Malibu City Council
May 20, 2026

 Nov. 17, 1959: LAC Electric Permit for 53 outlets, 9 lighting fixtures, 3 appliances, 2 motors and a service under 601 V. Permit finaled Mar. 30, 1960. See page 8 of the comingled permits.
 Jun. 2, 1971: LAC Building Permit for a 692 sq. Ft. Addition to the SFR to serve as a playroom. Permit finaled May 4, 1972. See Pg. 3 of the comingled permits.  Nov. 17, 1971: LAC Electrical Permit for 8 outlets. Permits finaled May 4, 1972. See Pg. 4, of the comingled permits.
 Nov. 20, 2012: Building Permit 21-1887 for tear off of existing composition shingles and reroof with “6 AF timberline 30-year class A fiberglass composition shingle. Scope 568
encompassed 4,000 sq. Ft. Planning declared no review required. Permit finaled Dec. 5, 2012.
 May 6, 2015: Excavation Permit 15-0663 for excavation/drilling initiated by Mark barrett, GeoConcepts. No indication if permit was finaled or expired.  Jul. 29, 2019: Building Permit 19-1488 for voluntary foundation bolting for an ESFR. No Planning review on permit. Permit finaled Dec. 31, 2019.  Dec. 11, 2019: Building Permit 19-2470 for a roof-mounted photovoltaic system with 1 Tesla power wall battery backup. Tied to OC 19-316. Permit finaled Dec. 31, 2019.  Dec. 11, 2019: Electrical Permit 19-2471 for a roof-mounted photovoltaic system with 1 Tesla power wall battery backup. Permit finaled Dec. 31, 2019.  Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1815 for an Interior First Floor Remodel, Second Floor Addition, Exterior Alterations SFR/Att. Garage. Square footage reported on permit as 1,130 sq. Ft. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1816 for foundation underpinning for the proposed SFR/Garage. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Grading Permit 24-1817 for Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control with SUSMP Filtration System for Remodel/Addition of SFR/Att. Garage, New Pool/Spa.

Quantities reported included 0 CY Import, 345 CY Export, 1,502 CY Cut, and 1,157 CY Fill. Permit still open in April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Pool/Spa Permit 24-1818 for a New Pool and Spa/Jacuzzi 51' x 16' (friction piles). New Pool Equipment and BBQ area. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1819 for a New Pool with Jacuzzi Foundation - 8 Piles at 24" diameter. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1820 for 4 new site retaining walls with the following dimensions: Wall 1- 89 LF. 4.5' - 6' high max (planter); Wall 2- 30 LF at 6' high max; Wall 3- 34 LF at 6' high max and Wall 4- 23 LF at 6' high max. Tied to CDP 16-003.

Permit still open as of April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Electrical Permit 24-1821 for “Electrical- ESFR/Att. Garage Remodel/Add 1 - 200 amp mains service panel, 1-50 amp sub-panel. EV ready only, # 4 wire with a Nema 14-50 receptable, a 2 pole 50-amp breaker.” Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit open as of April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Mechanical Permit 24-1822 for “Mechanical- ESFR/Att. Garage Remodel/Addition.” Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open as of April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Plumbing Permit 24-1823 for “Plumbing- ESFR/Att. Garage Remodel/Addition.” Scope included a backflow prevention device, a “disposal,” a gas system with 5 outlets or less, a hose bib, 11 plumbing fixtures, a water heater, and a yard gas & yard water service, less than 301 feet. Permit still open as of April 2025. 569
 Feb. 11, 2025: Building Permit in Plan Check only for Delta 2 revisions for additional pads and continuous footings. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open as of April 2025.  Mar. 14, 2025: Electrical Permit 25-0395 for removal of existing Roof-mounted Photovoltaic Modules (system size 11.34 kW) where the existing Tesla energy storage system, with (1) back-up battery will remain installed. No planning review indicated.

Permit still open as of April 2025.
 Apr. 14, 2025: Building Permit in Plan Check Only for a Delta 3 revision for New floor framing, foundation underpinning for the SFR. Tied to CDP 16-003 and BP 24-1816.

Permit still open as of April 2025.

Environmental Health
 Sep. 21, 1959: LAC EH Approval of a septic tank and a seepage pit for a 3-bedroom SFR. See Page 1 of the Comingled Permits.
 Nov. 22, 1989: LAC EH Approval of a remodel of a 4-bedroom SFR with a new 1,500 gallon septic tank, 1 proposed seepage pit and 1 future seepage pit. The existing OWTS is to be abandoned in favor of the proposed seepage pit.
 Feb. 23, 2016: EH Approval of CDP 16-003 for a remodel of an SFR from 3-bedrooms, 27 fixture units to 4 bedrooms, 61 fixture units. New pool and spa included in approval.

OWTS Scope includes a 3,634 gallon septic tank, 2 active seepage pits and 2 future seepage pits.
 May 30, 2024: LAC EH Approval of CDP 16-003 for a 3-bedroom SFR with fixture unit increase from 27 to 57 fixture units. New pool and spa included in approval. OWTS Scope includes a 3,634 gallon septic tank, 2 active seepage pits and 2 future seepage pits. 570
Gravel Placed on Access Rd. By
Roth’s General Contractor
571
Gravel Dead Ends at
Entrance to Roth Back Yard
Heavy Machinery (Cat Tracks)
572
Roth’s Rear Yard Under
Construction
573
Roth’s General Contractor Truck
574
575
1 73325961v1
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
May 30, 2025
Attn: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Cc: Honorable Mayor Riggins and Councilmembers
Allison Cook, Contract Planner
Patrica Salazar, Planning Department
Development & Operations Mgr.

RE: Applicant’s (ACS International) response to the appeal from Brian Adams, 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. Brian Adams, 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 details the appellant’s arguments and the applicant’s responses.

I. Meetings & Coordination with the Appellant to Address his Concerns. The applicant has worked diligently with the appellant both prior to and after the project received approval from the Planning Commission. The applicant spent thousands of dollars negotiating and crafting an agreement settling this appeal and the lawsuit filed by the appellant. The applicant and the appellant reached agreement on this settlement; however, prior to signing the agreement the appellant balked.

The use of litigation tactics, requesting money from the applicant to settle disputes ($25,000), and the leveraging of the Planning/permit process, all demonstrate the appellant’s bad faith dealings and his attempt to weaponize the permit process to extract financial and other gain. We ask that the council not reward the appellant’s abuse of process and consider the credibility of his testimony in light thereof.

II. Summary of Appellant’s Arguments & the Applicant’s Responses: The appellant makes only two arguments in his appeal.
1 The project was also appealed by Neighbor Larry Roth whose arguments are nearly identical.

Exhibit J
576
Exhibit G
2 73325961v1
The first argument is that the applicant does not have legal access over the appellant’s property and therefore, the City may not even consider the application.

The Second argument is that the Minor Modification request should not have been approved. With respect to this second argument, the appellant asserts that a minor modification request cannot be approved unless approval of the minor modification request helps avoid or less an impact to a sensitive [coastal] resource. These arguments are invalid and have no merit.

Summary of the Applicants Responses: First, where a permit application proposes development on or across the property of another, the LCP, and the common law, require only that the applicant’ provide evidence that demonstrates, on its face, that it has the right to do so (See LIP 13.6.2). Providing the City with a copy of a recorded easement, a title report reflecting that easement and a survey also showing the easement, is ample evidence and is all that is needed to satisfy the requirements of the LCP. A more detailed response to this argument is provided under separate cover by the applicant’s attorney, Matt Hinks.

Second, the appellant’s contention that a minor mod may only be granted where necessary to avoid impacts to sensitive resources is an incorrect legal argument. The findings in LIP 13.27.5 do not mention sensitive resources (only LIP 3.6(F)(5) does and that section also does not ‘require’ that sensitive resources be involved to approve a minor mod request. Even assuming that the appellant is correct, and steep slopes on Point Dume are not ‘sensitive resources,’ this would only demonstrate that the project has one less development standard to meet (Buffer required in LIP 4.6.1). The appellant cites the wrong code section (LIP 3.6(F)(5) in support of his argument (this is the only section that mentions “Sensitive resources.” This section has to do only with “Mandatory” approval of a Minor Mod Request where impacts to Sensitive resources can be avoided. The appellant’s argument is based on false logic and is not supported by the code.

III. Appeal Arguments & Applicant Responses
The following correspondence states the appeal arguments made by the appellant, Adams, and provides the applicant’s detailed responses thereto:

Appeal Argument A (1-5): Mr. Adams objects to the City’s continued processing of the application because there is an ongoing legal dispute regarding the continuing validity of the applicant’s easement across the appellant’s property.

Applicant Response to Appellant Argument A: This is a purely legal argument and is addressed in greater detail under separate cover by the applicant’s attorney.

Appellant Argument B: Improper Findings for Minor Modification of Front Yard Setback Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument B: The appellant argues that the findings found in LIP sec.

13.27.5 (Minor Modifications] cannot be made; therefore, the project must be denied. This section reads as follows:
577
3 73325961v1
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.

3. The proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law. [bold and italic emphasis added]
The appellant does not challenge the adequacy of the second finding involving neighborhood character2; rather, the appellant only challenges findings 1 and 3 of the Planning Commission resolution of approval, which two findings require consistency with the City’s Local Coastal Program and other state and local law. Thus, the appellant’s core arguments against the granting of the minor modification are arguments that the project is not consistent with one or more of the development standards in the LCP. The appellant’s arguments and the applicant’s responses to those arguments regarding LCP consistency are discussed below.

Appellant’s Argument B.1. The Commission improperly characterized slopes steeper than 4: 1 as "sensitive resources" requiring protection under LIP § 3 .6(F)(5).

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument B.1.

