-PRONGEDPLUG TRANSFORMER.CONDUIT OUTLET BODY JUNCTION BOX. SIZE AS
REQUIRED.

CONTROL WIRING

TO ELECTRIC

CONTROL
VALVES.

P.V.C. CONDUIT - SIZE ASNOTED.

HOLE THROUGH

WALL FOR

CONDUIT SHALL

BE PROVIDED BY
CONTRACTOR.

SEAL AND WATER
PROOF ASREQUIRED.
120 VOLT

CONVENIENCEOUTLET FOR ET

IRRIGATION
CONTROLLER.

SERVICE LINE FROM P.O.C.

FINISH GRADE

PVC MAINLINE TO SYSTEMS

BRASS ELLS
PVC MALE ADAPTORS (2)
6" MIN. THICK CONCRETE PAD;
SLOPE MIN. 1/4" PER FOOT

BRASS UNION
BRASS NIPPLES TYPICAL; LENGTH

AS REQUIRED
WILKINS # YB " WYE " STRAINERW/20 MESH SCREEN; LINE SIZE BACKFLOW DEVICE PER PLANS;

INSTALL PER LOCAL CODE

ALL-SPEC BACKFLOW
ENCLOSURE WITH LOCK PERPLANS; PAINTED FOREST
GREEN. INSTALL PER MFG'S

SPECIFICATIONS
/+0
«/+0 /+0
«/+0
«/+0

/+0
PROVIDE A 20" LOOP

IN WIRE AT ALL

CHANGES OF

DIRECTION
GREATER THAN 30'.

REMOVE TIES

AFTER ALL

CONNECTIONS HAVE
BEEN MADE.

INSTALL ALL
120 VOLT

WIRE IN

CONDUIT PER
LOCAL CODE.

SNAKE ALL PLASTIC PIPE

INTO TRENCHES
AS SHOWN.

ALL MAINLINE

SHALL BE

INSTALLED PER
MFG'S.

SPECIFICATIONS.

TAPE AND BUNDLE
WIRING AT 10 FT.

O.C. MAXIMUM.

MAIN SUPPLY,LATERAL AND
WIRING
MAIN SUPPLY LATERAL 120 VOLT WIRING

LATERAL

MAINLINE

PERLOCAL
CODE
18"
*
12"
*
* 2 1/2" AND SMALLER: 18"
3" AND LARGER: 24"
12"
.

WIRING

FINISH GRADE
NETAFIM TL050 (3/4" FPT)

AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVE
PVC SCH 40 3/4" MPT x 1/2"

SLIP REDUCING MALE

ADDAPTOR

FLEXIBLE PVC DRIP TUBING
3/4" Ø CRUSHED ROCK;
2 CU. FT. MIN.

PVC PIPE

PVC DRIP FLEX HOUSE ORLATERAL
PVC SCH 80 ELL.

RAINBIRD AR AIR/VACUUMRELIEF VALVE PVC SCH 80REDUCER COUPLING

FINISH GRADE
12"
1"
3"

FLUSH VALVE

DRIP AIR-VACCUM RELIEF VALVE
10"Ø ROUND VALVE BOX
W/ LOCKING COVER.

BRAND "ARV" ON LID
SALCO DAS-8 ACCESSSLEEVE.

FROM EDGE OF PLANTING OR
PAVING
PER
PLAN
6"PER PLAN
FROM CONTROL VALVEMANIFOLD; SEE CONTROL VALVEDETAIL
PVC SCH 40 ELL, TYPICAL
LANDSCAPE DRIPLINE; INSTALL 2"-3"BELOW FINISH GRADE

COMPRESSION ADAPTER, TYPICAL

VALVE DETAIL
PVC SCH 40 TEE, TYPICAL

FLUSH VALVE - FARTHEST FROM
VALVE @ LOWEST POINT, SEE

FLUSH VALVE DETAIL

FROM EDGE OF PLANTING OR
6" PAVING PVC RETURN HEADER
PVC SUPPLY HEADER. 3"

AIR RELIEF VALVE -

FARTHEST FROM VALVE
@ HIGHEST POINT, SEE

AIR RELIEF VALVE DTL
5X PIPE
DIA. MINIMUM
10X PIPE
DIA. MINIMUM

2" IN SHRUB
1" IN TURF

LEGEND

1. PLASTIC VALVE BOX W/

EXTENSIONS AS NECESSARY

AND LOCKING COVER

2. FINISH GRADE

3. WATERPROOF CONNECTION; 3M
SERIES 3500 SCOTCH-LOK OR
EQUAL.

4. TWO CONDUCTOR SHIELDED

CABLE- ROUTE TO CONTROLLER
VIA. CONDUIT.

5. FLOW SENSOR PER PLAN.6. VALVE BOX EXTENSION.

7. PEA GRAVEL DRAIN SUMP; 30"
DIA. X 6" DEEP MIN.

FLOW FLOW
PVC SCH. 80 UNION.DRIP REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SEE
LEGEND.

PVC SCH. 80 TEE FOR REGULATOR BYPASS.USE ONLY WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS 35' INHEIGHT.

PVC SCH. 80 STREET ELL. MALE ADAPTOR &PVC CL 200 LATERAL FOR REGULATOR BYPASS. USE ONLY WHERE SLOPE EXCEEDS
35' IN HEIGHT.

SALCO SR 40-32 REGULATOR.

PVC SCH. 80 MALE ADAPTOR.
"JUMBO" RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX
WITH LID; BRAND LID W/ VALVE NUMBER
AND "RCV".

PVC SCH. 80 ELL.PVC MAINLINE.PVC SCH. 80 BALL VALVE.

SALCO HYSF-100 FILTER W/ 120
MESH SCREEN.

PVC SCH. 80 NIPPLE. TYPICAL.
3/4" Ø CRUSHED ROCK, 3 CU.FT.

PVC SCH. 80 ELLS (2).

PVC MAINLINE.

LABEL VALVE CONTROLLER ID # W/ PLASTIC

TAG ON VALVE AND ON VALVE BOX COVER
1 2
3 45
1 2
LEGEND:

ECO INDICATOR
3 4 PVC LATERAL PIPE

FINISHED GRADE

ADJACENT MULCH
5 SWING JOINT
&OLHQW
3URMHFWORFDWLRQ
'DYLG.HOOHQ$LUSRUW$YH6WH6DQWD0RQLFD&$

+HDWKFOLII5RDG0DOLEX&$
6FDOH
'DWH

COURTLAND STUDIO, LLC

505 E Colorado Blvd. Mezz C
Pasadena CA 91101
P: 818-788-9382
F: 818-788-3217
Licensed Landscape Architect #3620
S
ES
L
I
NEC No. 3620 C
A
date
___________

AT E T F C O NR F O LI I A
T
Paul A. Lewis
C LA
D
DS N E
RA
E
T
I H C
AP
___________
Exp. 2-28-25

IRRIGATION DETAILS
L-2.2

B DRIP REMOTE CONTROL VALVE C QUICK COUPLER & BALL/GATE VALVE D REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICE

F WALL MOUNT CONTROLLER G FLUSH VALVE & AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE H DRIP TUBING INSTALLATION

I PIPING & WIRING

E FLOW SENSOR

A MASTER CONTROL / SPRAY CONTROL VALVE

J ECO-ID INDICATOR K L MP ROTATOR
1/8" = 1'-0"
05/24/2023
2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set2023-07-07 Heathercliff CD Set 437
November 18, 2024
Project No. 12458.001
ACS International LLC
5905 Gray Rock Road
Agoura Hills, California 91301
Attention: Mr. Alan Hajjar
Subject: Response to Planning Commission Comment
Parcel 11 of Lot 11, Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit,
29329 Heathercliff Road (APN 4468-011-011),
City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California
At your request, Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton) is providing this letter to respond to the planning commission comments regarding the proposed residential development at 29329 Heathercliff Road in Malibu, California. Our previous geotechnical reports approved by the City of Malibu are listed in the reference list provided on this letter.

Our approved geotechnical and geologic reports for the subject site considered our subsurface exploration within the property and geologic information of the surrounding properties as summarized in our September 3, 2020 report. Utilizing both the onsite and offsite geologic information we evaluated deep global slope stability and surficial slope stability within and extending beyond the property limits. The results of the slope stability analysis as presented in our previously approved reports indicated factor of safety in excess of City of Malibu requirements for global and surficial stability. The results of slope stability analysis indicate that the proposed development will not increase a hazard for slope instability within or beyond the property limits.

We appreciate this opportunity to be of continued service to ACS International, Inc.. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact us at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,
LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Robert Hennessey, PE 86902
Associate Engineer
[email protected]

ATTACHMENT G
438
Response to Planning Commission Comment November 18, 2024 29329 Heathercliff Road, (APN 4468-011-011) 12458.001

Page 2 ends

References
City of Malibu, 2020, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Dated August 18, 2020.

Leighton and Associates, Inc. (Leighton), 2019, Geotechnical Exploration for Proposed Residential Development, Parcel 11 of Lot 11, Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit, 29329 Heathercliff Road (APN 4468-011-011) City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California, Project No. 12458.001, dated November 27, 2019. , 2020a, Responses to City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet, Dated January 29, 2020 Regarding Leighton and Associates Inc.’s Geotechnical Exploration for Proposed Residential Development, Parcel 11 of Lot 11, Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit, 29329 Heathercliff Road (APN 4468-011-011) City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California, Project No. 12458.001, dated March 12, 2020. , 2020b, Responses to City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet, Dated August 18, 2020 Regarding Leighton and Associates Inc.’s Geotechnical Exploration for Proposed Residential Development, Parcel 11 of Lot 11, Rancho Topanga Malibu Sequit, 29329 Heathercliff Road (APN 4468-011-011) City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California, Project No. 12458.001, dated September 3, 2020. 439
City of Malibu 23825 Stuart Ranch Road  Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489  Fax (310) 456-3356  www.malibucity.org

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: December 12, 2024 Review Log #: 4615
Site Address: 29329 Heathercliff Road
Lot/Tract/PM #: n/a Planning #: CDP 20-003
Applicant/Contact: Alan Hajjar, [email protected] BPC/GPC #:

Contact Phone #: 818-383-1800 Fax #: Planner: Allison Cook Project Type: New split-level single-family residence with pool and OWTS Submittal Information
Consultant(s) / Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
Leighton & Associates, Inc. (Geoffrey F., CEG 2512; Hennessey, R., RCE 86902): 10-23-24, 11-30-23, 10-27-23, 9-10-23, 9-3-2020, 3-12- 20, 11-27-2019
Architectural Plans by David Kellen & Associates, Inc., dated September 21, 2023, March 19, 2023, January 9, 2020.

Preliminary Grading Plan by Planex Associates dated March 21, 2023, July 17, 2023, December 12, 2019.

Topography Survey by Elias Chaij, Survey date: May 29, 2019.

Previous Reviews: 12-12-23, 11-16-23, 10-9-2023, 9-10-20, 8-18-2020, 1-29-2020; Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The residential development project is APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective.

The residential development project is NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. The listed ‘Review Comments’ shall be addressed prior to approval.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review
Awaiting Building plan check submittal. Please respond to the listed ‘Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments’ AND review and incorporate the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ into the plans.

APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. Please review the attached ‘Geotechnical Notes for Building Plan Check’ and incorporate into Building Plan-Check submittals.

NOT APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective. The listed ‘Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments’ shall be addressed prior to Building Plan-Check Stage approval.

Remarks
The referenced geotechnical reports and plans were reviewed by the City from a geotechnical perspective.

Based on the submitted information, the project includes the construction of a new 4,050 ft2 split-level, 18-
foot tall, two-story single-family residence with an attached garage, swimming pool, and a new Onsite 440

ATTACHMENT H
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6060) – 2 –
Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS). Other ancillary improvements include retaining walls, landscaping and exterior hardscape. Grading consists of 230 yards of R & R; 1015 yards of cut and one yard of fill under the structure; 58 yards of fill for safety; 675 yards of cut and zero yards of fill non- exempt; and 624 yards of export. We understand that a revised plan is currently proposed that includes minor changes relative to the previous plan. Changes include additional stairs, a landing, and a change in retaining wall alignment.

Building Plan Check Review Comments:

1. Please submit a fee of $ 1,179.00 to City geotechnical staff for building plan check review.

2. The consultant should evaluate the potential for interaction (example: lateral surcharge) between the closely located retaining walls and between the basement sidewalls and adjacent foundations/structures.

Using the 1:1 criterion for lateral surcharge is not acceptable for lateral surcharge unless substantiated by analyses and/or references. Footings below a 1:1 plane behind walls could laterally surcharge the walls.

Lateral surcharge behind any proposed retaining walls needs to be evaluated using an appropriate method (e.g.: 1- Spangler & Handy {1982}, Soil Engineering, fourth Edition, Harper & Row, New York; 2- Navy Design Manual NAVFAC DM-7.2, Figures 11 & 12).

3. Section 7.4 of the City’s geotechnical guidelines requires a minimum thickness of 10 mils for vapor barriers beneath slabs-on-grade. The Project Geotechnical Engineer has recommended that the vapor barrier be a minimum thickness of 15 mils, conform to ASTM E1745 Class A requirements, and be installed in accordance with ASTM E1643. Building plans shall reflect the Consultant’s recommendation.

4. The following notes must be added to the grading plan:
a. The geotechnical consultant should determine the expansion potential of the finish grade materials at the completion of grading. Foundation design recommendations should be revised if the expansion potential of finish grade materials substantially differs from the assumed expansion range. b. At the completion of grading, samples of the onsite soils should be collected and tested for corrosion potential. Final recommendations for mitigation measures including cement type should be based on the corrosion potential of the finish grade materials.
c. The geotechnical consultant should determine at the completion of grading the R-value of the finish grade materials within parking and access road areas. Final pavement design should be based on the actual R-value of the finish grade materials.

5. An as-built report shall be submitted to the City for review. This report prepared by the Geotechnical Consultant must include the results of all compaction tests as well as a map depicting the limits of fill, locations and elevations of all density tests, outline and elevations of all removal bottoms, keyway locations and bottom elevations, locations of all subdrains and flow line elevations, and location and elevation of all retaining wall backdrains and outlets. Geologic conditions exposed during grading must be depicted on an as-built geologic map.

6. Two sets of final Grading, Retaining Wall, Swimming Pool/Spas, Guest House, and Residence plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and wet stamped and manually signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants’ recommendations and items in this review sheet over the counter at City Hall. Appointments for final review and approval of the plans may be made by calling or emailing City Geotechnical staff. 441
City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL6060) – 3 –
Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to City Geotechnical staff listed below.

Engineering Geology Review by: 12/12/2024
Christopher Sexton, C.E.G. #1441, Exp. 11-30-26 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
Geotechnical Engineering Review by: _______________________________ 12/12/2024 Ali Abdel-Haq, G.E. #2308, Exp. 12-31-25 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (805-496-1222)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.

442
City of Malibu
– GEOTECHNICAL –

NOTES FOR BUILDING PLAN-CHECK
The following standard items should be incorporated into Building Plan-Check submittals, as appropriate:

1. One set of grading, retaining wall, swimming pool and spas, guest house, and residence plans, incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations and items in this review sheet, must be submitted to City geotechnical staff for review. Additional review comments may be raised at that time that may require a response.

2. Show the name, address, and phone number of the Project Geotechnical Consultant(s) on the cover sheet of the Building, Seawall, and Grading Plans.

3. Include the following note on Grading and Foundation Plans: “Subgrade soils shall be tested for Expansion Index prior to pouring footings or slabs; Foundation Plans shall be reviewed and revised by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, as appropriate.”

4. Include the following note on the Foundation Plans: “All foundation excavations must be observed and approved by the Project Geotechnical Consultant prior to placement of reinforcing steel.”

5. The Foundation Plans for the proposed project shall clearly depict the embedment material and minimum depth of embedment for the foundations in accordance with the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations.