LIP Section 3.6(F)(5) states as follows:

Non-Beachfront Yards/Setbacks. The following yard/setback requirements apply to all lots, except beachfront lots:

1. Front yard setbacks shall be at least 20% of the total depth of the lot, or 65 feet, whichever is less.

2. Side yard setbacks shall be cumulatively at least 25% of the total width of the lot but, in no event, shall a single side yard setback be less than 10% of the width of the lot or 5 feet, whichever is greater.

3. Rear yard setbacks shall be at least 15% of the lot depth or 15 feet whichever is greater.

4. For the purpose of calculating yards, slopes equal to or greater than 1:1 shall not be included in the lot dimensions.

5. Modifications to required yards/setbacks standards shall be permitted where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources.

Subsection (F)(5) above is not a “required” finding to approve a minor modification request; rather, it states that if sensitive resources are impacted and could otherwise be minimized or avoided by reducing a yard setback(s), then the City shall approve the minor modification request. This section mandates the approval of a minor modification request where sensitive resources are involved. The appellant argues that ‘because’ the staff allegedly mischaracterizes steep slopes on Point Dume as a sensitive resource, then the City must deny the Minor Mod request, which is incorrect and false logic. 2 17.04.020 of the City’s Municipal Code precludes the Council’s consideration of arguments not raised by the appellant; however, the applicant, in addition to the evidence already in the administrative record, addresses the second required finding related to neighborhood character, in its response herein. 578
4 73325961v1
Even if the slopes were mischaracterized in the resolution of approval as a “sensitive resource,” that would only mean that the Minor Mod request ‘may’ be approved instead of requiring approval. There is no requirement that sensitive resource areas must be present to approve a minor modification request (the appellant’s position); rather, if the granting of the minor modification would minimize or avoid impacts to sensitive resources, then the Minor Mod ‘Shall’ be approved.

Notwithstanding the appellant’s arguments, the applicant maintains that the slopes adjacent to PCH are subject to the protections of 3.6(F)(5) as a sensitive resource because scenic highways are protected as sensitive resources.

Staff have long characterized steep slopes on Point Dume as “Sensitive Resources.” The term ‘Sensitive Resource’ is not defined in the LCP; however, it is not to be confused with the term “Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.” The appellant conflates the two terms, and they are not the same3. The term “sensitive resource” refers to many different types of coastal resources, including ESHA, sensitive visual resources, recreational resources, cultural and archeological resources, areas where coastal access could be impacted, etc. (See EXHIBIT A Coastal Act. Section 30116 which provides the definition of “Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas.”) While the LCP may be silent on the definition of “Sensitive Resources,” the Coastal Act includes “Highly Scenic Areas” in the definition of “Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas.” The Coastal Act considers a protected Scenic Highway and its adjacent environs, including steep slopes adjacent to the highway, to be a “Sensitive Resource,” meriting protection under the Coastal Act and LIP 3.6(F)(5). Hence, the characterization of the hillside and steep slopes adjacent to PCH as a “sensitive resource area” is supported by the code.

The Planning Commission found that the house was being sited in the flattest portion of the site which also happens to be the pad location farthest from PCH, a sensitive visual resource. Properly applying LIP Section 3.6(F)(5) to the set of facts here, approval of the house in its proposed location is most protective of visual (sensitive) resources, and on that basis alone, should be approved, as is required per LIP 3.6(F)(5).

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 visually sensitive resource areas (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, a designated scenic highway in the LCP. Locating the residence as far from PCH as possible ensures that the house will be the least visible. In fact, staff findings indicate that were the house to be moved closer to PCH, that there might be adverse visual impacts to PCH; though such impacts will not occur if the house is sited where proposed by the applicant. The granting of the minor modification will allow for the avoidance of adverse scenic impacts; therefore, LIP 3.6(F)(5) and LIP

6.5(A)(4) warrant the approval of the minor modification request. Whether or not the slopes are 3 While a “stream” or ESHA is a “Sensitive Resource,” not all Sensitive Resources are ESHAs. 579
5 73325961v1
characterized as a sensitive resource under 4.6.1 is irrelevant, as those slopes meet the definition of a sensitive resource under 30116 of the Coastal Act and LIP 3.6(F)(5), thus warranting approval of the minor modification request.

Neighborhood Character: Lastly, 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 only 22’6”, yet they argue that the applicant’s proposed front yard setback must be almost 3 times greater than theirs at 59.4’. The house is proposed in the ideal location, a location which is the least visible from a scenic road, and which is consistent with the average setback in the existing neighborhood and is therefore consistent with the neighborhood character (Finding No. 2).

Perhaps most importantly, the house will not be visible from Heathercliff road and therefore will not have any impact on neighborhood character. Additionally, there are other adjacent homes that are located on flag lots and are situated behind homes with frontage on Heathercliff. The applicant’s proposed home is consistent with these homes.

In sum, the code requires that the house be located where it is proposed, it is consistent with the neighborhood character and all other LCP provisions and development standards, and the minor mod findings can and should be made.

Appellant’s Argument B.2. Neither the LIP nor the LUP defines steep slopes as "sensitive resources" in the absence of ESHA or other protected habitat.

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument B.2. See the Applicant’s response above in B.1. The Coastal Act considers all highly scenic resources to be protected, including slopes and areas adjacent to the scenic resource as is the case here. The Coastal Act is clear that the protections of 3.6(F)(5) apply to various types of Sensitive Coastal Resource Areas, including visual resource areas.

Appellant’s Argument B.3. The Commission misapplied LUP Policy 3.35 and LIP§ 4.6.l(A), which only apply to stream habitat protection. Resolution No. 25-03 itself acknowledges that "no streams or riparian habitats are located on or adjacent to the site" (p. 9), making these provisions entirely inapplicable.

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument B.3. The City has historically considered slopes steeper than 4:1 on Point Dume not to be “ESHA,” but nonetheless a sensitive resource that is required to be protected on Point Dume. The appellant argues that the 4:1 slope prohibition does not apply because LIP 4.6.1 only applies to projects near streams. The Planning Commission disagreed. That said, whether the appellant’s argument is correct or not is ultimately of no relevance or consequence.

If we assume that the appellant’s argument is correct, and that LIP 4.6.1 does not apply, the project would still be consistent with the LCP. The staff report and resolution make findings that the project is consistent with all development standards in the LCP. The appellant’s argument that the inapplicability of one development standard to the project somehow makes the project inconsistent with the LCP, is spurious. This argument utilizes blatantly false logic. The appellant, in arguing the inapplicability of LIP

4.6.1 only helps support the Planning Commission’s findings of project consistency with code. I.e., if a development standard is not applicable to a project, then it follows that project need not comply with 580
6 73325961v1
that standard. In advancing this argument, the appellant only undermines his own arguments and demonstrates LCP consistency.

What is most important here is to recognize that the Planning Commission appropriately made the first finding required by 13.27.5 (Minor Mod Finding that a project must be consistent with the LCP). This finding was premised upon the project being completely consistent with all provisions in the City’s LCP.

The Commission’s findings on page 2 of Commission Resolution 25-03, recite the project’s consistency with the visual resource policies and explain how locating the house in the flattest area, furthest from PCH, is consistent with the LCP. The resolution goes on to make the remaining required findings on pages 2-5 of the resolution. The presence or absence of ‘sensitive resources’ is only relevant to the question of whether the City ‘may’ or ‘must’ approve the minor modification request.

Appellant’s Argument B.4. Without proper justification, the Planning Commission cannot legally make the findings for the Minor Modification under LIP§ 13.27.5(B), particularly that the project is consistent with the LCP.

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument B.4. This argument is effectively an introduction to the appellant’s arguments in Section C of its appeal. As discussed above, the project is consistent with the LCP development standards and provisions and these findings have been made (see pages 2-5 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-003.) Also, the appellant notes that approval of the Minor Mod request must have “proper justification.’ It should be noted that the findings required for approval, while involving some level of discretion, do not require any justification to approve the request. See the discussion below of the appellant’s LCP consistency arguments and the applicant’s responses.

Apellant’s arguments C.1. – C.3. The Planning Commission's findings required under the LCP are legally and factually erroneous, particularly:

Section 3.A.1 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that "the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP," but this finding is legally flawed given the unresolved property rights dispute and the mischaracterization of slopes as "sensitive resources."

2. Section 3.B.1 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that "the reduced front yard setback will avoid development on slopes 4 to 1 and steeper, considered sensitive resources," but this finding lacks any legal or factual basis since steep slopes in isolation do not constitute "sensitive resources" under the LCP.

3. Section 3.B.3 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that "the project will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law," but this finding is legally improper in light of the unresolved property dispute currently in litigation.

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument C.1- C.3. The property rights dispute will be addressed in detail by the applicant’s legal counsel. This argument has no merit as discussed above. The argument regarding sensitive resources was addressed by the applicant in its response to the appellant’s argument B.3. above.
581
7 73325961v1
Apellant’s arguments C.4. Section 3.A.2 of Resolution No. 25-03 finds that the project "has been determined to be the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative," but this finding lacks substantial evidence given the project's reliance on an improper setback reduction and encroachment onto disputed property.

Applicant’s Response to Appellant’s Argument C.4. The LCP requirement that the project be the least environmentally damaging alternative has nothing to do with any legal dispute over access. Legal access is not an “environmental concern” regulated by the Coastal Act or CEQA for that matter. A thorough alternatives analysis was completed by the applicant and submitted to the City. This analysis was considered as evidence by staff and the Commission during its review and deliberations. Notably absent from the appellant’s arguments is any example of what he might consider to be a superior environmental alternative.

With respect to the minor mod findings argument, the resolution is supported by substantial evidence that the project has been designed in the best location on the property, a location that is located farthest from the scenic highway (PCH), which requires the least amount of grading and clearance of native vegetation, which maximizes open space and limits site disturbance, and which has been limited in height with design features to maximize public and private view protection. The resolution provides ample factual support for its finding that the project has been sited and designed to be the least environmentally damaging alternative.

In conclusion, the appellant’s arguments are without merit. The applicant has listened carefully to Mr.

Adams’ concerns. He has modified his house and access road design to accommodate Mr. Adams and several of his neighbors. He has limited the house to 18’ in height and clustered his development to a small development area. He has done all that he can within reason to accommodate the appellant and address his concerns. He has been in regular [Good faith] communication with the appellant and his legal counsel to resolve the appeal, notwithstanding that the appeal is without merit.

The applicant requests that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission, approving the residence.

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
582
8 73325961v1
583
1 73326080v1
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
May 31, 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 it to construct its 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 easement 1 The project was also appealed by Neighbor Brian Adams whose arguments are nearly identical. 584
2 73326080v1
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 are not even consistent with the arguments made by Legal Counsel for the Neighbor/other appellant, Bryan Adams, whose arguments are baseless 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 document or documents that substantiate on their face that the property right (easement here) exists. This evidence is usually required by the City in the form of one or more of the following: A title report, a survey prepared by a licensed surveyor reflecting the easement in Scheule A of that report, or by providing a copy of the executed easement document, if requested. Here the applicant has provided all these documents to the satisfaction of city staff. The Code does not require that the Applicant litigate any access or legal dispute before the City can process and approve a permit. In fact, such a requirement would be unlawful. The City Attorney confirmed this during the Planning Commission hearing, acknowledging that the applicant had shown proof of his easement rights across both the Adams and Roth properties, that the applicant had provided sufficient documentation to meet the application requirements of LIP 13.6.2, and that the proper remedy for any dispute regarding the validity of a portion of the easement is property left to the courts.

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). There was an attempt to place a processing hold on that project until the applicant litigated and proved conclusively that he had access rights, but the hold was immediately rejected given the City Attorney’s advice that Planning must accept at face value the easement rights referenced in the applicant’s survey and title report. The City Planning Department 585
3 73326080v1
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:

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 Mr. Hinks observes in his letter, Adams admits the existence of the easement and does not dispute that the easement on its face gives the applicant the right to use the easement for ingress and egress purposes. Further, as noted above, the LCP does not require an applicant to disprove in court a project objector’s speculative legal theories, 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. As Mr.

Hinks explains, 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).
586
4 73326080v1
Figure 1: The Applicant’s First Fire Department Approval (2020) Figure 2: The Applicant’s Second and Final Fire Department Approval (12/2024) 587
5 73326080v1
Figure 3: The Fire Department Referral Sheet Noting Approval (12/2024) 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 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.
588
6 73326080v1
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 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 who 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 condition of the access road, 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 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 3 The appellant references a letter submitted to the City from the NPS. This letter alleges the presence of ESHA on the property. The NPS letter was based upon a site visit to the applicant’s property where the NPS trespassed on the applicant’s property to conduct field review. The applicant requests that the letter not be considered by the Council and not be included in the administrative record as it was a result of the illegal activity by the NPS.
589
7 73326080v1
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 falsely 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 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). 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. 590
8 73326080v1
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.

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.
591
9 73326080v1
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) The staff report presented at the Planning Commission hearing made these findings and provided substantial evidence in support thereof. The appellant emphasizes 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 592
10 73326080v1
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 repeats 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.
593
11 73326080v1
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.

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
594

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
73305148v1
May 31, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Hon. Marianne Riggins, Mayor
Hon. Bruce Silverstein, Mayor Pro Tem
Hon. Haylynn Conrad, Councilmember
Hon. Doug Stewart, Councilmember
Hon. Steve Uhring, Councilmember
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
[email protected]
Re: Appeal filed by Brian Adams, dated March 25, 2025, Case Nos. CDP No. 20-003 and Minor Modification (MM) No. 20-001
Address: 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265 (APN: 4468-011-011) Applicant: ACS International, LLC
Dear Mayor Riggins, Mayor Pro Tem Silverstein, and Councilmembers Conrad, Stewart, and Uhring:

We are legal counsel for ACS International, LLC (“ACS” or the “Applicant”) the owner of the property located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, and the applicant for the above-described entitlements. The Planning Commission approved the project on March 17, 2025. The Planning Commission’s action was appealed by two neighbors—Brian Adams and Larry Roth. This letter is sent to address Mr. Adams’ and Mr. Roth’s contentions about ACS’s easement rights and the project’s fire access plans. As shown below, Mr. Adams’ and Mr. Roth’s arguments are unfounded and legally baseless. Their claims, which are centered around the project’s lawful use of long-established easements, are not only meritless but, worse, represent a misuse of the City’s appeals process to obstruct lawful development in bad faith and extract private gain.
595
Hom. Marianne Riggins, Mayor
May 31, 2025

73305148v1
Background
The Applicant’s property is benefitted by two separate written and recorded easements originally recorded in 1959 burdening Mr. Adams’ and Mr. Roth’s property for “ingress, egress, and utility purposes.” ACS’s development plans call for the use of only very small portions of the original easement area.

Roth originally objected to ACS’s development plans and the use of the easement over his property. He sued ACS in Superior Court alleging that ACS’s easements had been “adversely possessed, extinguished, or otherwise abandoned.” To resolve that case, Roth and ACS entered into a settlement agreement on August 30, 2022. ACS agreed to modify and substantially reduce the easement area burdening Roth’s property. ACS also paid Roth $20,000.

In return, Roth dismissed his lawsuit with prejudice and submitted a letter to the City stating that “the objection we previously made to [ACS’s] Application for the proposed single family residence Application # CDP 20-003 located at 29329 Heathercliff Rd. Malibu, CA is hereby withdrawn.” Roth also acknowledged in the settlement agreement that easements burdening the Adams property “remain in full force and effect.”
In the case of Mr. Adams’ property, the Project would make use of a small corner —around 27 sq. ft.—of a much larger easement for driveway purposes. It will not touch Mr.

Adams’ pool or pool equipment as he and his lawyers have falsely contended in the past. The small corner of property is located within ACS’s ingress and egress easement area as its easements specially allow. Documents proving the existence of the easements and the rest of these facts are before you in the record.

I am attaching to this letter an exhibit depicting the boundaries of the easements (as modified by the Roth settlement agreement) and the proposed access road with fire department turnaround.

ACS’s development application was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission on February 18, 2025. On that same day, Adams, like Roth had done years before, filed a lawsuit alleging that the easements had been “adversely possessed” and are therefore “extinguished.”
Prior to the item being heard by the Planning Commission on February 18, at the request of ACS, the item was continued to allow ACS to work with counsel for Adams, to resolve his opposition to the project. In the following weeks, ACS provided Adams’ lawyers with documents showing the project would use only a tiny portion of the large easement and would entirely avoid any impact on Adams’ pool and pool equipment (even though the pool and pool equipment were built within the easement area in violation of the Applicant’s rights). On Friday, March 14, 2025, ACS and Adams agreed to all terms of a written settlement agreement. 596
Hom. Marianne Riggins, Mayor
May 31, 2025

73305148v1
Among other things, ACS agreed to Adams’ monetary demand that he be paid $25,0001 and agreed to make only limited use of the easement area, and Adams agreed to dismiss his lawsuit and not oppose the project. Sadly, within minutes of the parties making final changes to the written settlement agreement, Mr. Adams backed out and refused to sign the deal.

To say the least, we were stunned and disappointed.

Nevertheless, as we relayed to the Planning Commission, despite ACS’s frustration, ACS is still willing to live up to its end of the bargain in that: (1) ACS is limiting the project to using only the small, approximately 27 square-foot easement area described on the project plans; (2) ACS is agreeing to move and replace the chain link fence on the Adams property at no cost to him using as good or better materials than what exists currently; (3) the project will avoid any impact to Adams’ pool and pool equipment; and (4) ACS is agreeing to repair or relocate Adams’ pool equipment at no cost to him in the unlikely and unexpected event that it becomes necessary.

Adams’ complaint over the project’s use of the easement area is baseless.

Adams argues in his appeal that the Project “improperly includes development on disputed property.” In particular, Adams complains that a portion of the fire department turnaround makes use of a portion of his property for which he has not given his consent.

Adams’ complaint is without merit.

Notably, Mr. Adams does not deny the existence of the easements. He does not deny that the easements permit ACS to use the easement area for ingress and egress purposes.

Nor does he deny that the project proposes to use only a very small portion of the easement area for ingress and egress—just as the easements permit. Adams also does not make any of those contentions in the lawsuit he regrettably filed. Instead, he argues in his lawsuit that the Court should enter a judgment declaring a portion of the easement to be extinguished under a doctrine known as adverse possession.

Mr. Adams’ lawsuit is totally baseless for many reasons. “Extinguishment of an easement is an extreme and powerful remedy which is utilized only when use of the easement has been rendered essentially impossible.” Reichardt v. Hoffman, 52 Cal. App. 4th 754, 767 (1997) (emphasis in original). An easement is extinguished “only where the easement owner performs or authorizes an act which permanently prevents use of the easement.” Id. (emphasis in original). ACS performed or authorized no act and there is nothing that permanently prevents ACS from using the easements. All that Adams argues is that he erected a fence around a portion of the easement area that ACS has not used in the past. Not only is the fence easily moveable and 1 Both Roth’s and Adams’ monetary demands are out and out extortion. Neither has nor had any claim to money damages against ACS. ACS only agreed to the demands to avoid their baseless lawsuits.
597
Hom. Marianne Riggins, Mayor
May 31, 2025

73305148v1
does not permanently preclude use of the easements, an easement created by a recorded deed 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. 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 and there are no grounds to claim the easements do not exist or have terminated.