6. Show the onsite wastewater treatment system on the Site Plan.

7. Please contact the Building and Safety Department regarding the submittal requirements for a grading and drainage plan review.

8. A comprehensive Site Drainage Plan, incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations, shall be included in the Plans. Show all area drains, outlets, and non-erosive drainage devices on the Plans. Water shall not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over descending slopes.

Grading Plans (as Applicable)

1. Grading Plans shall clearly depict the limits and depths of overexcavation, as applicable.

2. Prior to final approval of the project, an as-built compaction report prepared by the Project Geotechnical Consultant must be submitted to the City for review. The report must include the results of all density tests as well as a map depicting the limits of fill, locations of all density tests, locations and elevations of all removal bottoms, locations and elevations of all keyways and back drains, and locations and elevations of all retaining wall backdrains and outlets.

Geologic conditions exposed during grading must be depicted on an as-built geologic map. This comment must be included as a note on the grading plans.

Retaining Walls (As Applicable)

1. Show retaining wall backdrain and backfill design, as recommended by the Geotechnical Consultant, on the Plans.

2. Retaining walls separate from a residence require separate permits. Contact the Building and Safety Department for permit information. One set of retaining wall plans shall be submitted to the City for review by City geotechnical staff. Additional concerns may be raised at that time which may require a response by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and applicant.
443
1 Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Raneika Brooks, City of Malibu Planning
From: Courtney McCammon; Contract City Biologist
Date: December 31, 2024
Re: 29329 Heathercliff Road; CDP 20-003, Biology Review The purpose of this memo is to provide an independent review of the biological resources on the project site, 29329 Heathercliff Road, following a site visit as requested by the Planning Department.

The Contract City Biologist was asked to visit the aforementioned project site. The site visit was conducted on the morning of Tuesday, December 31st, 2024, by Contract City Biologist, Courtney McCammon. The purpose of the site visit was to assess the property at 29329 Heathercliff Road where the biologically controversial area exists. Some caveats about this site visit include: no formal jurisdictional delineation was requested nor conducted; no formal biological assessment was requested nor conducted; no formal tree survey was requested nor conducted (i.e. tree DBH was not taken).

ESHA Determination
The Planning Department has received several letters regarding the project site and the vegetation being classified as ESHA. The nearest mapped ESHA is approximately 1,180-feet away and is associated with Zuma Creek. Per Malibu LIP Chapter 2, ESHA is defined as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments”. Based on the site visit conducted at the 29329 Heathercliff Road project site, there does not appear to be ESHA present on the project site. The area where the single-family residence is being proposed (Figure 1) is comprised of non-native and ornamental vegetation including but not limited to: Bermuda buttercup (Oxalis pes-caprae), black mustard (Brassica nigra), artichoke thistle (Cynara cardunculus), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). Downslope from the area where the residence is proposed, there is native vegetation including but not limited to: coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis), California cudweed (Pseudognaphalium californicum), laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), and blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana). Immediately adjacent to the project site (Figure 2) on another property is a stand of holly leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) and laurel sumac (Malosma laurina). None of the above-mentioned plants are especially rare or valuable within the Malibu area especially considering the site has been previously disturbed and is mostly dominated by non-native vegetation. The City Biologist did not identify any rare or threatened plants on the project site. The City Biologist did not observe any native protected trees including coast live oak trees.

ATTACHMENT I
444
January 29, 2025
2 Recycled Paper
Figure 1. Non-native vegetation where the single-family residence is being proposed.

Figure 2. Area of single-family residence and stand of holly leaf cherry with laurel sumac.

Coyote bush
Holly leaf cherry and laurel sumac
445
APN 4468-011-011
APN 4468-011-009
APN 4468-011-012
APN 4468-011-010
APN 4468-011-013
191.00 F.F.
180.00 F.F. 189.80 T.G.
178.50 FS

DRAIN PIPE
179.80 FS
190.00 F.F.
190.00 F.F. 191.50 FS 193.00 FS
180.50 189.50 FS 180.00 FS 179.80 FS 186.00
180.00 FS 189.90 179.33 179.80 FS
200.15 TP
APN 4468-011-009 APN 4468-011-012

TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY
APN 4468-011-011

VICINITY MAP

WITH SITE PLAN OVERLAY

SLOPE BAND ANALYSIS
446
EXHIBIT 3
EXHIBIT 44
447
EXHIBIT 5
448
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 11:08 PM
To: Yolanda Bundy; Trevor Rusin; Planning Commission; Maureen Tamuri; Allison Cook Cc: Larry Roth; Heather Roth; Pam Adams; Brian Adams; Justin R. Trujillo; Patt Healy Subject: Letter missing in staff report etc
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Maureen, Trevor & Alison,
AŌer looking through the staff report I request that p 60 be checked - it looks like JusƟn Trujillo’s leƩer of October 5, 2024 is missing.

Also why is there no close up photo or image of the property lines that the applicant is planning on “taking” of the Adams property at 29327 Heathercliff Rd? It looks like it might be right up against the pool equipment and encroaching into the home’s necessary setback area.

This is an ACTIVE dispute between the exisƟng homeowner and the applicant so how can this item even be heard when this is sƟll not seƩled?
The City, in fact, just approved the pool, equipment, etc on the Adams lot only a few years ago so MUST have proof that it’s the Adams property. What proof has been given that shows this is actually the applicant’s easement? UnƟl a court can seƩle this, this item cannot be heard.

Pls advise.

Thanks very much, Jo Drummond
EXHIBIT 6
449
From: Jo Drummond
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Elizabeth Riddick; Kraig Hill; Rebecca Evans; Trevor Rusin; Doug Stewart; Drew Leonard
Cc: Patt Healy; Bill Sampson; Mariela Guastavino; Dru Ann Jacobson; Ann Doneen; Rosemarie Ihde; Jo Drummond; Justin R. Trujillo; Malibutownshipcouncil Info; Brian Adams; Pam Adams; Heather Roth; Larry Roth Subject: Item 4A - 29329 Heathercliff Rd - MTC opposition Date: Tuesday, February 18, 2025 3:02:08 AM
Attachments: Video 2.mov
Video 1.mov
Video 2.mov
Screen Shot 2024-11-16 at 8.40.35 PM.png
Screen Shot 2024-11-16 at 9.19.42 PM.png
Screen Shot 2024-11-17 at 12.54.03 AM.png
Screen Shot 2024-11-17 at 12.57.07 AM.png
slopecalculation.png
firehydrantdistance.png
proposedhammerheadsecondlot.png
ridgelinemockview.png
MTCopposition29329Heathercliff final.pdf
Honorable Planning Commissioners,
The Malibu Township Council requests that this item not be heard tonight and needs to be sent back to planning or withdrawn for the following reasons:

1. In the aftermath of the hugest disaster in all of Malibu’s history it is ABSURD that this application is being heard, with it’s almost 400-page staff report, ahead of all the planning that should be diverted to rebuild the over 700 homes that were burned down to the ground in Eastern Malibu. There is a current lawsuit filed by the adjacent neighbor disputing the property easement that is required by the applicant to build. The applicant's deed supposedly claims to have entitlement to an egress easement right on the neighbors' property at Heathercliff Road, The Adams, who have lived there for almost 25 years have recently had a pool approved and built through the City within this alleged “easement” that is not on their own deed where all is shown as their property. The applicant would attempt to build a fire lane driveway on the Adams' land and move the fence on their existing property line and cut into their pool and pool equipment and leave no setback between their home and the driveway which is IMPOSSIBLE. Regardless, the Adams have owned the property for over 5 years and paid property taxes on the entire lot, therefore, under California law, have possession of the entire lot through a “prescriptive/irrevocable easement”.

The City has NO authority to grant entitlements for development on property which the applicant neither owns nor has rights to use.

2. The majority of the hammerhead driveway is being proposed on a second lot and there exists NO application for this grading, building and developing on this second lot.

If you decide to hear this application, then please deny it for the following additional reasons:

1.The current extended driveway is less than 15 feet wide (see attached from p 77 of the staff report) where the fire dept requires 20 feet and the applicant currently has a legal dispute with the property owners of Heathercliff Road over where the applicant wishes to extend into “their property.” Regardless the entire length of the driveway would need to be 20 feet and the applicant does not have any easement for the entire length of the current 14 foot driveway. At 14 feet wide no fire truck would EVER come down that lane to put out any fires on the lot to defend all the homes along Heathercliff Road. The fire department will likely never be able to protect us so we at the very least expect the City to protect us by denying this project on this basis alone.

2.The fire hydrant is over 400 feet away from the new home with only a 14 ft. wide driveway. 450
This is certainly increasing the fire risk to the other homes in the area. The fire department does not approve access down a long driveway – the fire code states that “The minimum width for a fire lane in California is 26 feet, with some exceptions:

Hydrants: The minimum width is 26 feet where a fire hydrant is located Dead ends: The minimum width is 20 feet for dead ends up to 150 feet long. For dead ends longer than 150 feet, the width and turnaround provisions depend on the length of the dead end Turning radius: The fire code official determines the minimum turning radius Grade: The maximum grade is 10%, unless the fire chief approves a steeper grade Gates: Fire apparatus access road gates must be manually operated by one person, or have a means for emergency access by fire department personnel
The current access road (fire lane) is only 14 feet wide maximum and therefore CANNOT legally access the property which is at least 150 feet from Heathercliff Road. Again, the applicant DOES NOT OWN ANY of the easement of the upper portion of the driveway and therefore cannot legally widen the entire driveway to the 20 feet required.

3.The site for the new construction is within an ESHA buffer zone. Julie Clark, a renowned biologist of the local chapter of the National Plant Society, inspected the property with the neighbors and found several species of native plants that had been recently bulldozed up to the edge of the build site. Native Plants and trees discovered are oak, Evergreen Cherry, Laurel sumac, and coyote brush. There are many different bird species living and breeding on the property including hawks, warblers, sparrows, wrens, flycatchers, etc. Thus, the project would require another variance to build within the ESHA buffer.

They also completed grading on the section of the driveway owned by the adjacent neighbors, risking breaking the law to reduce the grade to get as close to the 10% required for the fire lane access.

5.The attached GIS-NET map from 2016 and slope calculation shows the elevations of the lot in 2 ft increments and indicates a 3.33:1 or 30% slope NOT greater than 4:1 or 25% as the applicant’s current survey states. On page 34 of the staff report it states clearly, “Chapter 4 of the LIP addresses Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). Section 4.6.1(A) of the LIP states, “However, in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper.”
On page 6 of the Responses to the City’s Geotechnical Review Sheet – Jan. 29, 2020 (in google drive link below), it states under “site description - The site topography slopes gently down grade from Heathercliff road to the north. At about the midpoint of the site the topography increases in downslope gradient to approximately 2H:1V (horizontal: vertical) or slightly steeper toward PCH and the commercial development to the north and west. Yet the plans for the home shows a much less steep grade which is not correct as seen in these photos attached from the staff report (p71-74) and the geotechnical report of Nov 27, 2019 from p. 40 which actually shows a 40% grade - MUCH STEEPER than 25%.

6.The plans apparently include a “cantilevered pool” (see p 65 & 206 of staff report) and would require retaining walls in the unstable ESHA cliffside and is also encroaching on the ridgeline. On page 12 of the geotechnical report dated Nov 27, 2019, it states.”3.13 Erosion The project site is subject to erosion, runoff, and sedimentation due to the granular nature of the site soil…. Native 451
vegetation should remain in place on these slopes upon completion of the construction to prevent erosion.” There have been landslides in the nearby vicinity in the recent past above the commercial property to the north. Due to the ESHA native vegetation present a 100 ft setback is required and the erosion needs to be taken into consideration. And with massive rains and illegal grading occurring on the lot the threat of erosion and mudslides is certain.

LIP 4.7.2Fencing or walls shall be prohibited within the following ESHA types: riparian, bluff, canyons in Point Dume or coastal dunes, except where necessary for public safety or habitat protection or restoration." The pool cantilevered walls therefore are prohibited.

7.On page 28 of the same geotechnical report dated Nov. 27, 2019 it states, “Building foundations constructed on or near a descending slope should be set back or deepened to provide a minimum footing setback equal to the total height of the slope (H) divided by three (H/3). The footing setback should be a minimum of 5 feet for slopes up to 15 feet in height and vary up to 40 feet for slopes up to 120 feet in height.” This slope is well over 120 ft high at 2:1 slope ratio and needs a much further setback from the ridgeline.

8.This proposed build is on a ridgeline that is EXTREMELY viewable from PCH. The other homes behind this property are barely visible therefore have no scenic impacts however, this is the only (proposed) home in the area that can be seen fully from the highway and built ON the ridgeline (see attached photo from p 184 of the staff report and two photos taken Saturday afternoon from PCH) therefore another variance is required. The other homes have been properly set back at least 300 ft from the ridgeline. They also were all there before city hood. This cannot be ignored.

LIP Chapter 2 – Definitions:

6.5 C. Hillside Development

1. Ridgelines
a. New development shall be sited and designed to prohibit construction of structures on a primary or secondary ridgeline. Any structures shall be located a minimum of 300 feet (measured horizontally) or 100 feet (measured vertically) from the top of a primary ridgeline and shall maintain the roof or top of structure below a primary ridgeline when viewed from a public street or highway.
b. Where there is no feasible building site that can conform to the requirements of Section a, or where the only feasible building site would result in unavoidable adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive habitat areas, then a variance may be approved for a building site that does not conform to these standards, with design measures that minimize the visual resource impacts. Any structures approved on such a building site shall be limited to one-story in height.

To: Planning Commission
Subject: Iitem 4A 2-18 25 29329 Heathercliff
Date: Saturday, February 15, 2025 2:19:08 PM
Attachments: PC- 29329 Heathercliff 2-18-25 F(f) (2).pdf Commissioners attached are Slow Growths updated comments on the above mentioned projec.t
461
To: Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth by Patt Healy
Re: item: 4A 29329 Heathercliff
Date: 2-18-25
Honorable Commissioners,
The Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth opposes this project for the following reasons:

1. It is premature to hear this project since there is an existing title dispute that has yet to be resolved between the Applicant and the Owners of 29327 Heathercliff. Until this is resolved this project shouldn’t be heard and can’t proceed.

However, this project as designed should be denied if you decide to hear this project because:

2. It is not set back the required 100 ft. from the ESHA slope which is covered with native habitat.

3. It can’t meet the required front yard setback.

4. This project is on a primary ridgeline that is visible from PCH, a scenic highway. Other visible structures are on this ridge but they were constructed prior to cityhood. It is the city’s obligation to preserve its scenic recourses not to desecrate them. Moreover, the Shopping Center and the Mobile Home Park’s homes which are on the ridge are not in the same neighborhood as the applicant’s project . The neighborhood where the proposed project would be built has no homes visible from PCH. All the existing residences in this Heathercliff neighborhood are all 462
setback from the ridge and are not visible from PCH. Therefore, this project fails to meet the neighborhood character.

5. It blocks the ocean view of the neighbor at 29257 Heathercliff as shown in the photo on page 187 of 287 in the online
November,2024 staff report. If the second story were removed it appears from the photo this ocean view wouldn’t be blocked.

6. The staff report states it is a 2 story residence but the geologic review sheet on page 165 0f 278 of the online report states they reviewed a single story structure. Therefore, the geotectonically review has to be redone before this project can move forward.

7. The fire department requires a 20 ft. wide driveway entrance and this driveway is only 15 ft wide and there is no way a fire truck can access this property because it is wedged between 2 developed lots. And the property owners of these 2 to lots are unwilling to grant the applicant the needed square footage to meet the 20 foot requirement.

8. The proposed hammerhead is required to be on the Applicant’s lot but a portion of it is on is on the adjacent lot.

In conclusion, for all the reasons stated above a CDP can’t be granted for this project since the necessary findings can’t be made including the finding that this project is not the least damaging environmental damaging alternative.