Mr. Adams’ lawsuit is just theater being made for the purposes of these administrative proceedings to generate opposition and give himself a basis to oppose the project and extract improper benefits. It is no coincidence that he filed it on the same day the project was originally scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission.2 And all his lawsuit does is make
unproven contentions. As matters stand, my client owns easements for ingress and egress over Mr. Adams’ property and is entitled to make use of them consistent with their terms.

Further, there is no basis for Mr. Adams to contend that he has not “consented” to the use of his property. In fact, Mr. Adams “consented” to the use when he purchased his property subject to the easements.

No further “consent” 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.

Indeed, instead of objecting to the current project, he should be celebrating it since it makes use of only a very small portion of a much larger easement and my client is not requiring the removal of improvements Mr. Adams unlawfully erected in the easement area.

In addition, LIP § 13-6-2 is very clear. It states:
2 If Adams genuinely believed he had a real claim, there was nothing stopping him from joining in the lawsuit filed by Roth in 2021. Instead, he waited four years and filed it on the day of the Planning Commission hearing and now tries to leverage its filing years later to argue for a delay in these proceedings. This calculated timing underscores that Mr. Adams is not pursuing a legitimate legal claim, but rather engaging in tactical gamesmanship to delay the project in bad faith.
598
Hom. Marianne Riggins, Mayor
May 31, 2025

73305148v1
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.

ACS 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 the City Council. In these circumstances, the City “shall not require” anything more of Mr. Adams.

In his appeal, Adams cites two cases—Cave Landing, LLC v. California Coastal Comm’n, 94 Cal. App. 5th 654 (2023) and JCCrandall, LLC v. County of Santa Barbara, 328 Cal. Rptr. 828 (2025)3
—to argue that the City cannot as part of its consideration of the Applicant’s project ignore “third party legal claims,” by which he means the unfounded and unproven allegation he makes in his lawsuit that a portion of the easement over his property has terminated.

But neither case supports anything Adams is saying because, in both, the easements at issue prohibited the project being applied for and here, the easements permit the project. The holdings of both cases indicated that it was proper for the agencies to consider the easements and apply them according to their terms. Both Cave Landing and JCCrandall thus support ACS’s position, not Adams’. The easements in question here benefitting ACS’s property and burdening Adams’ property on their face permit ACS to use Adams’ property for ingress and egress purposes and are thus fully consistent with the project.

Further, California law does not permit this Council to deny a coastal development permit based on its speculation over the potential resolution of third party legal claims. LT-WR, L.L.C. v. California Coastal Com., 152 Cal. App. 4th 770, 806 (2007). In LTWR, the Coastal Commission had denied a coastal development permit (“CDP”) for gates and no trespassing signs given potential third-party easement claims. The Court of Appeal held that the Commission overstepped its bounds ruling that a permitting body is “not vested with the authority” to adjudicate easement disputes as part of its consideration of a CDP application.

In short, Cave Landing and JCCrandall instructs the City Council to implement the express terms of existing easements, while LT-WR prohibits the Council from rejecting entitlement applications based on speculation over how a court may ultimately rule regarding the validity of those easements. Adams’ contentions to the contrary are meritless. 3 The JCCrandall case is not even published and therefore is not precedent. See California Rule of Court 8.1115(a) (“an opinion of a California Court of Appeal or superior court appellate division that is not certified for publication or ordered published must not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action”).
599
Hom. Marianne Riggins, Mayor
May 31, 2025

73305148v1
Roth’s contentions over the project’s use of the easement area are also baseless.

Roth is prohibited by his settlement agreement with ACS from opposing the project based on its use of the portion of the easements burdening his property. So, in the ultimate show of bad faith, after cashing ACS’s $20,000 check and withdrawing his objections to the project, he now opposes it based on its use of the portion of the easements burdening Adams’ property.

His arguments fare no better than Adams.’
Roth appears to first contend that Adams has a prescriptive or irrevocable easement over his own property. Besides that being a legal impossibility (one cannot possess an easement over land he owns fee title to), Adams does not even make that claim. To the extent Roth is trying to argue that ACS’s easements have terminated due to adverse possession, as noted above, that is just an unproven contention and gives the City no basis to reject the project.

LT-WR, L.L.C, 152 Cal. App. 4th at 806. Currently, the easements exist, they are enforceable, they are in the record, and they give ACS the right to develop the project. Thus, Roth’s contention that ACS “has [no] rights to use” the area in question is demonstrably untrue.

Roth also contends incorrectly that ACS cannot demonstrate a right to use the easement area because the City previously issued Adams a building permit for a pool. That Adams applied for and received a building permit in the past is entirely irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether ACS has the right to use the small portion of Adams’ property within the easement area, especially considering that the proposed fire department turnaround would not even come close to Adams’ pool.

Lastly, Roth wrongly contends that there is precedent for the City requiring the resolution of a “court action to clear title” before a project can proceed. The City Attorney at the Planning Commission hearing entirely debunked that claim. In any event, there is no need to “clear title.” The easements give ACS the right make use of the subject area for ingress and egress purposes, and unless and until Adams obtains a court order or judgment otherwise, there is no basis for the City to do anything other than recognize their existence and enforceability.

Conclusion
In sum, the appellants’ objections to the project are not grounded in law or fact— they are strategic, meritless attempts to obstruct a lawful and thoughtfully designed project that minimizes the use of a much larger easement area and impacts to their property. Their objections based on the easements are not good-faith legal disputes, but manufactured controversies intended to delay development and extract further concessions. 600
Hom. Marianne Riggins, Mayor
May 31, 2025

73305148v1
To give credence to these baseless appeals would not only disregard ACS’s easement rights and applicable law, but would also set a troubling precedent: one in which speculative or bad-faith legal threats and lawsuits are rewarded with delay or leverage. That outcome would incentivize litigiousness, embolden obstructionism, and ultimately deter property owners from seeking fair and lawful entitlements. The City Council should not allow this tactic to succeed.

Very truly yours,
MATTHEW D. HINKS of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
Attachment
MDH:mdh
ma
601
Applicant Response to Adams Appeal - EXHIBIT A
30116. “Sensitive coastal resource areas” means those identifiable and geographically bounded land and water areas within the coastal zone of vital interest and sensitivity. “Sensitive coastal resource areas” include the following:
(a) Special marine and land habitat areas, wetlands, lagoons, and estuaries as mapped and designated in Part 4 of the coastal plan.
(b) Areas possessing significant recreational value.
(c) Highly scenic areas.
(d) Archaeological sites referenced in the California Coastline and Recreation Plan or as designated by the State Historic Preservation Officer. (e) Special communities or neighborhoods which are significant visitor destination areas.
(f) Areas that provide existing coastal housing or recreational opportunities for lowand moderate-income persons. (g) Areas where divisions of land could substantially impair or restrict coastal access.
(Added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1330.)
602
603
604
605
CLTA Preliminary Report Form – Modified (11/17/06) Page 1 516 Burchett St.

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
606
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.
607
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 608

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
609

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. 610

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. 611

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.
612

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
613

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. 614

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
615
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
616
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 617
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:

Pacific Coast Title Company
1111 East Katella Avenue, #120
Orange, CA 92620
Attn.: Executive Vice President
[email protected]
Copyright © 2015. Pacific Coast Title Company All Rights Reserved.

EFFECTIVE AS OF: MAY 1, 2015
618

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. 619
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.
620

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)
621

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.

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.
622

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)

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 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.

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
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:

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 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.
623

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 624

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)
625
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
626
627
Timeline of Development on Appellants’
Properties Chronicling Unpermitted Grading &
Development Activities
628
Apellant Bryan
Adams Property Apellant Larry
Roth Property
629
Adams Lot -12/2012 –
No Development in
Back Yard Roth Lot -12/2012 –
No Development in
Back Yard
Development History
on Roth & Adams Lots
630
Roth Lot -12/2012 –
No Development in
Back Yard
631
12/2013
Grading Without
Permits
Dirt Spoils from Recent
Grading in the Area that
Roth is Accusing the
Applicant of Doing
Bocce Ball Court, Spa and Deck
Not Yet Present On Property
632
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
633
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 Next Slide) 634
Unpermitted Deck on
Slopes Steeper than 4:1 –
Constructed in the
Applicant’s easement
without permission
before the easement area
was revised
635
8/2018
Pathway to Deck First Appears on Property (no grading permit) Construction of Adams Pool
Underway. Note Construction equipment & gravel on Driveway 636
Lot Purchased By the Applicant on January 14,
2019 –
Clearly After the Driveway Grading was Undertaken by Roth & Possibly Adams 637
4/2019
Landscaping, Spa, Grading, Retaining Walls, & Other Development Undertaken by Appellant Roth Without Permits – Unpermitted Deck
Unpermitted Grading/ Fill
Slope - uncompacted &
subject to erosion
Unpermitted Spa
Unpermitted graded Pads
Unpermitted Bocce Ball Court
Unpermitted Landscaping Entire Rear Yard
638
Development Undertaken Without Permits By
Brian & Pam Adams
639
640
Adams Property – 29327 Heathercliff Rd.

Unpermitted 8’ tall freestanding wall in
the Side Yard Next to Pool Equipment (note
a 4’ retaining wall was permitted – not an 8’
wall)
641
642
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

 Nov. 17, 1959: LAC Electric Permit for 53 outlets, 9 lighting fixtures, 3 appliances, 2 motors and a service under 601 V. Permit finaled Mar. 30, 1960. See page 8 of the comingled permits.
 Jun. 2, 1971: LAC Building Permit for a 692 sq. Ft. Addition to the SFR to serve as a playroom. Permit finaled May 4, 1972. See Pg. 3 of the comingled permits.  Nov. 17, 1971: LAC Electrical Permit for 8 outlets. Permits finaled May 4, 1972. See Pg. 4, of the comingled permits.
 Nov. 20, 2012: Building Permit 21-1887 for tear off of existing composition shingles and reroof with “6 AF timberline 30-year class A fiberglass composition shingle. Scope 643
encompassed 4,000 sq. Ft. Planning declared no review required. Permit finaled Dec. 5, 2012.
 May 6, 2015: Excavation Permit 15-0663 for excavation/drilling initiated by Mark barrett, GeoConcepts. No indication if permit was finaled or expired.  Jul. 29, 2019: Building Permit 19-1488 for voluntary foundation bolting for an ESFR. No Planning review on permit. Permit finaled Dec. 31, 2019.  Dec. 11, 2019: Building Permit 19-2470 for a roof-mounted photovoltaic system with 1 Tesla power wall battery backup. Tied to OC 19-316. Permit finaled Dec. 31, 2019.  Dec. 11, 2019: Electrical Permit 19-2471 for a roof-mounted photovoltaic system with 1 Tesla power wall battery backup. Permit finaled Dec. 31, 2019.  Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1815 for an Interior First Floor Remodel, Second Floor Addition, Exterior Alterations SFR/Att. Garage. Square footage reported on permit as 1,130 sq. Ft. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1816 for foundation underpinning for the proposed SFR/Garage. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Grading Permit 24-1817 for Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control with SUSMP Filtration System for Remodel/Addition of SFR/Att. Garage, New Pool/Spa.

Quantities reported included 0 CY Import, 345 CY Export, 1,502 CY Cut, and 1,157 CY Fill. Permit still open in April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Pool/Spa Permit 24-1818 for a New Pool and Spa/Jacuzzi 51' x 16' (friction piles). New Pool Equipment and BBQ area. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1819 for a New Pool with Jacuzzi Foundation - 8 Piles at 24" diameter. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open in April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Building Permit 24-1820 for 4 new site retaining walls with the following dimensions: Wall 1- 89 LF. 4.5' - 6' high max (planter); Wall 2- 30 LF at 6' high max; Wall 3- 34 LF at 6' high max and Wall 4- 23 LF at 6' high max. Tied to CDP 16-003.

Permit still open as of April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Electrical Permit 24-1821 for “Electrical- ESFR/Att. Garage Remodel/Add 1 - 200 amp mains service panel, 1-50 amp sub-panel. EV ready only, # 4 wire with a Nema 14-50 receptable, a 2 pole 50-amp breaker.” Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit open as of April 2025.
 Oct. 2, 2024: Mechanical Permit 24-1822 for “Mechanical- ESFR/Att. Garage Remodel/Addition.” Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open as of April 2025.  Oct. 2, 2024: Plumbing Permit 24-1823 for “Plumbing- ESFR/Att. Garage Remodel/Addition.” Scope included a backflow prevention device, a “disposal,” a gas system with 5 outlets or less, a hose bib, 11 plumbing fixtures, a water heater, and a yard gas & yard water service, less than 301 feet. Permit still open as of April 2025. 644
 Feb. 11, 2025: Building Permit in Plan Check only for Delta 2 revisions for additional pads and continuous footings. Tied to CDP 16-003. Permit still open as of April 2025.  Mar. 14, 2025: Electrical Permit 25-0395 for removal of existing Roof-mounted Photovoltaic Modules (system size 11.34 kW) where the existing Tesla energy storage system, with (1) back-up battery will remain installed. No planning review indicated.

Permit still open as of April 2025.
 Apr. 14, 2025: Building Permit in Plan Check Only for a Delta 3 revision for New floor framing, foundation underpinning for the SFR. Tied to CDP 16-003 and BP 24-1816.

Permit still open as of April 2025.

Environmental Health
 Sep. 21, 1959: LAC EH Approval of a septic tank and a seepage pit for a 3-bedroom SFR. See Page 1 of the Comingled Permits.
 Nov. 22, 1989: LAC EH Approval of a remodel of a 4-bedroom SFR with a new 1,500 gallon septic tank, 1 proposed seepage pit and 1 future seepage pit. The existing OWTS is to be abandoned in favor of the proposed seepage pit.
 Feb. 23, 2016: EH Approval of CDP 16-003 for a remodel of an SFR from 3-bedrooms, 27 fixture units to 4 bedrooms, 61 fixture units. New pool and spa included in approval.

OWTS Scope includes a 3,634 gallon septic tank, 2 active seepage pits and 2 future seepage pits.
 May 30, 2024: LAC EH Approval of CDP 16-003 for a 3-bedroom SFR with fixture unit increase from 27 to 57 fixture units. New pool and spa included in approval. OWTS Scope includes a 3,634 gallon septic tank, 2 active seepage pits and 2 future seepage pits. 645
Gravel Placed on Access Rd. By
Roth’s General Contractor
646
Gravel Dead Ends at
Entrance to Roth Back Yard
Heavy Machinery (Cat Tracks)
647
Roth’s Rear Yard Under
Construction
648
Roth’s General Contractor Truck
649
650
APN 4468-011-011
APN 4468-011-009
APN 4468-011-012
APN 4468-011-010
APN 4468-011-013
APN 4468-011-009 APN 4468-011-012
3' RET.
191.00 F.F.
180.00 F.F. 189.80 T.G. 193.50 TW C
178.50 FS 194.50 TW 199.50 TW 10.3% 8.4% 2.1% 3.1% 200.55 TW 6' RET. 194.00 TW 3' RET. EX. 10' GATE EX. 10' GATE 7.6% 15.5' 15' C ±1.5 RET. 0' RET. 195.00 TW 199.50 TW F C 178.50 TW 0' RET. 192.50 TW 2.5' RET. 4.5' RET. A/C-3 A/C-3 194.00 TW 5.5' RET. 199.30 TP 5' RET. 200.00 TP 200.50 TW 5' RET.

DRAIN PIPE
179.80 FS 178.50 TW 1' RET. 185.50 TW 5' RET. 6' RET.
190.00 F.F.
106' TO FIRE HYDRANT 15.5' F.H. B.V.C. E.V.C.20% 2% 0.4% 2% 2% 1' RET. 190.00 F.F. 191.50 FS 193.00 FS F C
180.50 185 180
190 175 4' RET. 4%
2' RET. 189.75 FS 194.20 TW 3' RET. 189.75 TW 3.0' RET. 185 180 179.50 FS

1.5' RET. 179.80 FS 190.00 TW 6' RET. 4.5' RET. 2.5% 186.00 180.00 FS180.50 TW 189.90 0' RET. 179.33 179.80 FS 6' RET. DRAIN PIPE 200.15 TP 2% 199.00 TW 5' RET. B.V.C. E.V.C. R=50' R=65' F 5' RET. ROCK RIP-RAP OUTLET OVERFLOW PIPE PERMAVOID EVAPO-TRANSPIRATION PLANTER 4' RET. 1' RET. PARCEL 3, APPURTENANT INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENT PARCEL 3, APPURTENANT INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENT PARCEL 4, APPURTENANT INGRESS-EGRESS EASEMENT 212 214 216 218 219 200 190 192 194 198 196 2' RET. 202 204 206 2102089% 16.4% 2%
201 14' 198.66 TW 4' RET. 198.66 FS 194.20 FS 197.40 FS 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 10/17/2024
PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 2 2 SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: SIGNEDREGI E D PROFES I MO SAHEBI NO. 33508 CIVIL S RE T ONAL ENGINEER CALIFORN S IA TAT E OF10/17/2024 NOTICE TO CONTRACTOR: 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. D. 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. CHAIN LINK FENCE INSTALLED BY ADAMS IN THE EASEMENT OLD EASEMENT AREA PARCEL 3 GIVEN BAC TO ROTH PART OF THE

SETTLEMENT CURRENT ACS

EASEMENT AREA ONROTH PROPERTY ASMODIFIED
651
1 Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 100
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
March 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 Joe Drummond letters, dated November 18, 2024, and a letter dated February 18, 2025, for 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 Chair Leonard and Commissioners,
Please find our below the Applicant’s responses to the letters submitted by Ms. Joe Drummond, which are referenced above.

1. Legal Access to Property: The Applicant has express easements that burden the Adams Property. These easements are shown on the applicant’s survey and title report. The Adamses have put forth arguments that that this easement has been lost or abandoned. These arguments have no merit and have been addressed by the Applicant’s legal counsel in separate correspondence to the Commission, which are included in the staƯ report. The Applicant has been working constructively with the Adamses, in the same manner that he did with his other neighbor, the Roths, to amicably and fairly resolve this dispute; however, this is not a Planning issue, this is a civil matter. The applicant has demonstrated that he has legal access and unless and until a court issues a judgement stating otherwise, this remains the case. That said, the Applicant is cautiously optimistic that this matter can be resolved amicably.

2. Grading on Adjacent Property for Hammerhead/Driveway: The applicant has an easement across the neighboring property to the north of the Roth property (the Appendix H
652
2 “Players” property). This easement was granted specifically to allow the applicant to construct a portion of the access road and fire department turnaround. This easement was also submitted to the City of Malibu and is in the public record. The “development” of this portion of the hammerhead and driveway IS part of the applicant’s defined project and has been accounted for in determining compliance with all development standards.