Thank you for considering our comments.
463
464
465
Alan Hajjar
ACS International, LLC
February 11, 2025

Page 2 ends

5369971
to our knowledge, no such consent or permission was ever granted by any of our Clients’ predecessor(s)-in-interest.

Legal Analysis of Hajjar Rights to Adams Property
Your April 4, 2024 email to City contract planner Allison Cook outlines your claim of easement rights purportedly allowing for the Proposed Encroachments. The claim to such easement rights over the Adams Property appears based primarily on the Grant Deed recorded on April 3, 2019 as Instrument No. 20190291198 ("Hajjar Deed") in the Official Records of Los Angeles County. Through this deed, you acquired the Hajjar Property, which includes a description of "AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES [...]" purportedly burdening a portion of the Adams Property (the "Purported Easement").

We agree that the Hajjar Deed includes the Purported Easement. However, all rights pertaining to the Adams Property have terminated and are no longer enforceable. Since October 2000, when the Adams acquired the Adams Property, the entire parcel, a fence along the property line ("Adams Fence") has divided the two parcels and wholly enclosed the Purported Easement area on the Adams side of the Adams Fence. For over twenty-four (24) years, the Adams Fence has prevented you and your predecessor(s)-in-interest from accessing or using the Purported Easement. Throughout the Adams' ownership, the Adams Fence's location has constituted actual occupation of the Purported Easement, both preventing access by you and your predecessor(s)-ininterest and providing reasonable notice of the Adams' hostile claim to the property.

Further, the Adams' use and occupation of the Purported Easement satisfies all elements required for adverse possession under California law, including payment of all property taxes levied for a continuous and uninterrupted period exceeding five (5) years. Vieira Enterprises, Inc. v. McCoy, 8 Cal. App. 5th 1057, 1075 (2017). As a result, all rights to the Purported Easement have been extinguished. Id. ("[A] recorded easement may be extinguished if the use of the servient tenement, the property burdened by the easement [Citation], amounts to adverse possession of the easement, and nonuse by the dominant tenement may be a factor in determining whether possession has been adverse.").

Even if the Adams' adverse possession has not extinguished your easement rights (which we highly doubt), the Proposed Encroachments constitute an exclusive use and impermissible overburdening of the Purported Easement. These encroachments exceed the scope of rights explicitly granted in the Hajjar Deed for "INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES." Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal. App. 4th 419, 429, (2013) (An easement owner may not increase the 466
Alan Hajjar
ACS International, LLC
February 11, 2025

Page 3 ends

5369971
burden on, or unreasonably interfere with, the use of the servient tenement by the owner of the underlying fee.).

If constructed, the Proposed Encroachments would interfere with our Clients’ use and enjoyment of the Adams Property and would therefore constitute both a trespass and nuisance with respect to the Adams Property. Hirschfield v. Schwartz (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 754 (An encroachment may be actionable as a trespass or a nuisance.). Moreover, you have no right to seek, nor can the City grant, any entitlements for development on real property you do not own or have rights to use. LIP §§ 13.6.2(A) (“applicants must prove that they own the property which is the subject of the application or provide the City with written consent from the owner for the proposed development”); 13.6.2(C) (where the applicant is not the owner of a fee interest in the property on which a proposed development is to be located, then they must “demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development.”); see also MMC § 17.04.150. The Adams have granted no such rights, and you have shown no such permission, legal right, interest, or other entitlement to the disputed area.

Consequently, our Clients demand that you immediately withdraw your Project entitlements applications and ensure that any proposed future development on the Hajjar Property will not encroach onto the Adams Property.

We request your prompt response indicating your intentions regarding withdrawal of the application for the Project entitlements (Administrative Coastal Development Permit 20-003 and Minor Modification 20-001). Failure to respond by 5:00 p.m., February 14, 2025 will compel our Clients to take all appropriate legal action to: 1) prevent you from obtaining entitlements for development on the Adams Property, and 2) enforce their rights to the Adams Property.

Very truly yours,
JUSTIN R. TRUJILLO
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
Enclosures: Project Fire Access Exhibit;
Email dated April 4, 2024
467
468
From: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Date: April 4, 2024 at 11:15:32 AM PDT
To: Brian Adams
Subject: Fwd: Site Visit - 29329 Heathercliff
Hi Brian - I spoke with Alan further. Please see his email below. One correction from my last email is that Alan will need to move a part of your fence that is in the ingress/egress easement he has for his property in order to widen the driveway to the 20 feet at the project site. Feel free to call him to coordinate this item, since it is a matter between you and him. Thanks.

Please note that I will be out of the office from 4/10 through 4/15.

Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805-415-1991
[email protected]
---------- Forwarded message --------
From: Alan ACS
Date: Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 11:06 AM
Subject: RE: Site Visit - 29329 Heathercliff
To: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Morning
Per our conversation this morning
See attached
3 469
4  Page 9 of deed shows easement parcel 4 the road and parcel 3 both easement toward Adams and toward Roth
 Site topo : that you should have. if you zoom in to the corner between road and adams property ( see below also ) you
clearly will see the chain link fence and hammerhead and you can see that I need to push the fence only 3ft to the east on a length of 10 ft and that in this area there is no structure , you can also see that the fence encloses part of the easement which I am ok with that as I told the Adams
Alan Hajjar, MSCE
USA:

Tel:

Fax:

From: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Alan ACS
Subject: Site Visit ‐ 29329 Heathercliff

Thanks.

Please note that I will be out of the office from 4/10 through 4/15. 470
5 Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805‐415‐1991
[email protected]

‐‐
Larry
471
472
From: Chris Deleau
To: Rebecca Evans; Patricia Salazar
Cc: Allison Cook; Planning Commission; Don Schmitz; Alan ACS; Hinks, Matt; Scott Hoeft; AK Munaim Subject: 2025.2.14 29329 Heathercliff Rd - 2025.2.18 PC Item 4.A. 2025.2.14 Applicant Response Letter to Ken Erlich October Letter CD
Date: Friday, February 14, 2025 10:19:48 AM
Attachments: 2025.2.14 - PC Hearing Item 4.A. - Applicant Response to 2024.10.4 Erlich Ltr. EXHIBITS ONLY.pdf 2025.2.14 29329 Heathercliff Rd - 2025.2.18 PC Item 4.A. 2025.2.14 Applicant Response Letter to Erlich October Ltr CD.pdf
Importance: High
Rebecca,
Please find attached hereto a copy of Schmitz' response to Ken Erlich's letter from October of 2024, submitted on behalf of the applicant ACS International.

Attached you will find the applicant's response letter and the referenced Attachments under separate cover.

If you could please distribute this to the Planning Commissioners for their review of Item

4.A. (2025.2.18 Commission Hearing), it would be greatly appreciated.

Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
473
1 Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
February 14, 2025
Attn: Rebecca Evans, Senior Mgt. Analyst
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Cc: Planning Commission Chair Leonard and Commissioners Allison Cook, Contract Planner
Patrica Salazar, Development & Operations Mgr.

RE: Response to Elkins Kalt letter, dated October 4, 2024, for project case number CDP No. 20-003 and Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001, for the property located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265 (APN: 4468-011-011).

Dear Ms. Evans,
I am writing regarding CDP No. 20-003 and Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001 located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265. The project is scheduled for the Planning Commission hearing on February 18, 2024 (Item 4.A.). Schmitz & Associates, Inc. represents the property owner, ACS International (Mr. Alan Hajjar, Trustee). We received a second letter from one of the neighbor’s representatives, Mr. Kenneth A. Ehrlich, of Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben & Gartside LLP, on October 4, 2024, which objects to our client’s proposed project design on several grounds, all of which, are again, entirely without merit.

The following correspondence summarizes the issues raised by Mr. Erlich, on behalf of the neighbor Brian Adams, and provides the Applicant’s responses thereto:

Neighbor Issue #1: The Adams’ Assert that the Applicant Does Not Have an Easement for Access Across any Portion of the Adams’ Property; Therefore, the Project Should Be Denied for This Reason Alone.

Applicant Response to Neighbor Comment 1: Mr. Erlich objects to the construction of a portion of the driveway that is located on his client’s property. They claim that the Applicant does not have an easement that would allow them to construct and use this portion of the neighbor’s lot. He provides exhibit #2 to his letter depicting the applicant’s plan for driveway and site construction and circles the area of contention.

First, Mr. Erlich’s Exhibit #2 is an antiquated plan (5 years old) that does not correctly reflect the current driveway and hammerhead turnaround location. Some time ago, the applicant shifted the hammerhead turnaround further away from the Adams property towards PCH so that it would occupy less of the 474
2 adjacent Adams and Roth properties (within the applicant’s easement - See Attached Exhibit 1 for the current Civil Plan showing the driveway, hammerhead location and easement boundaries). This shift in driveway location also allowed for the hammerhead turnaround to be sited closer to PCH so that it is now located almost entirely outside the northernmost portion of the Adams property near the pool and pool equipment. Mr. Erlich’s comments are based off an incorrect plan dated 11.11.2020 (four years old).

Second, our client does have two separate easements for purposes of ingress, egress, and utilities (See Attached Exhibit 2). These two easements allow him to construct, use, and maintain his driveway in the area where it is proposed. These easements, which were reserved in a single grant deed, were created and recorded in July of 1959. The project survey/ grading plan (See Attached Exhibit 3) reflects and calls out the two access easements as Parcel 3 and Parcel 4. Further, our client’s Title Report (See Attached Exhibit 4) also refers to these easements as Parcels 3 & 4. The applicant’s survey when listing the easement parcels corresponds to the parcel numbers in the title report.

In sum, our client has the legal right to construct and use his proposed driveway within this easement area. Thus, there are no proposed ‘encroachments.’ Mr. Erlich states that his clients have never received copies of these easements; however, had he reviewed the applicant’s title report and survey (both of which are in the City permit files), he would have found this information. The recorded easement documents have also been provided to the City (Exhibit 2) and are attached to this letter to address that concern.

Neighbor Comment #2A: No Proper Basis Exists for Approval of the Front Yard Setback Reduction A. The Project is not located in an ESHA, 4:1 slopes are not ESHA, and therefore the Minor Modification findings in LIP 13.27.5 cannot be made:

Applicant Response to Comment #2A:

We responded to this argument by Mr. Erlich in our last correspondence. To properly frame the issue, the code requires that no development on Point Dume be located on slopes steeper than 4:1. If development is proposed on slopes 4:1 or steeper, a Variance must be sought.

It is perfectly appropriate for the City to supplement or augment its findings for approval of the Minor Modification, based upon the fact that the granting of the Minor Modification will avoid a Variance for development on steep slopes. Although such facts are not necessary to make the required findings of approval found in LIP Sec. 13.27.5(B), these facts provide support for the notion that the project is consistent with the LCP.

The findings for approval of a Minor Modification request do not turn on the presence or absence of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (“ESHA”), nor avoidance of a Variance for ESHA/ESHA Buffers.

Most of the arguments made by Mr. Erlich as to why the Minor Modification findings cannot be made are premised upon the project not being near or in ESHA. As discussed in our prior response letter, the proximity of a proposed home to ESHA or other “Sensitive resources” is not requisite to making the findings of Minor Modification approval. For the City to approve a Minor Modification request, the applicant need only demonstrate that the findings in LIP 13.27.5(B) can be made, and these findings mention nothing about ESHA or 4:1 slopes.
475
3 The City staff has appropriately made the findings required by 13.27.5(B) in past reports and in their current report and resolution. Those findings were properly premised upon neighborhood character, and the average front yard setback of nearby homes. Again, those findings do not rely upon the project’s proximity to streams, ESHA, or steep slopes.

Neighbor Comment #2B: The Applicant Failed To Provide Proper Justification for the Requested Front Setback Reduction
Applicant Response to Comment 2B:

No significant justification is needed for the approval of a Minor Modification request as is required for a Variance1; rather more lenient factual findings need only be made to support approval of the request.

Among the three findings needed in the LCP to approve a Minor Modification request, the most significant is consistency with neighborhood character. When looking at a yard reduction request, the City looks to the character of the neighborhood as it relates to yard setbacks of other nearby homes.

The applicant has undertaken a study that lists the existing front yard setbacks for all homes within five hundred feet (500’) of the property, located along Heathercliff Rd. (See Below Figure 1). This study utilized City records including permits, staff reports, plans, and surveys to determine average setbacks for the neighborhood. Where such information was not available in City records, the applicant used GIS to measure the neighboring front yard setbacks.

The applicant’s study demonstrates that the applicant is providing a “greater” setback than its surrounding neighbors; hence, he is not asking for a lesser setback than is enjoyed by his neighbors. The average front yard setback for surrounding homes is 26’1,” and the applicant is proposing 29’6”. The applicant’s study demonstrates that the proposed front yard setback is consistent with the average setback and the neighborhood character. The reduced setback also allows for the home to be further setback from Pacific Coast Highway, a designated scenic highway, to minimize any potential for visual impacts (See Exhibit 5 Showing Setback from PCH). The graphic exhibit below visually depicts the front yard setbacks for nearby residences along Heathercliff (See Below Figure 2).

Ironically, the Adams Property has one of the narrowest front yard setbacks on the street at 22’6”. Much narrower than the 29’6” that the applicant is requesting. Moreover, the neighbor has complained about possible development proposed on the applicant’s property on slopes steeper than 4:1; however, the applicant has demonstrated, using both 2’ and 5’ contour interval slope maps, that no development is proposed on slopes steeper than 4:1. The same cannot be said for Mr. Adams. After obtaining his pool approval in 2017 and finishing construction in 2019, Mr. Adams constructed a walkway down a steep slope (steeper than 4:1), without the benefit of permits and in violation of his permit conditions. Which is to say that while Mr. Adams has made assertions of code violations and raised zoning code compliance assertions in relation to the applicant’s project, apparently, he seems to believe that those rules do not apply to him. When considering the validity of testimony, we should consider the source. 1 Variances require that the Applicant demonstrate that it is infeasible for a project to comply with code and that the request not provide the Applicant a special benefit not enjoyed by neighbors similarly situated. 476
4 Figure 1: Showing existing Yard setbacks along Heathercliff (Averaging Calculations attached) Figure 2: Yard setback for Project (Blue line) Compared to the Neighborhood (Yellow Lines) Conclusion
477
5 The applicant and the City staff have provided both the facts and relevant information needed to make the necessary findings to approve the Minor Modification request for the front yard setback reduction.

These findings are not reliant or solely premised upon the avoidance of a Variance for development on steep slopes nor are the findings reliant on avoiding ESHA impacts. In the staff report findings, staff notes that the reduced front yard setback for the project is consistent with other setbacks on the surrounding properties. The applicant has supplemented this finding with data and exhibits that are enclosed with this correspondence.

A Minor Modification request is just that, a request for a “minor” deviation from yard setback requirements. Mr. Erlich’s letter likens this discretionary request to that of a Variance, but such is not the case. The project is consistent with the neighborhood character and complies with the LCP and state law.

The findings in 13.27.5(B) can and should be made.

Mr. Erlich’s arguments relating to legal access rights and encroachments on the Adams property have no merit. The applicant’s property is benefitted by two separate easements across the Adams property, allowing him to use those portions of the Adams property for road and utility purposes.

Additionally, Mr. Erlich asserts that the applicant’s proposed plans show the road and hammerhead encroaching into his client’s property and atop of portions of the Adams’ pool and pool equipment shed.

This is not the case. In fact, the applicant’s plans show that he is proposing only 27 sq. ft of his hammerhead turnaround within his northerly easement that lies on the Adams property (see attached Exhibit 1).

Information on the applicant’s easement rights has previously been submitted to the City. Those records were available to the Adams and their legal counsel well before the penning of Mr. Erlich’s comment letters; however, the applicant now resubmits documents previously provided as well as additional documents, for the Adams’ convenience and review.

Having addressed the comments and the arguments in Mr. Erlich’s letter, the applicant requests that the Planning Commission approve the project as designed.

Sincerely,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
478
6 479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
From: Patricia Salazar
To: Planning Commission
Subject: FW: Fw: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003; Minor Modification No. 20-001 Date: Saturday, February 15, 2025 5:11:48 PM
Attachments: Outlook-An image o.png
Outlook-An image o.png
Outlook-Logo
image001.png
Outlook-An image o.png
Outlook-An image o.png
Outlook-An image o.png
2025-02-14 - M Hinks to Planning Commission.pdf
Patricia Salazar
Development and Operations Manager | Planning Department Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 245
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 4:13 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003; Minor Modification No. 20-001 Hi Patricia - I understand Rebecca is out of the office. Please see below correspondence for Item 4A for the Commission. Thanks!
Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805-415-1991
[email protected]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: Fw: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003; Minor Modification No. 20-001 491
To: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>, Gail Duncan <[email protected]> Cc: Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]>, Raneika Brooks <[email protected]>
Hi Rebecca and Gail - In case you haven’t already, can you please provide this letter and attachments to the Commission for Item 4A? Thanks!
Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805-415-1991
[email protected]
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 3:40 PM
Subject: Fw: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003; Minor Modification No. 20-001 To: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Hi Allison,
I see that this is your project, and I wanted to loop you in.

Latrice
Planning Department
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 485
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
492
From: Claire Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 14, 2025 10:56 AM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>; Maureen Tamuri <[email protected]> Cc: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003; Minor Modification No. 20-001 Good morning,
Please see the attached correspondence from Matthew Hinks regarding the above-mentioned matter.

Thank you,
Claire Thompson | Legal Secretary
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP | JMBM
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90067 D: (310) 712-6845 | C: (206) 643-4415 | F: (310) 203-0567 | E: [email protected] This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify JMBM immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments. For further information, please visit JMBM.com 493

A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County Matthew D. Hinks
[email protected]
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310) 203-8080 (310) 203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
February 14, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
E-Mail: [email protected]
Maureen Tamuri
Interim Planning Director
City of Malibu Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
E-Mail: [email protected]
001
Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003; Minor Modification No. 20- Dear Chair Leonard and Members of the Planning Commission:

We are legal counsel for ACS International, the owner of the property located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, and the applicant for the above-described entitlements. The project application is scheduled for hearing before you on February 18, 2024.

I write this letter to respond to false information being spread by counsel for Brian and Pamela Adams, Ken Ehrlich and Justin Trujillo of the Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP law firm, claiming that my client does own the rights to develop the project contemplated by the development application and that there is some purported “title dispute.” These claims are untrue.

For example, Mr. Ehrlich claimed in his letter of October 4, 2024, to this Commission that there is a “title dispute” in that the development would use a portion of the Adams’ property for certain components of the project, including a fire turnaround, and that there is no “documentation of [my client’s] legal right (whether in easement or otherwise) to utilize that corner of the Adams Property.”
On November 14, 2024, Mr. Trujillo wrote to you and claimed that the project will require “the removal of the Adams’ existing fence, pool, and pool equipment,” that the Adams have not granted permission to use any portion of their property, and that, if built, the project “would create trespass and private claims.”
These statements are all false. Here are the facts:
494
City of Malibu Planning Commission
Maureen Tamuri
February 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

My client’s property is benefitted by two separate written and recorded easements both burdening the Adams’ property for “ingress, egress, and utility purposes.” My client’s development plans call for the use of only a 27 sq. ft. corner of the easement area for driveway purposes and would not touch the pool or pool equipment. That small corner of property is located within my client’s ingress and egress easement as its easements specially allow. Documents proving the existence of the easements and the rest of these facts are included with Mr. Chris Deleau’s letter to this Commission dated February 13, 2025.

Just this past week on February 11, 2025, my client received a letter directly from Mr. Trujillo. Contrary to Mr. Ehrlich’s contention that there is no documented easement, Mr.

Trujillo acknowledged that my client’s grant deed includes an easement benefitting its property, that the easement burdens the Adams’ property, and that the easement permits my client to use the Adams’ property for ingress, egress, and utility purposes. Thus, contrary to Mr. Ehrich’s and Mr.

Trujillo’s prior statements, Mr. Trujillo admitted all of the facts necessary to establish my client’s right to use the Adams’ property for ingress and egress exactly as called for by the development application pending before you.

Mr. Trujillo’s February 11, 2025, letter had a new theory. He claimed, not that no easement existed as he and Mr. Ehrlich claimed in the past, but that the easement has terminated by adverse possession due to alleged nonuse. But Mr. Trujillo’s new contention is wrong too for many reasons, including the fact that an easement created by a recorded deed such as my client’s cannot be lost by mere nonuse no matter how long. Tract Development Services, Inc. v. Kepler, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1374, 1384 (1988); Civil Code § 811. What’s more, the access easements are plainly existing and even visible through aerial and street view images just as they have existed for years. There is no adverse possession.

Copies of Mr. Trujillo’s and my letter are attached.

In short, there are no grounds to claim the easements do not exist or have terminated. Mr. Trujillo’s new contentions are nothing more than theater being made for the purposes of this hearing to generate opposition. His new letter raises nothing but an unproven contention which the Adams would bear the burden of proving in court. As matters stand, my client owns easements for ingress and egress over the Adams’ property and they are entitled to make use of it consistent with its terms.

There is thus no basis for Mr. Ehrlich or Mr. Trujillo to contend that the Adams do not and have not consented to the use of their property. Yes they have. They “consented” to the use when they purchased their property subject to easements benefitting my client’s property for ingress and egress purposes. Indeed, instead of objecting to the current project, they should be celebrating it since it makes use of only a very small portion of a much larger easement. 495
City of Malibu Planning Commission
Maureen Tamuri
February 14, 2025

Page 3 ends

In any event, no further “consent” by the Adams is needed. Easements are, by definition, the right to the use the land of another. Easements give the holder “those interests expressed in the grant and those necessarily incident thereto.” Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal. App. 4th 419, 428 (2013). Every easement includes “secondary easements”—i.e., “the right to do such things as are necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement itself.” Id. Those secondary easements include the right “to do such things as are necessary to the exercise of the right,” including the right to make “repairs, renewals and replacements on the property that is servient to the easement.” Id. A right-of-way to pass over the land of another carries with it “the implied right ... to make such changes in the surface of the land as are necessary to make it available for travel in a convenient manner.” Ballard v. Titus, 157 Cal. 673, 681 (1910). The easements my client owns plainly give it the right to use the easement area for driveway purposes. Any contention to the contrary is spurious.

LIP § 13-6-2 is very clear. It states:

Where the applicant for a Coastal Development Permit is not the owner of a fee interest in the property on which a proposed development is to be located, but can demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development, the City shall not require the holder or owner of any superior interest in the property to join as a co-applicant.

My client owns the fee interest in its property and “a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use” the Adams property, i.e., the easements. The evidence of the existing easements is before this Commission. In these circumstances, the City “shall not require” anything more of the Adams other than notice of the application, which they have.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Very truly yours,
MATTHEW D. HINKS of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
MDH:mdh
cc: Don Schmitz, Chris Deleau (via email)
496

ATTACHMENTS
497
5369971
Justin R. Trujillo
[email protected]
Ref: 15651-0001
February 11, 2025
Alan Hajjar
ACS International, LLC
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Re: 29329 Heathercliff Rd., Malibu, CA 90265 (APN 4468-011-011) Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003
Minor Modification No. 20-001
Dear Mr. Hajjar:

Our office represents your neighbors, Brian and Pamela Adams (“Clients”), who own the property at Heathercliff, Malibu, California, also identified at APN No. 4468-011-012 (“Adams Property”). We understand you own the neighboring property at 29329 Heathercliff, Malibu, California, also identified at APN No. 4468-011-011 (“Hajjar Property”).

Introduction and Adams’ Perspective
You have a pending development application with the City of Malibu (“City”) seeking entitlements to construct, among other things, a new 4,050-square-foot, split-level, 18-foot tall, two-story single-family residence on the Hajjar Property (“Project”). Materials we obtained from the City (submitted by you or your team in connection with the Project) reveal that certain portions of the proposed development, including a fire department turnaround area, encroach over the boundary line and onto the Adams Property (the “Proposed Encroachments”). Further, email correspondence from City contract planner Allison Cook to our Clients dated April 4, 2024 also indicates that you seek to move a portion of the existing Adams Property fence to accommodate the Proposed Encroachments. We enclose copies of the Project Fire Access Exhibit showing the Proposed Encroachments and the referenced email.

Our Clients have not consented to the construction of the Proposed Encroachments and have not granted permission to use the Adams Property in any way. Further, our Clients have not consented to any entry onto the Adams Property and have not granted permission to move the existing fence or alter any existing improvements on the Adams Property in any way. Moreover, 498
Alan Hajjar
ACS International, LLC
February 11, 2025

Page 2 ends

5369971
to our knowledge, no such consent or permission was ever granted by any of our Clients’ predecessor(s)-in-interest.

Even if the Adams' adverse possession has not extinguished your easement rights (which we highly doubt), the Proposed Encroachments constitute an exclusive use and impermissible overburdening of the Purported Easement. These encroachments exceed the scope of rights explicitly granted in the Hajjar Deed for "INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES." Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal. App. 4th 419, 429, (2013) (An easement owner may not increase the 499
Alan Hajjar
ACS International, LLC
February 11, 2025

Page 3 ends

5369971
burden on, or unreasonably interfere with, the use of the servient tenement by the owner of the underlying fee.).

Very truly yours,
JUSTIN R. TRUJILLO
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
Enclosures: Project Fire Access Exhibit;
Email dated April 4, 2024
500
501
502
4  Page 9 of deed shows easement parcel 4 the road and parcel 3 both easement toward Adams and toward Roth
 Site topo : that you should have. if you zoom in to the corner between road and adams property ( see below also ) you
clearly will see the chain link fence and hammerhead and you can see that I need to push the fence only 3ft to the east on a length of 10 ft and that in this area there is no structure , you can also see that the fence encloses part of the easement which I am ok with that as I told the Adams
Alan Hajjar, MSCE
USA:

Hollywood, CA 90028
Tel: (818) 383-1800
Fax: (323) 463-0485
From: Allison Cook <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:31 PM
To: Alan ACS
Subject: Site Visit ‐ 29329 Heathercliff

Thanks.

Please note that I will be out of the office from 4/10 through 4/15. 503
5 Allison Cook, AICP
Owner, Capstone City Planning
Contract Planner to the City of Malibu
805‐415‐1991
[email protected]

‐‐
Larry
504

VIA E-MAIL
Justin R. Trujillo
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
10345 W. Olympic Blvd.

Los Angeles, California 90064
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: 29329 Heathercliff Rd., Malibu; Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003; Minor Modification No. 20-001
Dear Mr. Trujillo:

We represent ACS International, LLC and Alan Hajjar in connection with their development project located at 29329 Heathercliff Road in Malibu. I am in receipt of your letter of February 11, 2025, to Mr. Hajjar. Please direct all further communications regarding this matter to my attention.

In your letter, you acknowledge that my clients’ grant deed includes an easement benefitting their property, that the easement burdens your clients’ property, and that the easement permits my clients to use it for ingress, egress, and utility purposes (the “Easement”). You have thus admitted all of the facts necessary to establish my clients’ right to use the Easement for ingress and egress exactly as called for by their development application.

You, however, claim that the Easement has terminated by adverse possession. But, as you know, that is just an unproven contention which your clients would bear the burden of proving in court. As matters stand, my clients own an Easement for ingress and egress over your clients’ property and they are entitled to use it consistent with its terms.

You argue that the Easement has purportedly terminated due to nonuse. But it has long been settled that an easement or servitude created by grant cannot be lost by mere nonuse no matter how long. Tract Development Services, Inc. v. Kepler, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1374, 1384 (1988); Civil Code § 811. You cite Viera Enters., Inc. v. McCoy, 8 Cal. App. 5th 193 (2017), for the proposition that a recorded easement may be extinguished through adverse possession, but even that case found that the easement in question had not been lost. Here, the access Easement is plainly existing and even visible through aerial and street view images just as it has existed for years.

There is no adverse possession of the Easement.
505
Justin R. Trujillo
February 13, 2025

Page 2 ends

Your additional contentions are also wrong. While the Easement is much larger, my clients’ plans require the use of only a 27 sq. ft. corner and would not touch the pool or pool equipment.1 That small area would be used only for driveway purposes as the Easement specifically permits. To claim on these facts that my clients’ development would “overburden” the Easement is nonsensical. Nor would it constitute an exclusive use since your clients would remain free to use the Easement area in a manner not inconsistent with my clients’ rights.

Finally, your contention that my clients’ use of the Easement consistent with the grant would somehow amount to a trespass and nuisance is spurious. The Easement gives my clients both “those interests expressed in the grant and those necessarily incident thereto.” Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal. App. 4th 419, 428 (2013). Every easement includes “secondary easements”—i.e., “the right to do such things as are necessary for the full enjoyment of the easement itself.” Id. Those secondary easements include the right “to do such things as are necessary to the exercise of the right,” including the right to make “repairs, renewals and replacements on the property that is servient to the easement.” Id.

What’s more, an unreasonable interference with an easement by the owners of the servient estate is actionable and may subject them to damages. The Dolnikov court affirmed a judgment dismissing the servient owners’ trespass, negligence, and nuisance claims and awarding the dominant owner over $700,000 in damages for interference with her easement. Id at 426-27.

The court held that “conduct can constitute actionable interference with the use and enjoyment of an easement even when the conduct does not physically obstruct the servitude.” Id. at 422. In that case, the jury found an unreasonable interference with the easement where the servient owner refused to sign a covenant for a community driveway and a retaining wall permit, made statements that plaintiff lost her rights by “burdening the easement,” and demanded money in exchange for granting plaintiff rights she already possessed in the easement. All of that was done to interfere with the dominant owner’s efforts to exercise ingress and egress easement rights in connection with the development of single-family homes. Id. at 427.

For these reasons, my clients will not be withdrawing their development application. They will also take all legal actions at their disposal to exercise their Easement rights, and will not hesitate to seek legal remedies if your clients continue to interfere with their Easement. 1 Your clients installed that pool and pool equipment with knowledge of my clients’ easement rights. As I am sure you are aware, an obstruction that unreasonably interferes with the use of an easement for ingress and egress can be ordered removed “for the protection and preservation” of the easement. See, e.g., Applegate v. Ota, 146 Cal. App. 3d 702, 712 (1983). My clients reserve their rights to require that the pool and pool equipment be removed should it become necessary, for example, as part of a revised project should the present one not be approved. 506
Justin R. Trujillo
February 13, 2025

Page 3 ends

Very truly yours,
MATTHEW D. HINKS of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
MDH:mdh
507
From: Chris Deleau
To: Elizabeth Riddick
Cc: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans; Don Schmitz; Scott Hoeft; AK Munaim; Alan ACS Subject: 29329 Heathercliff Rd. Item 4.A. Tomorrow Night"s Planning Commission Hearing Date: Monday, February 17, 2025 10:42:55 PM
Attachments: 29329 Heathercliff House Design Changes Exhibits.pdf easement malibu hamhead-recorded.pdf
Commissioner Riddick,
Thank you for taking the time today to meet Don and I at the property. During our visit earlier today, you had inquired as to whether the applicant had an easement across the neighboring property for his hammerhead turnaround. Don had properly noted that our client did have an easement for the turnaround; however, I mistakenly noted that we did not. Apologies for the confusion.

The applicant does in fact have an easement for the hammerhead. Attached you will find a copy of that easement.

Additionally, please find attached some additional slides that depict the house at 21' (Prior design) and 18' (current). The reduction in height and mass was undertaken to preserve the private views of the neighbor, Mike Kasaba, who lives a couple of doors down.

If you should have any questions regarding the project, please feel free to contact us.

Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
508
From: AK Munaim <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2025 10:02 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: HAJJAR
Hi Elizabeth,
I hope you are doing well.