3. Compliance with Fire Department Access Standards: Ms. Drummond makes several arguments in this category which are:
 That the on-property portion of the access road is 15’ and is not compliant with Fire Code. This is simply not correct. First the County Fire code allows for road widths narrower than 20’ in the discretion of the Fire Marshall. Here the Fire Marshal has approved an access road narrower than 20’. The Fire Department has TWICE approved this road design, the latter in recent months.  That the driveway is currently only 14’ wide. This is not correct either. Cross sections in the grading plans show that the paved surface of the access road is 15’ wide. The curb cut on each side of the driveway was eliminated some time ago so that the entire driveway paved surface is 15’ wide. It’s worth noting that the 15’ wide driveway is perfectly straight, and the line of sight is clear and unobstructed. In instances such as this, the Fire Department routinely approves narrower road widths.

There are too many instances in Malibu to list where the Fire Department has approved access roads of less than 20’ in width. Ms. Drummond’s comments in this regard are simply incorrect.
 That the residence is over 400’ from the nearest hydrant and this is not consistent with Fire Code. The Fire Code requires that the residence be no farther than 750’ from a fire hydrant. 400’ is more than suƯicient. Again, the Fire Department has approved the hydrant location and hose pull.
 That the standard minimum access road width must be 26.’ This is also not correct. For larger new neighborhoods/ subdivisions, new private ‘roads’ [not driveways] must be 26’ in width unless a narrower width is approved. Once again, she misstates the code.
653
3  She then goes on to reference a series of Fire Code rules, e.g., vertical clearance, access route locations, etc., which the project complies with. It is unclear why she references these standards provided that the project clearly complies with all of these standards, and she does not refute that.

4. ESHA: The LCP Is clear, there is no ESHA in point Dume, except for two streams that are not located near the property. Point Dume used to be a “Calvo Exemption Area,” wherein NO coastal development permit was required. In adopting the LCP, the Coastal Commission modified the standards so that a CDP was required, while noting that the area would not be considered ESHA and not subject to ESHA development standards in Chapter 4 which apply to ESHA properties only; instead, the Coastal Commission prohibited development on slopes steeper than 25%. This development standard was adopted to prevent water quality impacts in drainages at the bottom of various canyons/ drainage courses in the area.

The Coyote bush and vegetation on the property has been assessed by the City Biologist, following the Native Plant Society letter. The City Biologist has determined that the site has been historically cleared and denuded to provide fire protection for the Adams and Roth properties to the South. Other areas of brush on site contain native plants mixed with non-natives and these vegetated areas are predominantly non-native. Even if the LCP did not state that there is no ESHA on Point Dume other than the two streams, the habitat on site does not meet the definition of ESHA in Chapter 2 (Definitions) and does not meet the criteria for Coastal Sage Scrub/ Chapparal ESHA in the 2002 Memo from John Dixon, Coastal Commission Biologist, upon which such ESHA determinations are based.

5. Alleged Illegal Grading: The applicant utilized a bobcat to undertake its annual required brush clearance. This is no more intrusive than disking the property for brush clearance. Annual clearance of vegetation is required by the Fire Code and is not a “Violation.” The photos and videos taken by the neighbors, some of which were clearly taken from our client’s property while they were trespassing) show blade marks from where the clearance was undertaken as well as a very minor amount of side cast material that resulted from the clearance and road maintenance. The Deputy Building Inspector, Code Enforcement and Planning Department all inspected the property and determined that there was no ‘grading’ that occurred, only brush clearance and road maintenance work as stated. None of this work required a permit and it did not constitute ‘grading.’
654
4 6. Slope Steepness and LCP Consistency: Ms. Drummond alleges that slopes on site are steeper than those shown in the applicant’s slope map. This is baseless and inaccurate. The property has been surveyed twice, and slope maps have been prepared at both 2’ and 5’ contour intervals. She also questions the accuracy of the Geologist’s description of the slopes which notes that the property “slopes gently down from HeathercliƯ.” The two slope maps were prepared by a professional surveyor who is properly qualified to prepare such maps. Ms. Drummond, on the other hand, is not qualified to prepare or interpret slope maps. She relies instead upon a “USGS topo map” to assess the slope steepness. USGS Maps are prepared based on 25’ and 50’ contour intervals. These maps are not the result of proper surveys, are very old, and are not intended to be used for development purposes.

Relying on a USGS map is about as accurate as relying on a Dibblee Geology Map.

These resources are not nearly as accurate as a land surveyor geology and soils report and are not intended to be utilized for design or zoning compliance purposes.

7. Pool & Site Stability: Ms. Drummond states that there are retaining walls in ESHA adjacent to the pool. As noted above, there is no ESHA on the property. She also references a comment in the applicant’s geology report that addresses the potential for erosion, recommending that native vegetation remain on site until construction is completed. This is a standard recommendation from a project geologist for new construction. The City’s Geology and Public Works department have reviewed and approved the plans and geologist’s recommendations.

Ms. Drummond also makes general reference to “landslides” that have occurred on adjacent properties. She provides no references, reports or other information to support this comment. The project geologist and city geologist have reviewed the site’s stability and potential for hazards such as landslides on the subject property and nearby properties to assure that the site will remain stable and free from geologic hazards. The project geologist has directly responded to this comment in a letter dated 11-18-24. This letter is attached to the City’s staƯ report.

There is no basement proposed. This reference is antiquated, and the Geo department approval has been updated to reflect his.

8. Fencing in ESHA: There is no ESHA; therefore, no conditions or restrictions on fencing related to ESHA apply.
655
5 9. Geotechnical slope setback: Ms. Drummond mischaracterizes the code requirements for a geo setback. The H/3 setback requirement is met by using deepened foundations. The house itself does not need to be setback from any downslope.

10. Ridgeline Standards: The gentle slope that the house is proposed on does not meet the definition of a ridgeline. The LUP and LIP Policy 16 both provide that ridgeline standards do not apply to new homes proposed in well developed areas such as Point Dume. If more than 65% of the neighborhood is “built out” then the hillside development and ridgeline standards do not apply.

11. Minor Modification for Front Yard Setback: The applicant has previously responded to public comments on this issue. The applicant is proposing a front yard setback that is well within the neighborhood average of front yard setbacks. In fact, the applicant is proposing materially more of a setback than the average home in the neighborhood. The project will not negatively impact neighborhood character since the house and property are not visible from HeathercliƯ Rd. Lastly, the applicant has located the house as far as feasible from PCH thereby avoiding any potential for public view impacts and has limited the house to 18 in height.

12.Project Rendering: Ms. Drummond provides a rendering of the applicant’s proposed house. This rendering is completely inaccurate and disingenuous. She has cropped the house image from the applicant’s rendering, expanded it in size and applied it over a separate photo (diƯerent location) than the applicant’s architect. This image is clearly photoshopped and doctored to make the house look significantly larger than it is. The rendering that Ms. Drummond prepared, or that was prepared for her, was clearly not prepared by a licensed architect or professional; moreover, by taking the work product of an architect and manipulating it to misrepresent the design, she violated the architect’s copyright and impugned her own credibility. The rendering provided by Ms. Drummond was clearly not prepared accurately or in good faith. Her actions is this regard were unethical and highly objectionable.

Thank you for your time and consideration of the applicant’s responses. 656
6 Sincerely,
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
657
658
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5572855

COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN GARTSIDE LLP
KENNETH A. EHRLICH, State Bar No. 150570
[email protected]
JUSTIN R. TRUJILLO, State Bar No. 331402
[email protected]
10345 W. Olympic Blvd.

Los Angeles, California 90064
Telephone: 310.746.4412
Facsimile: 310.746.4462
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Brian R, Adams
and Pamela Adams, individually and as
Trustees of The Community Property
Trust Created Under The Brian R. Adams
And Pamela Adams Trust Agreement
Dated 3/11/04

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, WEST DISTRICT
BRIAN R. ADAMS, an individual;
BRIAN R. ADAMS, as TRUSTEE of

THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY

TRUST CREATED UNDER THE
BRIAN R. ADAMS AND PAMELA

ADAMS TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
3/11/04;
PAMELA ADAMS, an individual; and
PAMELA ADAMS, as TRUSTEE of

THE COMMUNITY PROPERTY

TRUST CREATED UNDER THE
BRIAN R. ADAMS AND PAMELA

ADAMS TRUST AGREEMENT DATED
3/11/04,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ALAIN HAJJAR, an individual:

ACS INTERNATIONAL LLC, a
California limited liability company: and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,
Defendants.

CASE No.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR:
(1) QUIET TITLE;
(2) DECLARATORY RELIEF
/ / /
/ / /
659
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
2 COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 Plaintiffs Brian R. Adams and Pamela Adams, individually and as Trustees of The Community Property Trust Created Under The Brian R. Adams And Pamela Adams Trust Agreement Dated 3/11/04 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), through this Verified Complaint for (1) Quiet Title and (2) Declaratory Relief (“Complaint”), allege as follows:

I. PARTIES

1. Plaintiffs own the real property located in the County of Los Angeles, California, commonly known as Heathercliff Road, Malibu, California, and further identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel No. 4468-011-012 (the “Adams Property”).

2. Defendant ACS International, LLC owns the real property located in the County of Los Angeles, California, commonly known as 29329 and 29341 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, California, and further identified as Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Nos. 4468-011-011 and -010, respectively (collectively, the “ACS Property”).

The ACS Property is immediately next door to the west and northwest of the Adams Property.

3. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendant Alain Hajjar is an individual who, at all relevant times in this Complaint, is and was a resident of the city of Agoura Hills in the County of Los Angeles, California.

4. The true names and capacities of defendants DOES 1 through 20, inclusive (the “Unknown Defendants”), whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise, are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, and therefore are sued and named by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs will seek leave to amend this Complaint to show the Unknown Defendants’ true names and capacities when they have been ascertained. For purposes of this Complaint, Plaintiffs will refer to Defendant ACS International, LLC, Defendant Alain Hajjar, and the Unknown Defendants collectively as “Defendants”.
660
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
3 COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

5. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendants claim an easement for ingress, egress and utility purposes (the “Purported Easement”) over portions of the Adams Property pursuant to that certain Grant Deed recorded on April 3, 2019, as Instrument No. 20190291198 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County.