Arfakhashad (AK) Munaim
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.444.6144
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
1 Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
April 29, 2025
Attn: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Cc: Honorable Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers
Allison Cook, Contract Planner
Patrica Salazar, Development & Operations Mgr.

RE: Applicant (ACS International) response to the appeal from Larry Roth, dated March 26, 2025, for project case number CDP No. 20-003 and Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001, for the property located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265 (APN: 4468-011-011).

Honorable Mayor Stewart and Councilmembers,
We write regarding CDP No. 20-003 and Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001 located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265. The permit was heard and approved by the Planning Commission on March 17, 2025. It was subsequently appealed to the City Council by Mr. Larry Roth, the next-door neighbor1, on March 26, 2025. Schmitz & Associates, Inc. represents the property owner/applicant, ACS International (Mr. Alan Hajjar, Trustee).

The following correspondence summarizes the appeal arguments made by the appellant, Larry Roth, and provides the applicant’s responses thereto:

Appeal Argument A: Mr. Roth asserts that the applicant does not own the land where its driveway is proposed and does not have an easement for access across any portion of the Adams’ property located at 29327 Heathercliff rd.; therefore, the project should be denied for this reason alone.

Applicant Response to Appellant Argument A: Mr. Roth objects to the construction of a portion of the applicant’s driveway that is located on his neighbor, Bryan Adams,’ property. He acknowledges that half of the applicant’s easement does burden his property but then argues that the other half of the easement that burdens Adams’ property is not valid (it is the same easement). Roth claims that the applicant does not have an easement that would allow them to construct their driveway and use this portion of the neighbor’s lot and for this reason alone, the project should be denied. He specifically argues that “The City has no authority to grant entitlements for development on property which the applicant neither owns nor has rights to use.” He argues that the applicant does not have an easement because there is no 1 The project was also appealed by Neighbor Brian Adams whose arguments are nearly identical.

Exhibit I
521
Exhibit F
2 easement listed in his neighbor’s title report, and that any easement the applicant may have had was lost by adverse possession.

Mr. Roth’s arguments poorly recap the arguments made by Legal Counsel for the Neighbor/other appellant, Bryan Adams, which prior arguments were not legally valid to begin with. We have, on several past occasions, responded to these arguments as has the applicant’s legal counsel, Matt Hinks of JMBM.

These responses are in the public record and included in the Planning Department’s staff reports. Mr.

Roth’s arguments are chalked full of misunderstanding of fact and the law and do not have any merit.

The Applicant has Express Easements that Give him the Right to Construct and Use the Driveway on the Appellants’ lands.

The Applicant has two separate easements for purposes of ingress, egress, and utilities (See Attached Exhibit 1). These two easements allow him to construct, use, and maintain his driveway in the area proposed. These easements, which were reserved in a single grant deed, were created and recorded in July of 1959. The project survey/ grading plan (See Attached Exhibit 2) reflects and calls out the two access easements as Parcel 3 and Parcel 4. Further, our client’s Title Report (See Attached Exhibit 3) also refers to these easements as Parcels 3 & 4. The applicant’s survey when listing the easement parcels corresponds to the parcel numbers in the title report.

The City’s codes require only that the Applicant show evidence of either ownership or a right of access (see below LIP Sec. 13.6.2(C).) This entails providing the City with a title report/survey reflecting the easement in Scheule A of that report and providing a copy of the executed easement document, if requested. The Code does not require that the Applicant litigate any access or legal dispute before the City can process and approve a permit. The City Attorney confirmed this during the Planning Commission hearing, acknowledging that the applicant had shown, in an executed and recorded legal document (easement), that he had easement rights across both the Adams and Roth properties and that the applicant had provided sufficient documentation to meet the application requirements of LIP 13.6.2.

Mr. Roth also references his prior easement litigation against the applicant and maintains that the applicant was previously forced to stop processing this permit until the litigation between Roth and the applicant was settled. This is not correct. The Applicant voluntarily paused permit processing to work on a settlement with Mr. Roth, and that settlement was reached. The City did not require the applicant to hold on permit processing until the litigation was resolved.

Mr. Roth also references the “Breitman” CDP on Seaboard Rd. as precedent for requiring an applicant to litigate and conclusively resolve an easement dispute in a court of law before processing or continuing to process a permit application. This is also not correct. Our firm represents Mr. Breitman’s project located at 21100 Seaboard Rd. (CDP No. 04-051). While it is true that a specific planner in the Planning Department attempted to place a processing hold on that project until the applicant litigated and proved conclusively that he had access rights, the City quickly changed course when they were advised by the City Attorney’s office that Planning must accept at face value the easement rights referenced in the applicant’s survey and title report. The City Planning Department withdrew its hold and recommenced project processing with haste. That project is ongoing and active and is not ‘on hold’ in any sense of the word.

LIP Section 13.6.2 States as follows:
522
3 Where the applicant for a Coastal Development Permit is not the owner of a fee interest in the property on which a proposed development is to be located, but can demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development, the City shall not require the holder or owner of any superior interest in the property to join as a co-applicant. All holders or owners of any other interest of record in the affected property shall be notified in writing of the permit application and invited to join as co-applicant.

As noted, the LCP does not require an applicant to prove in a court of law that they have an easement or legal right to use the property of another, it simply requires that the applicant provide prima facie evidence of its property rights, which the applicant has done.

Mr. Roth also argues that because Mr. Adams was granted a permit to build a pool on his property, that the applicant’s permit cannot be issued on the same property, within the applicant’s easement. This argument is puzzling as to its logic and reasoning and is incorrect.

In sum, our client has the legal right to construct and use his proposed driveway within his easement area.

The applicant’s easement is a property right that runs with the land, benefits the applicant, and burdens both Mr. Roth and Mr. Adams’ properties. The appellants’ legal assertions attacking the continued validity of the applicant’s easement are properly heard in a court of law, not adjudicated by the City Council as part of a permit application.

Appellant Argument B: Mr. Roth Asserts that the project does not meet fire code requirements, that the project plans were not ‘officially approved,’ and that the Fire Department will never use the driveway because it is unsafe.

Applicant Response to Appellant Argument B: The Project has received approval from the Fire Department two separate times, first on November 17, 2020, and most recently on December 4, 2024 (see below approvals referenced in figures 1-3).

Figure 1: The Applicant’s First Fire Department Approval (2020) 523
4 Figure 2: The Applicant’s Second and Final Fire Department Approval (12/2024) Figure 3: The Fire Department Referral Sheet Noting Approval (12/2024) 524
5 It appears that the appellant was not aware of the most recent and updated Fire Department Approval.

This approval and the stamped approved access plan were included in the Planning Commission staff report/ staff presentation and were part of the applicant’s PowerPoint presentation at hearing.

The Fire Department has approved the project. The access road does meet Fire Department access and engineering standards, as approved by the LACO Fire Department.

Appeal Argument C: The appellant claims the project is in or adjacent to stream ESHA, does not meet the 100’ stream ESHA setback, and will impact ESHA.

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument C: Chapter 4 of the LCP (ESHA) states that there is no ESHA on Point Dume except for the stream on lower Birdview Ave that empties to Westward Beach2, and which is shown on the City’s LCP ESHA Map. LCP Interpretation No. 17, approved by ZORACES on November 14, 2006, reiterates and further emphasizes this.

Notwithstanding the fact that the LCP precludes any ESHA determination on Point Dume, the City Biologist has visited the property and confirmed that there was no sensitive vegetation found on site. The City Biologist evaluated the comments and claims made by the Native Plant Society3 (NPS) and found that no protected native trees or rare/especially valuable plants existed on site.

The Appellant’s ESHA arguments are inaccurate and have no basis.

Appeal Argument D: Development on Steep Slopes: The appellant claims that the project is located on slopes steeper than 4:1 in violation of code and that the applicant engaged in unpermitted grading.

Applicant Response to Appeal Argument D: Neither of the appellant’s arguments have any merit. The project survey and slope map clearly show that the proposed residence is not being proposed on slopes steeper than 4:1. The applicant’s Surveyor has prepared two separate slope maps at both 5’ and 2’ slope band intervals. Both maps show that the house is not proposed on slopes steeper than 4:1 (25%).

Regarding the allegation of a grading violation, none has occurred, and this has been verified by Ryan Cerny, Deputy Building Official, City Code Enforcement, and the Planning Department. The applicant’s representative, Chris Deleau of Schmitz & Associates, Inc., attended a site visit to the property with the aforementioned City officials and it was confirmed that the applicant had not done any ‘grading.’ The applicant had recently conducted routine annual brush clearance, as had been done for many years prior, to keep the Roth and Adams properties safe (fire department required); however, the applicant did not do any grading.

Additionally, Mr. Cerny, the City’s Deputy Building Official, upon reviewing the access road condition, saw heavy machinery tracks along the driveway leading into Mr. Roth’s backyard. Mr. Roth’s property is currently under construction, and it was evident that the road was being maintained by his General Contractor. A substantial amount of gravel had been placed on the roadbed by his general contractor to 2 The City’s LCP was Amended by the City and the Coastal Commission in 2006 to eliminate all mapped ESHA on Point Dume except for the Birdview Stream. LIP 4.6.1 was also modified to further clarify this. This is discussed in the City’s staff report.
3 The appellant references a letter submitted to the City from the NPS which is part of the record and included in the City’s staff report. This letter alleges the presence of ESHA on the property. 525
6 avoid erosion during the wet season. There were cat tracks from heavy equipment leading down the driveway, over the gravel and into Mr. Roth’s backyard. Mr. Roth had previously claimed that the applicant had undertaken this work; however, that most certainly is not the case.

Past Grading by Roth and Adams & its Implications for the Appellant’s Arguments Review of historical aerials from Google Earth shows that substantial grading has occurred on both Mr.

Roth’s property and Mr. Adams (the Appellants). These aerials (Exhibit 4) show that, in 2013 Mr. Roth graded two pads on the rear portion of his lot without permits, one for an outdoor seating area and one for a bocce ball court. Google Earth Aerials from 2013 (see Exhibit 4) show that some of the spoils from this grading (Roth’s unpermitted grading) were dumped at the bottom of the driveway on the applicant’s property, in the exact location where Mr. Roth alleges the applicant graded the driveway. The aerials also show that Roth did more grading to create a pad for a spa (also unpermitted) and that retaining walls were installed to support the spa (also unpermitted).

From these aerial photos (Exhibit 4) we know that Mr. Roth conducted substantial unpermitted grading on his property and that he dumped spoils from that grading on the Applicant’s property. Mr. Roth now claims that the applicant did this; however, the evidence provided herein refutes that allegation. (See Exhibit 5 Showing a Complete Permit Record for the Roth Property and Demonstrating that Mr. Roth did all this Work Without Permits).

Site photos taken by the applicant also show that Mr. Roth’s contractor recently placed a large amount of gravel on the driveway to prevent erosion and damage to the driveway while the contractor was in the process of constructing his pool and exporting dirt. Mr. Roth also accused the applicant of placing that gravel on the driveway, either knowing that it was his [Roth’s] contractor that did this, or in ignorance of the true and obvious facts on the ground. The gravel blanket leads down the driveway from Heathercliff and ends precisely where the entry to Mr. Roth’s property is in his side yard next to the driveway (it does not extend near or onto the applicant’s property.) See attached photos (Exhibit 6).

In conclusion, there has been a lot of grading and construction work done on both appellants’4 properties, mostly without permits in the case of the Roth property, and aerial photos show that dirt from some of these projects was dumped on the applicant’s property without permission and within the driveway easement. What is clear is that appellant Roth engaged in the very grading violation that he now asserts the applicant carried out. It should be noted that the applicant did not acquire the property until 2019, long after the grading was done by Roth on the applicant’s property.

City officials from building safety, code enforcement and planning cleared the applicant of the appellant’s claim, specifically finding that no recent grading had occurred. Additionally, evidence provided herein shows that Roth did engage in a grading violation in this area. The appellant’s arguments have been offered in bad faith and have no merit.

Appeal Argument E – The appellant claims that the project is located on a significant ridgeline and does not comply with Ridgeline standards.

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument E: First, the hillside in question does not meet the 4 Appellant Adams recently constructed a pool in his back yard (with permits) and used the driveway to facilitate construction. Excavation spoils appear to have been stored at least temporarily in the driveway. 526
7 definition of a “Ridgeline.” The LCP defines a ridgeline as, “a hill, ridge, or promontory other than a primary ridgeline, but on which the elevation drops more than ten feet (10′) in one hundred feet (100′) horizontally on either side of the top of this landform feature.” The Top of this landform feature is the middle of Heathercliff rd. (Highest Point). To begin with it would be silly to consider Heathercliff rd. to be a protected ridgeline given that it is no longer a natural landform feature, and it is fully developed. However, even if one were to consider assessing whether it meets the slope requirements for a ridgeline, it would not meet the definition above as the feature does not drop vertically 10’ feet over 100 feet horizontal (not more than a 10 percent slope).

Figure 4: Showing a less than 10’ vertical drop over 100’ from the top of the landform feature – does not meet the definition of a ridgeline.

Second, LUP section 6.4 states that ridgeline standards shall not apply to areas that are ‘built out.’ LCP Policy 16 elaborates on this provision, provisions in the LIP, and states the same, that where more than 65% of all properties within the ‘neighborhood’ are developed, then the ridgeline standards do not apply. The applicant’s project is in a neighborhood that is over 90% built out, therefore the ridgeline standards do not apply to the applicant’s project.

Third, both appellants Adams and Roth have recently received permit approvals and constructed pools in the rear yards of their properties. The city found, in approving these pool permits, that this landform feature did not constitute a ridgeline and that the ridgeline standards did not apply. After receiving their permits, the appellants now claim that this landform feature is a ridgeline, after benefitting from the City’s determination that it was not one.
527
8 The appellants’ arguments are disingenuous and have no merit. The applicant’s project is not located on a ridgeline and is not subject to ridgeline standards.

Figure 5: View of “Ridgeline” alleged to be protected by both appellants (Roth & Adams) In sum, the feature does not meet the definition of a ridgeline and is not subject to the ridgeline setback rules.

Appellant Argument F: The appellant claims that there is no basis to approve the applicant’s minor modification request to reduce the front yard setback.

Applicant’s response to appellant’s argument F: A minor modification (MM) request does not need an adequate ‘basis’ to be proposed or approved. The City is not required to find a ‘reason’, nor is the applicant required to provide one to approve a MM request. While a MM request is a discretionary request, the only findings that are required to approve the request are as follows:

The Planning Manager may approve a minor modification application only if the Planning Manager affirmatively finds that the proposal meets all of the following:

1. That the project is consistent with the policies of the Malibu LCP.

2. That the project does not adversely affect neighborhood character. [bold and italic emphasis added]

3. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law. [LIP 13.27.5 (B) 528
9 The staff report presented at the Planning Commission hearing made these findings and provided substantial evidence in support thereof. The appellant seems to emphasize the quality of the lot; a “junk lot’ as he remarks in his appeal. He also emphasizes that the MM should not be approved because of fire safety. These issues have been addressed previously in the applicant’s responses to the appeal and are not relevant to the findings needed to be made to approve the MM request.

Moreover, the City’s Local Coastal Program prioritizes public view protection over all other development standards, except for ESHA. Section 6.5(A)(4) of the LIP, states, “New development, including a building pad, if provided, shall be sited on the flattest area of the project site, except where there is an alternative location that would be more protective of visual resources or ESHA.”
This section in the visual resources section of the LIP requires that all new development be sited on the flattest portion of the site. The code only allows homes to be sited on steeper slopes if doing so would be more protective of visual resources (E.g., PCH – A scenic highway). Here, the house is proposed on the flattest portion of the site and that location also happens to be the most protective of views from PCH. Locating the residence as far from PCH as possible ensures that the house will be the least visible.

The applicant has designed the house in accordance with the public view protection provisions of the code and has complied with all other development standards.

The applicant’s minor modification request seeks a yard setback reduction to 29’6”. The average setback of existing homes along Heathercliff rd. is 26’1”. Ironically, the Adams and Roth Properties (Appellant’s properties) have the narrowest front yard setbacks on the street at 22’6”, yet they argue that the applicant’s proposed front yard setback must be almost 3 times greater than theirs at 59.4’.

In sum, the code requires that the house be sited where it is proposed, it is consistent with the neighborhood character, and the minor mod findings can and should be made.

Concluding Remarks
In conclusion, the appellants (Roth and Adams) arguments are disingenuous and are offered with the sole intent of attempting to block any development on the applicant’s property. Mr. Roth makes this clear when he refers to the applicant’s property as a “junk lot.” What is plain to see is that that the appellants want to continue to treat the applicant’s property as if it were their own property, their own ‘open space’ buffer. They refuse to acknowledge that the applicant has a right to develop its property and that they will do and say just about anything to deny the applicant of his right to use and enjoy his land. The appellants’ arguments are plainly not offered in good faith and do not have the slightest inkling of legitimacy. Instead, these appeals are offered as a filibuster to leverage the applicant to either sell this property to them or to otherwise diminish the applicant’s rights.

Mr. Roth’s appeal is particularly egregious given that Mr. Roth previously settled litigation with the applicant and withdrew all his objections to the project in a letter to the City (Exhibit 7). After having resolved his dispute with the applicant amicably, he now reinvigorates his prior objections after having reached an accord with the applicant. Since the time of the settlement the project has been reduced in size and extent. There have been no changes to the project that would give Mr. Roth cause to object after having withdrawn his prior objections.
529
10 Lastly, Mr. Roth has committed numerous development violations (no permits) on his property. One of the violations he accuses the applicant of, he himself committed. His credibility is poor, and his arguments are invalid.

We ask that the Council see this appeal for what it is, disingenuous, and a gross abuse of process.

Glendale, CA 91203
Title Officer: Eddie LasMarias
Title Phone: (818) 662-6733
Title Email: [email protected]
Title Order No.: 10113711-GLT-U33
Issuing Policies of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company ORDER NO: 10113711--
Keller Williams Realty
23975 Park Sorrento, Suite 110
Calabasas, CA 91302
Attn.: Phillip Terry
Your Reference No.:

Proposed Lender:

Proposed Loan Amount:

Loan No.:

PROPERTY: 0 Vacant land, Malibu, CA 90265
UPDATED PRELIMINARY REPORT AMENDMENT NO. 2
In response to the application for a policy of title insurance referenced herein, Pacific Coast Title Company hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a policy or policies of title insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an exception herein or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations or Conditions of said policy forms.

The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and Limitations on Covered Risks of said policy or policies are set forth in Attachment One. The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than that set forth in the arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. Limitations on Covered Risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner’s Policies of Title Insurance which establish a Deductible Amount and a Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Attachment One.

Copies of the policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.

This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.

The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska Corporation.

Please read the exceptions shown or referred to herein and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Attachment One of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.

It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects and encumbrances affecting title to the land.

Pacific Coast Title Company Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company Countersigned:

By:

Authorized Officer or Agent
532
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 2 UPDATED PRELIMINARY REPORT AMENDMENT NO. 2
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 11, 2023 at 7:30 a.m.

The form of policy or policies of title insurance contemplated by this report is:

CLTA Standard Coverage Policy

1. THE ESTATE OR INTEREST IN THE LAND HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED OR REFERRED TO COVERED BY THIS REPORT IS:

A FEE AS TO PARCEL(S) 1 AND 2
EASEMENT(S) MORE FULLY DESCRIBED BELOW AS TO PARCEL(S) 3, 4 AND 5

2. TITLE TO SAID ESTATE OR INTEREST AT THE DATE HEREOF IS VESTED IN:

ACS INTERNATIONAL LLC AS TO PARCEL 1 AND PLAYERS GROUP LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AS TO PARCEL 2, SUBJECT TO ITEM NOS. 13, 16, 17

3. THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

SEE EXHIBIT A ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
533
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 3

PRELIMINARY REPORT PACIFIC COAST TITLE COMPANY
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

EXHIBIT A

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF MALIBU, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

PARCEL 1:

THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO TOPANGA MALIBU SEQUIT, IN THE CITY OF MALIBU, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS CONFIRMED TO MATTHEW KELLER BY PATENT, RECORDED I BOOK 1 PAGE 407 ET SEQ., OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 100 FEET WIDE AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON MARCH 18, 1944 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 919 IN BOOK 20716 PAGE 385, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAID RECORDER, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 46° 34' 55" WEST 299.10 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 57 PAGE 9 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE, SOUTH 46° 34’ 55" WEST 125.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35° 01' 53" EAST 296.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37° 45' 38" EAST 115.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 32° 12' 59" WEST 281.18 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL MINERALS, GAS AND ETHER HYDROCARBON

SUBSTANCES IN SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY ON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, AS GRANTED TO R. R. ADAMSON IN DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1953 IN BOOK 42846 PAGE 432, OFFICIAL RECORDS PARCEL 2:

THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO TOPANGA MALIBU SEQUIT, IN THE CITY OF MALIBU, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS CONFIRMED TO MATTHEW KELLER BY PATENT, RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 407 ET SEQ., OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 100 FEET WIDE AS DESCRIBED IN DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED MARCH 18, 1944 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 919 IN BOOK 20716 PAGE 385, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 46° 34' 55" WEST 424.10 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 57 PAGE 9 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTHEASTERLY LINE SOUTH 46° 34' 55" WEST 100.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22° 53' 50“ EAST 277.26 FEET; THENCE NORTH 61° 56' 37" EAST 139.14 FEET; THENCE NORTH 37° 45' 38" EAST 20.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35° 01' 53" WEST 296.63 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT ALL RIGHT, TITLE AND INTEREST IN AND TO ALL MINERALS, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBON

SUBSTANCES IN SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT RIGHT OF ENTRY ON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, AS GRANTED TO R. R. ADAMSON IN DEED RECORDED OCTOBER 5, 1953 IN BOOK 42846 PAGE 432, OFFICIAL RECORDS.

PARCEL 3:

AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO

TOPANGA MALIBU SEQUIT, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS CONFIRMED TO 534

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 4 MATTHEW KELLER BY PATENT RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 407 OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS;
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 100 FEET WIDE AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON MARCH 18, 1944 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 919 IN BOOK 20716 PAGE 385, OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE SAID RECORDER, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 46° 34' 55" WEST 299.10 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 57 PAGE 9 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF SAID RECORDER; THENCE SOUTH 32° 12' 59" EAST 281.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 38° 03' 49" EAST 20.57 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 38° 03' 49" WEST 20.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37° 45' 38“ WEST 135.00 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 61° 56’ 37” WEST 139.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57° 59' 14” EAST TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH 37° 45’ 38“ WEST FROM THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 37° 45' 38“ EAST TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.

PARCEL 4:

AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS, EGRESS AND UTILITY PURPOSES OVER THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO

TOPANGA MALIBU SEQUIT, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS CONFIRMED TO MATTHEW KELLER BY PATENT RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 407 OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, INCLUDED WITHIN A STRIP OF LAND 15 FEET WIDE, LYING 7.5 FEET ON EACH SIDE OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED CENTER LINE:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY 100 FEET WIDE, AS DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED ON MARCH 18, 1944 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 919 IN BOOK 20716 PAGE 385 OFFICIAL RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 46° 34' 55" WEST 299.10 FEET FROM THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF LOT 1 AS SHOWN ON THE RECORD OF SURVEY FILED IN BOOK 57 PAGE 9 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 32° 12’ 59“ EAST 281.18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37° 45' 38" WEST 135.00 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 47° 59’ 14" EAST 184.00 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF HEATHERCLIFF ROAD, 60 FEET WIDE, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT 17808, IN SAID COUNTY AND STATE, RECORDED IN BOOK 438 PAGE 43 OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 5:

THE STREETS KNOWN AS HEATHERCLIFF ROAD, DUME DRIVE, GRAYFOX STREET, CLIFFSIDE DRIVE, BISON COURT, WHICH ARE RIGHTS OF WAY DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN “DECLARATION OF ASEMENTS BY MARBLEHEAD LAND COMPANY” RECORDED APRIL 11, 1946 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 693 IN BOOK 23095 PAGE 1 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, WHICH ARE SHOWN IN SAID DOCUMENT AS EASEMENTS 1 THROUGH 7 INCLUSIVE, TOGETHER WITH AN ADDITIONAL STRIP OF LAND 40 FEET IN WIDTH TO A POINT IN THE ORDINARY HIGH TIDE LINE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN. THE STREETS ARE NOW PUBLICLY DEEDED ROADS AS DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN ROAD DEED RECORDED SEPTEMBER 16, 1947 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 3678 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.

APN: 4468-011-011, 4468-011-010
535

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 5

AT THE DATE HEREOF, ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED AND EXCEPTIONS TO COVERAGE IN ADDITION TO THE PRINTED EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS IN SAID POLICY FORM WOULD BE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Property taxes, which are a lien not yet due and payable, including any assessments collected with taxes to be levied for the fiscal year 2023-2024.

2. Note: Property taxes for the fiscal year shown below are PAID. For proration purposes the amounts were:

Tax Identification No.: 4468-011-010
Fiscal Year: 2022-2023
1st Installment: $3,935.67
2nd Installment: $3,935.67
Exemption: $0.00
Land: $630,706.00
Improvements: $0.00
Personal Property: $0.00
Code Area: 10860
Affects: Parcel 2

3. Note: Property taxes for the fiscal year shown below are PAID. For proration purposes the amounts were:

Tax Identification No.: 4468-011-011
Fiscal Year: 2022-2023
1st Installment: $3,510.46
2nd Installment: $3,510.46
Exemption: $0.00
Land: $557,124.00
Improvements: $0.00
Personal Property: $0.00
Code Area: 10860
Affects: Parcel 1

4. Any liens or other assessments, bonds, or special district liens including without limitation, Community Facility Districts, that arise by reason of any local, City, Municipal or County Project or Special District.

5. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (Commencing with Section 75) of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California.

6. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records.

7. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document Purpose: PUBLIC UTILITIES
Recording no.: BOOK 17146 PAGE 339, Official Records
Affects: SAID LAND, THE EXACT LOCATION AND EXTENT OF SAID EASEMENT IS NOT DISCLOSED OF RECORD
No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement. 536

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 6

8. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: WAIVER OF DAMAGES INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT AND RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS

COVENANT TO RUN WITH THE LAND
Recording Date: March 18, 1944
Recording No.: BOOK 20716 PAGE 385, Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

9. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document Purpose: PUBLIC UTILITIES
Recorded: MAY 17, 1957
Recording no.: 931, Official Records
Affects: SAID LAND
No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement.

10. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions as set forth in the document referred to in the numbered item last above shown, but omitting, except to the extent that said covenant or restriction is controlled or permitted by any applicable federal or state law, any covenants or restrictions, if any, based upon race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, familial status, marital status, disability, medical condition, national origin, source of income, or ancestry.

11. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document Purpose: PUBLIC UTILITIES
Recorded: MARCH 21, 1962
Recording no.: 1373, Official Records
Affects: SAID LAND
No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement.

12. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Modification of Easement Agreement
Dated: August 17, 2022
Executed by: Larry Roth, individually and as Trustee of the Roth Living Trust dated June 1, 2012; Heather Roth, individually and as Trustee of the Roth Living Trust dated June 1, 2012; Players Group LLC, a California limited liability company
Recording Date: October 13, 2022
Recording No.: 20220986651, Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars. 537

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 7

13. A Deed:

From: ACS International LLC, a California limited liability company To: Players Group LLC, a California limited liability company Dated: May 9, 2019
Recording Date: May 22, 2019
Recording No.: 20190466300, Official Records
For insurance purposes, the Company is not willing to divest the interest of the following party(s):

Party(s): ACS International LLC
The Company will require an affidavit signed by the seller/mortgagor certifying that there are no matters that could give rise to any defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters that would attach to the Land between the effective date of the report and the recording of the instruments creating the estate to be insured.

Affects: Parcel 2

14. The search did not disclose any open mortgages or deeds of trust of record, therefore the Company reserves the right to require further evidence to confirm that the property is unencumbered, and further reserves the right to make additional requirements or add additional items or exceptions upon receipt of the requested evidence.

15. Our examination of the record title to the herein described land does not disclose any existing loans. We therefore request a copy of the owners' disclosure statement with reference to existing encumbrances to reconfirm our findings.

16. The Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title assurance predicated upon a conveyance or encumbrance from the entity named below:

Limited Liability Company: ACS INTERNATIONAL LLC
a) A copy of its operating agreement, if any, and any and all amendments, supplements and/or modifications thereto, certified by the appropriate manager or member b) If a domestic Limited Liability Company, a copy of its Articles of Organization and all amendments thereto with the appropriate filing stamps
c) If the Limited Liability Company is member-managed, a full and complete current list of members certified by the appropriate manager or member
d) If the Limited Liability Company was formed in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence, satisfactory to the Company, that it was validly formed, is in good standing and authorized to do business in the state of origin
e) If less than all members, or managers, as appropriate, will be executing the closing documents, furnish evidence of the authority of those signing.

The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested documentation.
538

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 8

17. The Company will require the following documents for review prior to the issuance of any title assurance predicated upon a conveyance or encumbrance from the entity named below:

Limited Liability Company: Players Group, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company a) A copy of its operating agreement, if any, and any and all amendments, supplements and/or modifications thereto, certified by the appropriate manager or member b) If a domestic Limited Liability Company, a copy of its Articles of Organization and all amendments thereto with the appropriate filing stamps
c) If the Limited Liability Company is member-managed, a full and complete current list of members certified by the appropriate manager or member
d) If the Limited Liability Company was formed in a foreign jurisdiction, evidence, satisfactory to the Company, that it was validly formed, is in good standing and authorized to do business in the state of origin
e) If less than all members, or managers, as appropriate, will be executing the closing documents, furnish evidence of the authority of those signing.

The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested documentation.

18. Matters which may be disclosed by an inspection and/or by a correct ALTA/ACSM Land Title Survey of said Land that is satisfactory to the Company, and/or by inquiry of the parties in possession thereof.

19. An inspection of said Land has been ordered; upon its completion the Company reserves the right to except additional items and/or make additional requirements.

20. In order to complete this report, the Company requires a Statement of Information to be completed by the following party(s),
Party(s): All Parties
The Company reserves the right to add additional items or make further requirements after review of the requested Statement of Information.

NOTE: The Statement of Information is necessary to complete the search and examination of title under this order. Any title search includes matters that are indexed by name only, and having a completed Statement of Information assists the Company in the elimination of certain matters which appear to involve the parties but in fact affect another party with the same or similar name. Be assured that the Statement of Information is essential and will be kept strictly confidential to this file.

END OF ITEMS
539

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 9 NOTES

1. Note: None of the items shown in this report will cause the Company to decline to attach CLTA Endorsement Form 100 to an Extended Coverage Loan Policy, when issued.

2. Note: The Company is not aware of any matters which would cause it to decline to attach CLTA Endorsement Form 116 indicating that there is located on said Land Vacant Land, known as 0 Vacant land, Malibu, CA 90265 to an Extended Coverage Loan Policy.

3. Note: There are NO conveyances affecting said Land recorded within 24 months of the date of this report.

4. Note: The policy of title insurance will include an arbitration provision. The Company or the insured may demand arbitration. Arbitrable matters may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or claim between the Company and the insured arising out of or relating to this policy, any service of the Company in connection with its issuance or the breach of a policy provision or other obligation. Please ask your escrow or title officer for a sample copy of the policy to be issued if you wish to review the arbitration provisions and any other provisions pertaining to your Title Insurance coverage.