6. Since October 2000, when Plaintiffs acquired the Adams Property, Plaintiffs have maintained a fence along the property line between the Adams Property and Defendants’ property (the “Adams Fence”) that wholly encloses portions of the Purported Easement area on Plaintiffs’ side of the fence (the “Extinguished Easement Area”).

7. For over twenty-four (24) years, the Adams Fence has prevented Defendants and their predecessor(s)-in-interest from accessing or using the Extinguished Easement Area.

8. Throughout Plaintiffs’ ownership, the Adams Fence’s location has constituted actual occupation of the Extinguished Easement Area, both preventing access by Defendants and their predecessor(s)-in-interest and providing reasonable notice of Plaintiffs’ hostile claim to the subject real property.

9. Throughout Plaintiffs’ ownership, Plaintiffs have paid all taxes levied on the Adams Property, including the Extinguished Easement Area.

10. Plaintiffs allege on information and believe that they have satisfied all elements required under California law to perfect a claim for adverse possession, extinguishing all Defendants’ rights in and to the Extinguished Easement Area.

McLear-Gary v. Scott, 25 Cal. App. 5th 145, 152 (2018) (“It is well settled that an easement, regardless of whether it was created by grant or use, may be extinguished by the owner of the servient tenement upon which the easement is a burden, by adverse possession thereof by the servient tenement owner for the required statutory period. The elements necessary to establish title by adverse possession are tax 661
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
4 COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 payment and open and notorious use or possession that is continuous and uninterrupted, hostile to the true owner and under a claim of title, for five years.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)).

11. In or about 2017, Plaintiffs constructed permanent improvements in the Extinguished Easement Area, including concrete pool decking, pool equipment, fencing, a concrete wall, and glass panel enclosure (the “Existing Improvements”).

12. Plaintiffs adverse possession has extinguished Defendants’ rights under the Purported Easement in the Extinguished Easement Area only—in other words, the portion of the Purported Easement on Plaintiffs’ side of the Adams Fence.

Plaintiffs have not interfered, nor do they intend to interfere, with Defendants’ easement rights in any other portions of the Purported Easement.

13. In or about January 2020, Defendants submitted applications to the city of Malibu (“City”) seeking entitlements identified as Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 and Minor Modification No. 20-001 to construct a new single-family residence on the ACS Property (the “Project”).

14. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the Project, as proposed, includes development that would encroach over the boundary line and onto the Adams Property in the Extinguished Easement Area, including but not limited to a fire department emergency access and turnaround area, and require removal of the Adams Fence and the Existing Improvements (the “Proposed Encroachments”).

15. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendants claim the right to construct the Proposed Encroachments based in significant part on the Purported Easement.

16. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that the Proposed Encroachments and other development in the Extinguished Easement Area required for the Project (e.g., grading, paving, fencing, etc.) would, among other things, constitute unreasonable use, cause impermissible changes to the surface and character that exceed the scope of rights granted in the Purported Easement for 662
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
5 COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 “ingress, egress and utility purposes,” and materially increase the burden on the Adams Property. Dolnikov v. Ekizian, 222 Cal. App. 4th 419, 429 (2013) (“The easement owner does not have the right to so change the surface of the land as seriously to damage the usefulness of the servient estate. It is well settled that the owner of an easement cannot change its character, or materially increase the burden upon the servient estate, or injuriously affect the rights of other persons, but within the limits named he may make repairs, improvements, or changes that do not affect its substance.” (internal quotations and citations omitted)).

17. Plaintiffs have not consented, and do not consent, to the construction of the Proposed Encroachments and have not granted, and do not grant, Defendants permission to use the Adams Property, Purported Easement area, or Extinguished Easement Area in any way.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Quiet Title – Against All Defendants)

18. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully specified here.

19. An actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants concerning their respective rights and interests in the Adams Property.

20. Plaintiffs contend that:
(a) Any rights under the Purported Easement in and to the Extinguished Easement Area have been extinguished through Plaintiffs’ adverse possession of the Extinguished Easement Area for more than twenty-four (24) years and payment of all taxes levied on the property; (b) Even if the Purported Easement remains valid as to the Extinguished Easement Area, the Proposed Encroachments would constitute an impermissible overburdening of the Purported Easement and Adams Property;
(c) Defendants have no right to remove, relocate, or make any 663
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
6 COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 changes to the Adams Fence or Existing Improvements; and (d) Defendants have no right to construct the Proposed
Encroachments on the Adams Property.

21. Plaintiffs allege on information and belief that Defendants dispute these contentions.

22. Plaintiffs seek to quiet title against any claims by Defendants to construct the Proposed Encroachments or otherwise use the Adams Property in a manner exceeding the scope of the Purported Easement.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Declaratory Relief – Against All Defendants)

23. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference all the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully specified here.

24. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists regarding Plaintiffs’ rights and interests and Defendants’ rights and interests with respect to the Adams Property, as specified in this Complaint.

25. Plaintiffs seek a judicial determination of their rights and duties, and a declaration as to:
(a) Whether the Purported Easement has been extinguished through Plaintiffs’ adverse possession of the Extinguished Easement Area; (b) Whether the Proposed Encroachments would constitute an impermissible overburdening of any valid easement rights; (c) The parties’ respective rights and obligations concerning use of the Adams Property; and
(d) Plaintiffs’ rights to an injunction requiring Defendants to withdraw all entitlement applications from all jurisdictional authorities in connection with the Extinguished Easement Area and the Project.

Such a declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances so that Plaintiffs may ascertain their rights and duties. 664
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
7 COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499

26. Despite demand, Defendants have refused to acknowledge their obligations and liabilities. On information and belief, Defendants deny their obligations and liabilities alleged in this Complaint and specifically contend they have legal rights to the Extinguished Easement Area.

27. Accordingly, an actual controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendants regarding their respective rights, obligations, and duties concerning the Extinguished Easement Area and the Adams Property and the expenses incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiffs in connection with the Extinguished Easement Area and protecting the Adams Property.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For judgment establishing that any rights under the Purported Easement in the Extinguished Easement Area have been extinguished through adverse possession;

2. For judgment quieting title to the Extinguished Easement Area in Plaintiffs’ favor;

3. For judgment that Defendants have no right to construct the Proposed Encroachments or otherwise use the Adams Property in a manner exceeding any valid easement rights;

4. For an injunction requiring Defendants to withdraw its entitlement applications for the Project;

5. For a declaratory judgment declaring the respective rights, duties, and responsibilities of the parties, as specified above;

6. For costs of suit; and

7. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 665
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
8 COMPLAINT
ELKINS
KALT

WEINTRAUB
REUBEN
GARTSIDE LLP 10345 W. Olympic Blvd. Los Angeles, California 90064 Telephone: 310.746.4400 • Facsimile: 310.746.4499 DATED: February 18, 2025 ELKINS KALT WEINTRAUB REUBEN

GARTSIDE LLP
By:

JUSTIN R. TRUJILLO
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Brian R. Adams and
Pamela J. Adams
666
14 667
From: Jo Drummond
To: Maureen Tamuri; Planning Commission; John Mazza; Kraig Hill; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; Doug Stewart; Rebecca Evans; Kellan Martz
Cc: Patt Healy; Bill Sampson; ; Larry Roth; Mariela Guastavino; Dru Ann Jacobson; Heather Roth; Brian Adams; Trevor Rusin; Pam Adams; Justin R. Trujillo; Hayley Mattson; Kenneth A. Ehrlich; Judy Abel; Barbara Burke
Subject: Re: 29329 Heathercliff Rd - Item 4A
Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 3:31:12 PM
I have just heard that NO AGREEMENT has been made between the applicant and the Adams neighbors immediately adjacent whose property the applicant has now proposed to illegally remove the Adams’ fence and try building on despite multiple failed attempts at settling. The DISPUTE over the property and application that the applicant does not apparently have ANY rights over CANNOT move forward. Please inform us if this item can even be heard tonight given the same situation reported to you last Thursday by our organization.

It should be withdrawn immediately until the easement issue is resolved.

If the applicant was INDEED a good neighbor he would change his plans and reduce the size of the proposed home to accommodate the driveway required within his OWN property and STOP trying to force the easement claim that he CLEARLY has no rights to after the Adams have had entitlement to this land for over 24 years. Or even better he would give up spending all this time and $, and relieve his neighbors of the same, given all the environmental and code restricting requirements on this narrow piece of land and sell it to the adjacent owners who would make it the natural parkland/open space that it was always meant to be.

Thank you,
Jo Drummond
Malibu Township Council
On Mar 14, 2025, at 1:23 PM, Jo Drummond < > wrote:

Dear Kellan, Mayor Stewart and Planning Commission,
This project, with an existing legal dispute over the property that is in question, is still in planning and just confirmed STILL scheduled with the Planning Commission for this Monday, March 17, Item 4A. Although it will likely be heard last as Mr. Leonard will be recusing himself causing us all to wait til the bitter end for this item.

Please read the cause of action in the law suit attached that includes the following:
“For an injunction requiring Defendants to withdraw its entitlement applications for the Project;”
Therefore, this item CANNOT be heard on Monday and the application must be withdrawn.

Property that the build is proposed on DOES NOT even BELONG to the applicant yet the City still considering the application is a TRAVESTY given the disaster that has just flooded the City and planning dept with countless hours of time and energy. 668
669
29329
Heathercliff
Road proposal
Malibu Township Council
Opposition to:
1 670
2 671
3 672
14 ft wide only
4 673
5 ESHA plants - Evergreen Cherry, Laurel sumac, and coyote brush 674
Red tailed hawks and orange crowned warblers on the site 6 675
7 676
8 677
9 678
10 679
11 40% slope
680
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."
12 Walls in ESHA
681
13 682
14 683
15 684
16 685
17 686
18 687
City of Malibu
Attn: Planning Commission
23815 Stuart Ranch Rd.

Malibu, CA 90265
Dear Planning Commissioners,
My name is Jason Rouse, and I am in full support of the proposed project at 29329 Heathercliff Road, item 4A on the Agenda for the March 17th Hearing.

After going through the process myself that is required to build a new home in the neighborhood, I am in complete support of another Malibu resident being allowed to build their home. From my own experience, I am familiar with the City Building Requirements as well as those laid out by the Coastal Commission, and this proposed project aligns with those regulations.

The home has been carefully designed to account for building height and has been adapted to address the neighbors’ concerns regarding issues such as the hammerhead and driveway placement. It also accounts for appropriate setback requirements and has a design consistent with many other homes in the area.

Respectfully,
Jason Rouse
Zumirez Dr.

Malibu, CA 90265
688
Malibu LIP § 4.6.1(A)
Steep slopes in isolation
do not constitute
“sensitive resources”
necessary for approving
the front setback
reduction.
689
Project Fire Access Exhibit
• Project
includes
unauthorized
development
on
neighboring
Adams
Property to
accommodate
proposed fire
access.
690
• Encroachment Issue: Project’s driveway and fire
turnaround require removal of the Adams’ legally
permitted fence and improvements.
• No Consent: Adams do not permit any use of their
property beyond existing fence.
• Legal Challenge: Adams have filed a pending lawsuit in L.A. County court disputing Applicant’s claimed
easement rights.
691
Existing
Improvements
on Adams
Property
692
Existing
Improvement
on Adams
Property
693
Existing
Improvement
on Adams
Property
694
From: malibu planning
To: Planning Commission
Subject: FW: 29329 Heathercliff Road; Coastal Development Permit No. 20-0003; Minor Modification No. 20-001 Date: Monday, March 17, 2025 10:06:08 AM
Attachments: image001.png
2025-03-17 - M Hinks to Planning Commission re Adams Opposition.pdf image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
image007.png
Hi,
This a correspondence for 29329 Heathercliff Road; Coastal Development Permit No. 20-0003; Minor Modification No. 20-001.

Best,
Michelle Santiago
Assistant Planner | Planning
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 382
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Claire Thompson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2025 9:49 AM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Matt Hinks <[email protected]>
Subject: 29329 Heathercliff Road; Coastal Development Permit No. 20-0003; 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 695
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. 696

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
March 17, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: 29329 Heathercliff Road; Coastal Development Permit No. 20-0003; Minor Modification No. 20-001
Dear Honorable Members of the Malibu Planning Commission:

We are legal counsel to ACS International, the owner of the property located at 29329 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, and the applicant for the above-described entitlements.

The Commission might recall that this matter was last scheduled for a hearing on February 18, 2025. Prior to the item being heard, and at the request of the applicant, the item was continued to allow the applicant to work with counsel for the neighbors, Brian and Pamela Adams, to try and address their concerns and resolve their opposition to the Project.

For the last four weeks, we did just that. We provided the Adams’ lawyers with documents showing the Project would use only a tiny portion of the large easement over the Adams’ property benefitting the applicant’s property and would entirely avoid any impact on the Adams pool and pool equipment even though they were built within the easement area in violation of the applicant’s rights. Although our initial attempts to communicate with the Adams’ counsel largely went ignored, we finally heard from them last week with terms for a resolution.

The applicant agreed to all of those terms and the parties negotiated a written settlement agreement on Friday, March 14, 2025.

However, though the applicant had agreed to all of the terms the Adams themselves proposed, within a half hour of agreeing to the final language of the settlement agreement, we heard from counsel for the Adams that they would not sign it. To say the least, we were stunned and disappointed.

Despite my client’s frustration, my client is still willing to live up to its end of the bargain to the extent that: (1) the applicant is limiting the Project to using only the small, approximately 27 square-foot easement area described on the Project plans; (2) the applicant will 697
City of Malibu Planning Commission
March 17, 2025

move and replace the current fence at no cost to the Adams using as good or better materials than what exists currently ; (3) the Project will avoid any impact to the Adams’ pool and pool equipment; and (4) the applicant is agreeing to repair or relocate the Adams’ pool equipment at no cost to the Adams in the unlikely and unexpected event that becomes necessary.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.

Very truly yours,
MATTHEW D. HINKS of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
MDH:mdh
698
Coastal Development Permit
No. CDP 20-003
MM No. 20-001
29329 Heathercliff Road
March 17, 2025
Planning Commission Meeting
Item No. 4A
1 699
Changes Since 10-7-2024
• Resurveyed driveway/hammerhead area.
• Corrected color slope exhibit (development still <4:1) • Adjustments to stairs, landing, & retaining walls at SE corner. • Photosimulation – retainining wall only at S. elevation corner. • Conceptual fire access plan re-approved.
• Updated landscaping and impermeable area square feet. • (City Contract Biologist site visit).
2 700
Vicinity Map
3 Project Site
Vicinity Map
701
Aerial Map – Project Site
4 Project Site
Project Site
Project Site
702
Site Characteristics
• Vacant 33,532 SF site
• Zoned RR-1
• Non appealable jurisdiction of Coastal Commission
• Access easement from Heathercliff Road
• Borders PCH
• Slopes from <4:1 to 1:1 (development on slopes <4:1)
5 703
Site Photeo
6 Site Photo – access easement looking west to site
704
7 Site Photo – from eastern edge of site looking SW
705
8 Site Photo – from south edge of site looking north
706
Story Pole Photos (cont.)
9 Site Photos - from south property edge looking north, further upslope 707
10 Site Photo – looking east from PCH
708
Project Description
• 4,050 SF 2-story single-family residence (max. 18’ height) • Attached 320 SF overhang
• Attached 390 SF garage
• Swimming pool
• Decks, patios with trellis
• Retaining walls
• OWTS
• Landscaping
• TDSF 4,760 SF
• Non-exempt grading 675 CY (max. 1,000 allowed)
11 709
Project Photosimulation
12 Project Rendering Project Rendering
710
Photosimulation
13 711
Site Plan
14 • Bi-level design
• Flattest area
•Adjacent to develop.
• Furthest from PCH
712
West Elevation (facing PCH)
15 713
North Elevation (facing mountains)
16 714
East Elevation (facing Heathercliff Rd.)
17 715
South Elevation (facing ocean)
18 716
Site Section
19 717
MM – Front Yard

59.4 ft. required

29.6’ proposed (just
under 50% reduction)
Avoids steep slopes
and natural vegetation
downslope
20 Front PL
Setback
718
Scenic Resources
•Adjacent to PCH on west side of lot (scenic road)
• Development on east side of lot, away from PCH,
adjacent to existing residences
• Steep slopes and natural scrub vegetation separate
development from PCH
• Conditions for colors and materials (building, walls, paving)
21 719
Story Pole Photos
22 On south edge of site looking north
720
Story Pole Photos (cont.)
23 From furthest edge of PCH looking east
721
Story Pole Photos (cont.)
24 From south edge of site looking NE
722
Story Pole Photos (cont.)
25 From east edge of site at access easement, looking NW 723
Correspondence
26 • Setbacks
• Scenic resources/view impact
• Slope of site/slope stability
• Hillside/ridgeline
• Easements
• Habitat
724
27 725
Consistency with Standards & Findings
•The project is consistent with all LIP and MMC
development standards, except for the front yard
setback (MM).
•All of the required findings for the CDP and MM can
be made.
• Exempt from CEQA (15303 – new construction)
28 726
Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of CDP No. 20-003 and
MM No. 20-001 subject to the conditions of approval
contained in the Resolution.
29 727

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public hearings on WEDNESDAY, May 20, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the projects identified below.

APPEAL NO. 25-001 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-02 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 22-009 to construct a new one-story, 3,963 square foot single-family residence, including an attached 414 square foot garage, new driveway, swimming pool and spa, roof deck, and associated development; including Site Plan Review No. 24-013 for 3,032 cubic yards of remedial grading
Location: 24515 Vantage Point Terrace
APN: 4458-033-005
Zoning: Single-Family Medium (SFM) and Malibu Country Estates Overlay District
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e)
Applicant: Amit Apel Design Inc.

Owner: 24515 Vantage Point Syndication LLC
Appellant: Alistair Saeghi
Application Filed: March 8, 2022
Appeal Filed: March 12, 2025
Case Planner: Fletcher Allen, Senior Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 233
[email protected]
APPEAL NOS. 25-002 and 25-003 - Appeals of Planning Commission Resolution No 25-03 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 20-003 to construct a new 4,050 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with an attached 390 square-foot garage, swimming pool, landscaping, hardscape, retaining walls, grading, and installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system, including Minor Modification No. 20-001 for up to a 50 percent reduction in the front yard setback
Location: 29329 Heathercliff Road
APN: 4468-011-011
Zoning: Rural Residential, One-Acre (RR-1)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e)
Applicant: Schmitz and Associates, Inc.

Owner: ACS International LLC
Appellants: Brian Adams and Larry Roth
Application Filed: January 9, 2020
Appeals Filed: March 26, 2025
Case Planner: Allison Cook, Contract Planner
(805) 415-1991
[email protected]
Appendix I
728
For the projects identified above with a categorical exemption for environmental review,pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has analyzed these proposed projects and found that they are listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the projects are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Community Development Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to these projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the projects. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on May 6, 2026. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from members of the public, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted three (3) business days in advance, by 4:00 p.m. on May 15, 2026. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected] To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS

NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact the assigned case planner.

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: April 16, 2026
729