5. Note: Amended Civil Code Section 2941, which becomes effective on January 1, 2002, sets the fee for the processing and recordation of the reconveyance of each Deed of Trust being paid off through this transaction at $45.00. The reconveyance fee must be clearly set forth in the Beneficiary's Payoff Demand Statement (''Demand''). In addition, an assignment or authorized release of that fee, from the Beneficiary to the Trustee of record, must be included. An example of the required language is as follows:
''The Beneficiary identified above hereby assigns, releases or transfers to the Trustee of record, the sum of $45.00, included herein as 'Reconveyance Fees', for the processing and recordation of the Reconveyance of the Deed of Trust securing the indebtedness covered hereby, and the escrow company or title company processing this pay-off is authorized to deduct the Reconveyance Fee from this Demand and forward said fee to the Trustee of record or the successor Trustee under the Trust Deed to be paid off in full.''
In the event that the reconveyance fee and the assignment, release or transfer thereof are not included within the demand statement, then Pacific Coast Title Company may decline to process the reconveyance and will be forced to return all documentation directly to the Beneficiary for compliance with the requirements of the revised statute.

6. If a county recorder, title insurance company, escrow company, real estate broker, real estate agent or association provides a copy of a declaration, governing document or deed to any person, California law requires that the document provided shall include a statement regarding any unlawful restrictions. Said statement is to be in at least 14-point bold face type and may be stamped on the first page of any document provided or included as a cover page attached to the requested document. Should a party to this transaction request a copy of any document reported herein that fits this category, the statement is to be included in the manner described.

7. Notice: Please be aware that due to the conflict between federal and state laws concerning the cultivation, distribution, manufacture or sale of marijuana, the Company is not able to close or insure any transaction involving Land that is associated with these activities. 540

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 10

WIRE INSTRUCTIONS
When funds are wired to Pacific Coast Title Company, please use the instructions below:

Bank Name & Address Wire Routing Information
Nano Banc, 7755 Irvine Center Drive,
Suite 300, Irvine, CA 92618
ABA (Routing) Number: 122245251
Account Number: 6100101033
Account Name: Pacific Coast Title Company
Credit: Pacific Coast Title Company - GLT
Reference: 10113711
The policy(s) of title insurance to be issued hereunder will be policy(s) of Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company, a Nebraska corporation.

Funds received by this Company via wire transfer may be disbursed upon receipt. Funds received by this company via cashier’s check or tellers check may be disbursed on the next business day after the day of deposit. If escrow funds (including shortage checks) are disbursed to this company other than by wire transfer, cashier’s check or teller’s check, disbursement and/or closing will be delayed 3 to 7 business days. Questions concerning deposit and/or disbursement of escrow and sub-escrow funds and recording should be directed to your title officer, escrow officer or loan payoff officer.

Outgoing wire transfers will not be authorized until we have confirmation of our recording and one (1) of the following:

A We have received confirmation of the respective incoming wire.

B. Collection of a deposited check.

PAYOFF INFORMATION
NOTE: This Company DOES require current beneficiary demands prior to closing. If the demand is expired and a current demand cannot be obtained, our requirements will be as follows:

If this Company accepts a verbal update on the demand, we may hold an amount equal to one monthly mortgage payment. This hold will be over and above the verbal hold the lender may have stipulated.

If this Company cannot obtain a verbal update on the demand, we will either pay off of the expired demand, or wait for the amended demand, at the discretion of the escrow.

NOTE: to avoid delays at the time of closing, if the above deed of trust is an Equity Line/Line of Credit, it will be necessary that all checks, passbooks, credit cards together with instructions to close the account be submitted to the Company prior to the close of this transaction.

In order to expedite compliance with the above, please do the following:

Borrower(s):
a) Sign and return the Equity Line/Credit Line Affidavit provided with the report, b) Request that the account be frozen.

Settlement:
a) Obtain a statement from the lender that no advances have been made after the issuance of the demand for payoff, and
b) Upon delivery of the payoff check, a full reconveyance must be obtained.

Please be advised that the difference between the principal balance on an issued demand and the maximum principal allowed may be held for up to 10 working days if the above requirements are not met.

END OF NOTES
Eddie LasMarias / ELM
541
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 11

PACIFIC COAST TITLE COMPANY

PRIVACY NOTICE
Pacific Coast Title Company, (“PCT”) respect and are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Notice lets you know how and for what purposes your Personal Information (as defined herein) is being collected, processed and used by PCT. We pledge that we will take reasonable steps to ensure that your Personal Information will only be used in ways that are in compliance with this Privacy Notice. The provision of this Privacy Notice to you does not create any express or implied relationship, or create any express or implied duty or other obligation, between Pacific Coast Title Company and you. See also No Representations or Warranties below.

This Privacy Notice is only in effect for any generic information and Personal Information collected and/or owned by PCT, including collection through any PCT website and any online features, services and/or programs offered by PCT (collectively, the “Website”). This Privacy Notice is not applicable to any other web pages, mobile applications, social media sites, email lists, generic information or Personal Information collected and/or owned by any entity other than PCT.

How Information is Collected
The types of personal information PCT collects may include, among other things (collectively, “Personal Information”): (1) contact information (e.g., name, address, phone number, email address); (2) demographic information (e.g., date of birth, gender marital status); (3) Internet protocol (or IP) address or device ID/UDID; (4) social security number (SSN), student ID (SIN), driver’s license, passport, and other government ID numbers; (5) financial account information; and (6) information related to offenses or criminal convictions.

In the course of our business, we may collect Personal Information about you from the following sources:
 Applications or other forms we receive from you or
your authorized representative;
 Information we receive from you through the Website;
 Information about your transactions with or services
performed by us, our affiliates, or others; and
 From consumer or other reporting agencies and public
records maintained by governmental entities that we
either obtain directly from those entities, or from our affiliates or others.

Additional Ways Information is Collected Through the Website Browser Log Files. Our servers automatically log each visitor to the Website and collect and record certain information about each visitor. This information may include IP address, browser language, browser type, operating system, domain names, browsing history (including time spent at a domain, time and date of your visit), referring/exit web pages and URLs, and number of clicks. The domain name and IP address reveal nothing personal about the user other than the IP address from which the user has accessed the Website.

Cookies. From time to time, PCT or other third parties may send a “cookie” to your computer. A cookie is a small piece of data that is sent to your Internet browser from a web server and stored on your computer’s hard drive and that can be re-sent to the serving website on subsequent visits. A cookie, by itself, cannot read other data from your hard disk or read other cookie files already on your computer. A cookie, by itself, does not damage your system. We, our advertisers and other third parties may use cookies to identify and keep track of, among other things, those areas of the Website and third party websites that you have visited in the past in order to enhance your next visit to the Website. You can choose whether or not to accept cookies by changing the settings of your Internet browser, but some functionality of the Website may be impaired or not function as intended. See the Third Party Opt Out section below.

Web Beacons. Some of our web pages and electronic
communications may contain images, which may or may not be visible to you, known as Web Beacons (sometimes referred to as “clear gifs”). Web Beacons collect only limited information that includes a cookie number; time and date of a page view; and a description of the page on which the Web Beacon resides. We may also carry Web Beacons placed by third party advertisers. These Web Beacons do not carry any Personal Information and are only used to track usage of the Website and activities associated with the Website. See the Third Party Opt Out section below.

Unique Identifier. We may assign you a unique internal identifier to help keep track of your future visits. We may use this information to gather aggregate demographic information about our visitors, and we may use it to personalize the information you see on the Website and some of the electronic communications you receive from us. We keep this information for our internal use, and this information is not shared with others.

Third Party Opt Out. Although we do not presently, in the future we may allow third-party companies to serve advertisements and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit the Website. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to the Website in order to provide advertisements about products and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party Web Beacon to collect this information, as further described above.

Through these technologies, the third party may have access to and use non-personalized information about your online usage activity.

You can opt-out of certain online behavioral services through any one of the ways described below. After you opt-out, you may continue to receive advertisements, but those advertisements will no longer be as relevant to you.
 You can opt-out via the Network Advertising Initiative industry opt-out at http://www.networkadvertising.org/.  You can opt-out via the Consumer Choice Page at
www.aboutads.info.
 For those in the U.K., you can opt-out via the IAB UK's industry opt-out at www.youronlinechoices.com.
 You can configure your web browser (Chrome, Firefox,
Internet Explorer, Safari, etc.) to delete and/or control the use of cookies.

More information can be found in the Help system of your browser. Note:

If you opt-out as described above, you should not delete your cookies. If you delete your cookies, you will need to opt-out again.

Use of Personal Information
Information collected by PCT is used for three main purposes:
 To provide products and services to you or one or more third party service providers (collectively, “Third Parties”) who are obtaining services on your behalf or in connection with a transaction involving you.
 To improve our products and services that we perform for you or for Third Parties.
 To communicate with you and to inform you about PCT’s, PCT’s affiliates and third parties’ products and services.

When Information Is Disclosed By PCT
We may provide your Personal Information (excluding information we receive from consumer or other credit reporting agencies) to various individuals and companies, as permitted by law, without obtaining your prior authorization. Such laws do not allow consumers to restrict these disclosures. Disclosures may include, without limitation, the following:
 To agents, brokers, representatives, or others to
provide you with services you have requested, and to
enable us to detect or prevent criminal activity, fraud, material misrepresentation, or nondisclosure in
connection with an insurance transaction;
 To third-party contractors or service providers who
542
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 12 provide services or perform marketing services or
other functions on our behalf;
 To law enforcement or other governmental authority
in connection with an investigation, or civil or criminal subpoenas or court orders; and/or
 To lenders, lien holders, judgment creditors, or other parties claiming an encumbrance or an interest in title whose claim or interest must be determined, settled,
paid or released prior to a title or escrow closing.

In addition to the other times when we might disclose information about you, we might also disclose information when required by law or in the good-faith belief that such disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with a legal process or applicable laws; (2) enforce this Privacy Notice; (3) respond to claims that any materials, documents, images, graphics, logos, designs, audio, video and any other information provided by you violates the rights of third parties; or (4) protect the rights, property or personal safety of PCT, its users or the public.

We maintain reasonable safeguards to keep the Personal Information that is disclosed to us secure. We provide Personal Information and nonPersonal Information to our subsidiaries, affiliated companies, and other businesses or persons for the purposes of processing such information on our behalf and promoting the services of our trusted business partners, some or all of which may store your information on servers outside of the United States. We require that these parties agree to process such information in compliance with our Privacy Notice or in a similar, industrystandard manner, and we use reasonable efforts to limit their use of such information and to use other appropriate confidentiality and security measures. The use of your information by one of our trusted business partners may be subject to that party’s own Privacy Notice. We do not, however, disclose information we collect from consumer or credit reporting agencies with our affiliates or others without your consent, in conformity with applicable law, unless such disclosure is otherwise permitted by law.

We also reserve the right to disclose Personal Information and/or nonPersonal Information to take precautions against liability, investigate and defend against any third-party claims or allegations, assist government enforcement agencies, protect the security or integrity of the Website, and protect the rights, property, or personal safety of PCT, our users or others.

We reserve the right to transfer your Personal Information, as well as any other information, in connection with the sale or other disposition of all or part of the PCT business and/or assets. We also cannot make any representations regarding the use or transfer of your Personal Information or other information that we may have in the event of our bankruptcy, reorganization, insolvency, receivership or an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and you expressly agree and consent to the use and/or transfer of your Personal Information or other information in connection with a sale or transfer of some or all of our assets in any of the above described proceedings. Furthermore, we cannot and will not be responsible for any breach of security by any third parties or for any actions of any third parties that receive any of the information that is disclosed to us.

Information From Children
We do not collect Personal Information from any person that we know to be under the age of thirteen (13). Specifically, the Website is not intended or designed to attract children under the age of thirteen (13). You affirm that you are either more than 18 years of age, or an emancipated minor, or possess legal parental or guardian consent, and are fully able and competent to enter into the terms, conditions, obligations, affirmations, representations, and warranties set forth in this Privacy Notice, and to abide by and comply with this Privacy Notice. In any case, you affirm that you are over the age of 13, as THE WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED FOR CHILDREN UNDER 13 THAT ARE UNACCOMPANIED BY HIS OR
HER PARENT OR LEGAL GUARDIAN.

Parents should be aware that PCT’s Privacy Notice will govern our use of Personal Information, but also that information that is voluntarily given by children – or others – in email exchanges, bulletin boards or the like may be used by other parties to generate unsolicited communications. PCT encourages all parents to instruct their children in the safe and responsible use of their Personal Information while using the Internet.

Privacy Outside the Website
The Website may contain various links to other websites, including links to various third party service providers. PCT is not and cannot be responsible for the privacy practices or the content of any of those other websites.

Other than under agreements with certain reputable organizations and companies, and except for third party service providers whose services either we use or you voluntarily elect to utilize, we do not share any of the Personal Information that you provide to us with any of the websites to which the Website links, although we may share aggregate, non-Personal Information with those other third parties. Please check with those websites in order to determine their privacy policies and your rights under them.

European Union Users
If you are a citizen of the European Union, please note that we may transfer your Personal Information outside the European Union for use for any of the purposes described in this Privacy Notice. By providing PCT with your Personal Information, you consent to both our collection and such transfer of your Personal Information in accordance with this Privacy Notice.

Choices With Your Personal Information
Whether you submit Personal Information to PCT is entirely up to you. You may decide not to submit Personal Information, in which case PCT may not be able to provide certain services or products to you.

You may choose to prevent PCT from disclosing or using your Personal Information under certain circumstances (“opt out”). You may opt out of any disclosure or use of your Personal Information for purposes that are incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or for which you subsequently gave authorization by notifying us by one of the methods at the end of this Privacy Notice. Furthermore, even where your Personal Information is to be disclosed and used in accordance with the stated purposes in this Privacy Notice, you may elect to opt out of such disclosure to and use by a third party that is not acting as an agent of PCT.

As described above, there are some uses from which you cannot opt-out.

Please note that opting out of the disclosure and use of your Personal Information as a prospective employee may prevent you from being hired as an employee by PCT to the extent that provision of your Personal Information is required to apply for an open position.

If PCT collects Personal Information from you, such information will not be disclosed or used by PCT for purposes that are incompatible with the purpose(s) for which it was originally collected or for which you subsequently gave authorization unless you affirmatively consent to such disclosure and use.

You may opt out of online behavioral advertising by following the instructions set forth above under the above section “Additional Ways That Information Is Collected Through the Website,” subsection “Third Party Opt Out.”
Access and Correction
To access your Personal Information in the possession of PCT and correct inaccuracies of that information in our records, please contact us in the manner specified at the end of this Privacy Notice. We ask individuals to identify themselves and the information requested to be accessed and amended before processing such requests, and we may decline to process requests in limited circumstances as permitted by applicable privacy legislation.

Your California Privacy Rights
Under California’s “Shine the Light” law, California residents who provide certain personally identifiable information in connection with obtaining products or services for personal, family or household use are entitled to request and obtain from us once a calendar year information about the customer information we shared, if any, with other businesses for their own direct marketing uses. If applicable, this information would include the 543
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 13 categories of customer information and the names and addresses of those businesses with which we shared customer information for the immediately prior calendar year (e.g., requests made in 2015 will receive information regarding 2014 sharing activities).

To obtain this information on behalf of PCT, please send an email message to [email protected] with “Request for California Privacy Information” in the subject line and in the body of your message. We will provide the requested information to you at your email address in response.

Please be aware that not all information sharing is covered by the “Shine the Light” requirements and only information on covered sharing will be included in our response.

Additionally, because we may collect your Personal Information from time to time, California’s Online Privacy Protection Act requires us to disclose how we respond to “do not track” requests and other similar mechanisms.

Currently, our policy is that we do not recognize “do not track” requests from Internet browsers and similar devices.

PCT Compliance with California Online Privacy Protection Act For some websites which PCT or one of its companies owns, such as the Customer CareNet (“CCN”), PCT is acting as a third party service provider to a mortgage loan servicer. In those instances, we may collect certain information on behalf of that mortgage loan servicer for fulfilling a service to that mortgage loan servicer. For example, you may access CCN to complete a transaction with your mortgage loan servicer. During this transaction, the information which we may collect on behalf of the mortgage loan servicer is as follows:
 First and Last Name
 Property Address
 User Name
 Password
 Loan Number
 Social Security Number - masked upon entry
 Email Address
 Three Security Questions and Answers
 IP Address
The information you submit is then transferred to your mortgage loan servicer by way of CCN.

The mortgage loan servicer is responsible for taking action or making changes to any consumer information submitted through this website. For example, if you believe that your payment or user information is incorrect, you must contact your mortgage loan servicer.

CCN does not share consumer information with third parties, other than those with which the mortgage loan servicer has contracted to interface with the CCN application.

All sections of the PCT Privacy Notice apply to your interaction with CCN, except for the sections titled Choices with Your Personal Information and Access and Correction. If you have questions regarding the choices you have with regard to your personal information or how to access or correct your personal information, you should contact your mortgage loan servicer.

No Representations or Warranties
By providing this Privacy Notice, Pacific Coast Title Company does not make any representations or warranties whatsoever concerning any products or services provided to you by its majority-owned subsidiaries. In addition, you also expressly agree that your use of the Website is at your own risk. Any services provided to you by Pacific Coast Title Company and/or the Website are provided “as is” and “as available” for your use, without representations or warranties of any kind, either express or implied, unless such warranties are legally incapable of exclusion. Pacific Coast Title Company makes no representations or warranties that any services provided to you by it or the Website, or any services offered in connection with the Website are or will remain uninterrupted or error-free, that defects will be corrected, or that the web pages on or accessed through the Website, or the servers used in connection with the Website, are or will remain free from any viruses, worms, time bombs, drop dead devices, Trojan horses or other harmful components. Any liability of Pacific Coast Title Companyand your exclusive remedy with respect to the use of any product or service provided by Pacific Coast Title Company including on or accessed through the Website, will be the re-performance of such service found to be inadequate.

Your Consent To This Privacy Notice
By submitting Personal Information to PCT, you consent to the collection and use of information by us as specified above or as we otherwise see fit, in compliance with this Privacy Notice, unless you inform us otherwise by means of the procedure identified below. If we decide to change this Privacy Notice, we will make an effort to post those changes on the Website. Each time we collect information from you following any amendment of this Privacy Notice will signify your assent to and acceptance of its revised terms for all previously collected information and information collected from you in the future. We may use comments, information or feedback that you may submit in any manner that we may choose without notice or compensation to you.

If you have additional questions or comments, please let us know by sending your comments or requests to:

EFFECTIVE AS OF: MAY 1, 2015
544

PRELIMINARY REPORT
ESCROW NO.: TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 14 Notice of Available Discounts
Pursuant to Section 2355.3 in Title 10 of the California Code of Regulations Fidelity National Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries ("FNF") must deliver a notice of each discount available under our current rate filing along with the delivery of escrow instructions, a preliminary report or commitment. Please be aware that the provision of this notice does not constitute a waiver of the consumer’s right to be charged the filed rate. As such, your transaction may not qualify for the below discounts.

You are encouraged to discuss the applicability of one or more of the below discounts with a Company representative. These discounts are generally described below; consult the rate manual for a full description of the terms, conditions and requirements for such discount. These discounts only apply to transactions involving services rendered by the FNF Family of Companies. This notice only applies to transactions involving property improved with a one-to-four family residential dwelling.

Not all discounts are offered by every FNF Company. The discount will only be applicable to the FNF Company as indicated by the named discount.

FNF Underwritten Title Companies Underwritten by FNF Underwriters CTC – Chicago Title Company CTIC – Chicago Title Insurance Company CLTC – Commonwealth Land Title Company CLTIC – Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company FNTC – Fidelity National Title Company FNTIC – Fidelity National Title Insurance Company FNTCCA – Fidelity National Title Company of California FNTIC – Fidelity National Title Insurance Company TICOR – Ticor Title Company of California CTIC – Chicago Title Insurance Company LTC – Lawyer’s Title Company CLTIC – Commonwealth Land Title Insurance Company

DISASTER LOANS (CTIC)
The charge for a Lender's Policy (Standard or Extended coverage) covering the financing or refinancing by an owner of record, within twenty-four (24) months of the date of a declaration of a disaster area by the government of the United States or the State of California on any land located in said area, which was partially or totally destroyed in the disaster, will be fifty percent (50%) of the appropriate title insurance rate.

CHURCHES OR CHARITABLE NON-PROFITABLE ORGANIZATIONS (CTIC, FNTIC) On properties used as a church or for charitable purposes within the scope of the normal activities of such entities, provided said charge is normally the church’s obligation the charge for an owner’s policy shall be fifty percent (50%) to seventy percent (70%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected. The charge for a lender’s policy shall be thirty-two percent (32%) to fifty percent (50%) of the appropriate title insurance rate, depending on the type of coverage selected. 545
Attachment One (06-05-14)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 15

ATTACHMENT ONE

CALIFORNIA LAND TITLE ASSOCIATION
STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY – 1990

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation
(including but not limited to building or zoning laws,
ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating,
prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or
enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions
or location of any improvement now or hereafter
erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or
any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv)
environmental protection, or the effect of any
violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental
regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the
enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or
encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged
violation affecting the land has been recorded in the
public records at Date of Policy.
(b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a)
above, except to the extent that a notice of the
exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or
encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged
violation affecting the land has been recorded in the
public records at Date of Policy.

2. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed
to by the insured claimant;
(b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the
public records at Date of Policy, but known to the
insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the
Company by the insured claimant prior to the date
the insured claimant became an insured under this
policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured
claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have
been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value
for the insured mortgage or for the estate or interest
insured by this policy.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing
business laws of the state in which the land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the
transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is
based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or
truth in lending law.

6. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state
insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.

4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public
records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or
exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records.
546

ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (06-05-14)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 16 CLTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)

ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE

EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:

1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.

2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.

3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.

4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records;
b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at
the Policy Date;
c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.

5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.

6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and
b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.

7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws.

8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.

LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner’s Coverage Statement as follows:
 For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.

The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:

Your Deductible Amount
Our Maximum Dollar
Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 $10,000.00 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 $25,000.00 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 19: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000.00 $25,000.00 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 21: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500.00 $5,000.00 (whichever is less)
547

ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (06-05-14)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 17 2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental
regulation (including those relating to building and
zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any
improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws,
ordinances, or governmental regulations. This
Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b)
does not modify or limit the coverage provided under
Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the
Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the
Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the
Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the
Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date
the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this
policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured
Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy
(however, this does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 11, 13 or 14); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for
the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon
usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.

6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal
bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or
attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This
Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II, this policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:

PART I
The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an
inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be
disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.
548

ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (06-05-14)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 18 2006 ALTA OWNER’S POLICY (06-17-06)

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the
Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the
Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the
Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the
Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date
the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this
policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured
Claimant;
(d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy
(however, this does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for
the Title.

4. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal
bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.

5. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or
attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as
existing liens by the records of any taxing authority
that levies taxes or assessments on real property or
by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public
agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or
notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown
by the records of such agency or by the Public
Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be
ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may
be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation,
variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title
that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete
land survey of the Land and that are not shown by
the Public Records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or
exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the
issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to
water, whether or not the matters excepted under
(a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or
material not shown by the Public Records.
549

ATTACHMENT ONE
(CONTINUED)
Attachment One (06-05-14)
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 19 ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY (12-02-13)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys’ fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning)
restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any
improvement erected on the Land;
(iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does
not modify or limit the coverage provided under
Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b)
does not modify or limit the coverage provided under
Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters
(a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the
Insured Claimant;
(b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured
Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company
by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured
Claimant became an Insured under this policy;
(c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy
(however, this does not modify or limit the coverage
provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon
usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 26.

6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or
modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25.

8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6.

9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors’ rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is (a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy.

10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances 550

STATEMENT OF INFORMATION

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FOR YOUR PROTECTION
Completion of this statement expedites your application for title insurance, as it assists in establishing identity, eliminating matters affecting persons with similar names and avoiding the use of fraudulent or forged documents. Complete all blanks (please print) or indicate “none” or “N/A.” If more space is needed for any item(s), use the reverse side of the form. Each party (and spouse/domestic partner, if applicable) to the transaction should personally sign this form.

ORDER NO: 10113711 TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33

NAME AND PERSONAL INFORMATION
Date of Birth:

First Name Middle Name Last Name Maiden Name
(if none, indicate)
Home Phone Business Phone Birthplace
Social Security No. Driver’s License No.

List any other name you have used or been known by
State of residence I have lived continuously in the U.S.A. since Are you currently married? If yes, complete the following:

Date and place of marriage
Spouse: Date of Birth:

First Name Middle Name Last Name Maiden Name
(if none, indicate)
Home Phone Business Phone Birthplace
Social Security No. Driver’s License No.

List any other name you have used or been known by
State of residence I have lived continuously in the U.S.A. since Are you currently a registered domestic partner? If yes, complete the following:

Domestic Partner: Date of Birth:

First Name Middle Name Last Name Maiden Name
(if none, indicate)
Home Phone Business Phone Birthplace
Social Security No. Driver’s License No.

List any other name you have used or been known by
State of residence I have lived continuously in the U.S.A. since

CHILDREN
Child Name: Date of Birth: Child Name: Date of Birth:

Child Name: Date of Birth: Child Name: Date of Birth:
(If more space is required, use reverse side of form)
RESIDENCES (LAST 10 YEARS)
Number & Street, City, State, Zip From (date) to (date) Number & Street, City, State, Zip From (date) to (date) (If more space is required, use reverse side of form)
OCCUPATIONS/BUSINESSES (LAST 10 YEARS)
Firm or Business name Address From (date) to (date)
Firm or Business name Address From (date) to (date)
(If more space is required, use reverse side of form)
551
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION (Continued)
ORDER NO: 10113711 TITLE NO.: 10113711-GLT-U33
SPOUSE’S/DOMESTIC PARTNER’S OCCUPATIONS/BUSINESSES (LAST 10 YEARS) Firm or Business name Address From (date) to (date)
Firm or Business name Address From (date) to (date)
(If more space is required, use reverse side of form)

PRIOR MARRIAGE(S)
Any prior marriages for either spouse? If yes, complete the following:

Prior spouse’s (Party A) name: Prior Spouse of Party A:

Marriage ended by: Death Divorce Date of Death/Divorce
Prior spouse’s (Party B) name: Prior Spouse of Party B: Spouse Marriage ended by: Death Divorce Date of Death/Divorce
(If more space is required, use reverse side of form)

PRIOR DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP(S)
Any prior domestic partnerships for either person? If yes, complete the following:

Prior partner’s name: Prior Partner:

Partnership ended by: Death Dissolution Nullification Termination Date of Death/Dissolution/etc.

Prior partner’s name: Prior Partner:

Partnership ended by: Death Dissolution Nullification Termination Date of Death/Dissolution/etc. (If more space is required, use reverse side of form)

INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY
Buyer intends to reside on the property in this transaction: Yes No Owner to complete the following items
Street Address of Property in this transaction: 0 Vacant land, Malibu, CA 90265 The land is unimproved ____; or improved with a structure of the following type: A Single or 1-4 Family ____ Condo Unit ____ Other ____ Improvements, remodeling or repairs to this property have been made within the past six months: Yes _____ No _____ If yes, have all costs for labor and materials arising in connection therewith been paid in full? Yes _____ No _____ Any current loans on property? If yes, complete the following:

Lender Loan Amount Loan Account #
Lender Loan Amount Loan Account #
******************************************************************************************************************** The undersigned declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on , at
Signature Signature
(Note: If applicable, both spouses/domestic partners must sign.)

THANK YOU
552
553
Timeline of Development on Appellants’
Properties Chronicling Unpermitted Grading &
Development Activities
554
Appellant Bryan
Adams Property Appellant Larry
Roth Property
Applicant’s
Property
Driveway/
Access Rd.
555
Adams Lot -12/2012
– No Development in
Back Yard
Roth Lot -12/2012 –
No Development in
Back Yard
556
Roth Lot -12/2012 – No
Development in Back Yard
557
12/2013
Recent Grading
Without Permits
Bocce Ball Court, Spa and Deck
Not Yet Present On Property
Dirt Spoils from Recent
Grading in the Area that
Roth is Accusing the
Applicant of Doing
558
Dirt Spoils from Recent Grading in the Area that Roth is Accusing the Applicant of Doing No Grading Permit Issued
12/2013
Flat Pad Created for new
Outdoor Seating Area
No Grading Permit Issued
559
12/2017
Prior Spoils Dumped by Roth in 2013
2013 Pad Graded
w/o Permits
Deck on Roth Property First Appears in
2017 Aerial Photo
(No Permits & Located on Slopes Steeper than 4:1) Per Roth’s own Survey (see last slide) 560
Roth Slope Map Showing Deck Constructed on Steep Slopes Without a Permit 561
8/2018
Pathway to Deck First Appears on Property (no grading permit) Construction of Adams Pool
Underway. Note Construction equipment & gravel on Driveway 562
Lot Purchased By the Applicant on January
14, 2019 –
Clearly Done After the Driveway Grading was Undertaken by Roth 563
4/2019
Landscaping, Spa, Grading, Retaining Walls, & Other Development Undertaken by Appellant Roth Without Permits – Unpermitted Deck
Unpermitted Grading/ Fill Slope
Unpermitted Spa
Unpermitted graded Pads
Unpermitted Bocce Ball Court
Unpermitted Landscaping Entire Rear Yard
564
Development Undertaken Without Permits By
Brian & Pam Adams (Appellants)
565
566
Adams Property – 29327 Heathercliff Rd.

Unpermitted 8’ tall freestanding wall in
the Side Yard Next to Pool Equipment (not
a 4’ retaining wall as was permitted)
567
29335 HEATHERCLIFF: PERMIT INVENTORY
April 25, 2025
California Coastal Commission (CCC)
 No records on file
Planning
 Jun. 3, 2016: Determination Letter issued for ARC 16-011 indicating concurrence with the findings of Archaeologist Robert Wlodarski where the study concluded that the project area yielded no archeological resources.
 May 20, 2019: PVD 19-007 issued for subject property oriented NW towards PCH and the Santa Monica Mountains.
 Mar. 18, 2024: Planning Commission approval of CDP 16-003 for a second-floor addition to and remodel of an existing single-family residence, onsite wastewater treatment system, swimming pool and spa; including SPR 16-003 for height in excess of 18 feet, up to 28 feet for a pitched roof
Building & Safety
 Ca. 1959 (illegible dates): LAC Sewer-Septic Permit for a septic tank, a seepage pit, and a house-sewer connection to the OWTS. Permit finaled on unspecified date (illegible.).

See Page 7 of the Comingled Permits.
 Mar. 6, 1969: LAC Building Permit for a new 1-story SFR. No area reported on permit.

Permit expired Nov. 10, 1959. See page 9 of the comingled permits.  Oct. 13, 1959: LAC Building Permit for a new 1,905 sq. Ft. SFR and attached garage.

Permit finaled Mar. 20, 1960. See Page 5 of the comingled permits.  Oct. 26, 1959: LAC Plumbing Permit for 2 water closets, a bath tub, a shower, 2 lavatories, a sink, a dishwasher, a clotheswasher, a water heater and a gas system. Permit finaled Mar. 30, 1960. See Page 6 of the comingled permits.  Nov. 5, 1959: LAC Plumbing Permit for a shower pan. Permit finaled Jan. 3, 1960. See

Page 2 ends

Malibu City CouncilMay 20, 2026

Malibu City Council
May 20, 2026