Malibu City Council
August 19, 2026

Swimming Pool/Spa/Water Features
105. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise). 106. Pool and air conditioning equipment that will be installed shall be screened from View by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A). 107. All swimming pools shall contain double walled construction with drains and leak detection systems capable of sensing a leak of the inner wall. 108. The discharge of swimming pool, spa and decorative fountain water and filter backwash, including water containing bacteria, detergents, wastes, algaecides or other chemicals is prohibited. Swimming pool, spa, and decorative fountain water may be used as landscape irrigation only if the following items are met:
a. The discharge water is dechlorinated, debrominated or if the water is disinfected us1ng ozonation.
b. There are sufficient BMPs in place to prevent soil erosion. c. The discharge does not reach into the M84 or to the ASBS (including tributaries) 109. Discharges not meeting the above-mentioned methods must be trucked to a Publicly Owned Wastewater Treatment Works.

The applicant shall also provide a construction note on the plans that directs the contractor to install a new sign stating, “It is illegal to discharge pool, spa or water feature waters to a street, drainage course or storm drain per MMC 13.04.060(D)(5).” The new sign shall be posted in the filtration and/or pumping equipment area for the property. Prior to the issuance of any permits, the applicant shall indicate the method of disinfection and the method of discharging.
110. Pursuant to MMC Section 9.20.040(B), all ponds, decorative fountains shall require a water recirculating/recycling system.

Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
111. Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Building Official, compliance with the City of Malibu’s onsite wastewater treatment regulations including provisions of MMC Chapters 15.40, 15.42, 15.44, and LIP Chapter 18 related to continued operation, maintenance and monitoring of the OWTS. 112. Final OWTS Plot Plan: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP/LIP, including 160
Resolution No. 26-05

necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a fiveinch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inches by 22 inches).

Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: Ifthe OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixture unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planning— stage review, then a final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system, pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City-registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer’s wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable). 114. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above):
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design. b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package” systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems.
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion ofthe onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates ofhydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance 161
Resolution N0. 26-05

rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics.
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Division.
llS. Building Plans: All project architectural plans and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. 116. Traffic—rated Slab Plans: All proj ect traffic rated slab plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval. ll7. Notice of Decision: The final OWTS plans shall include the condition of approvals sections of the Notice of Decision (NOD) from the Planning Division. 118. Architect/Engineer Certification for Reduction in Setbacks to Buildings and Structures: All proposed reductions in setbacks from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures or other features less than those shown in Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 15.42 must be supported by letters from the project consultants. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters. The construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setback must be approved by City of Malibu Building Safety prior to Environmental Health final approval.

The architectural and/or structural plans submitted for Building Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g.. waterproofing. concrete additives). For complex waterproofing installations, submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. All plans must show the location of onsite wastewater treatment system components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable). a. Structures All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section

15.42) must be supported by a letter from the project Structural Engineer and a letter from the project Soils Engineer (i.e., a Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and 162
Resolution N0. 26-05

effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity ofthe onsite wastewater treatment system and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the setback is reduced. b. Buildings All proposed reductions in setback from the onsite wastewater treatment system to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Section 15.42) also must be supported by City of Malibu Environmental Health Review Sheet a letter from the project Architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California licensed architect, then the required Architect’s certification may be supplied by an Engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setback to the wastewater system; in this case the Engineer must include in the letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback(s), then the Architect (or Engineer) must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Plan Check. 119i Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
120. Operations and Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed OWTS. 121. Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable. 122. Advanced Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City ofMMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City ofMalibu Environmental Health Administrator.
123. Covenant to Forfeit 100% Expansion Effluent Disposal Area: A covenant running with the land shall be executed by the property owner and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder . Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any successors in interest that l) the private sewage disposal system serving the development on the property does not have a 100 percent expansion effluent dispersal area (i.e., replacement disposal field(s) or seepage pit(s)) and 2) if the primary effluent dispersal area 163
Resolution N0. 26-05

fails t0 drain adequately, the City of Malibu may require remedial measures including, but not limited to, limitations on water use enforced through an operating permit and/or repairs, upgrades or modifications to the private sewage disposal system. The recorded covenant shall state and acknowledge that future maintenance and/or repair of the private sewage disposal system may necessitate interruption in use of the private sewage disposal system and, therefore, any building(s) served by the private sewage disposal system may become non—habitable during any required future maintenance and/or repair. Said covenant shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and approved by the Environmental Sustainability Department.
124. Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
125. The City Biologist’s final approval shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator. The City Biologist shall review the OWTS design to determine any impact on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.
126. City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.
127. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers’ final approval ofthe OWTS shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.
128. City of Malibu Planning Division final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained. 129. Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A flnal fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of the final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specification. 130. Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with the MMC, prior to Environmental Health approval, an application shall be made to the Enviromnental Health Office for an OWTS operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application.

Prior to final Environmental Health approval, the construction plans for all structures and/or buildings with reduced setbacks must be approved by the City Building Safety Division. The architectural and/or structural plans submitted to Building and Safety plan check must detail methods of construction that will compensate for the reduction in setback (e.g., waterproofing, concrete additives, etc.). For complex waterproofing installations. submittal of a separate waterproofing plan may be required. The architectural/structural/ waterproofing plans must show the location of OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced, and the plans must be signed and stamped by the architect, structural engineer, and geotechnical consultants (as applicable). 164
Resolution N0. 26—05

132. Prior to flnal Environmental Health approval, the applicant shall provide engineer’s certification for reduction in setbacks to buildings or structures: All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to structures (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in MMC Table

15.42.030(E)) must be supported by a letter from the proj ect structural engineer and a letter from the project soils engineer (i.e., a geotechnical engineer or civil engineer practicing in the area of soils engineering). Both engineers must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks from the treatment tank and effluent dispersal area will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the OWTS and will not adversely affect the structural integrity of the structures for which the Table 15.42.030(E) setback is reduced.

Construction drawings submitted for plan check must show OWTS components in relation to those structures from which the setback is reduced. All proposed reductions in setback from the OWTS to buildings (i.e., setbacks less than those shown in Table 15.42.030(E)) also must be supported by a letter from the project architect, who must certify unequivocally that the proposed reduction in setbacks will not produce a moisture intrusion problem for the proposed building(s). If the building designer is not a California—licensed architect, then the required architect’s certification may be supplied by an engineer who is responsible for the building design with respect to mitigation of potential moisture intrusion from reduced setbacks to the wastewater system. In this case, the engineer must include in his/her letter an explicit statement of responsibility for mitigation of potential moisture intrusion. If any specific construction features are proposed as part of a moisture intrusion mitigation system in connection with the reduced setback, then the architect or engineer must provide associated construction documents for review and approval during Building Safety Division plan check. The wastewater plans and the construction plans must be specifically referenced in all certification letters. 133. Reference Plans: Reference architectural and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted to Environmental Health during building plan check review of the proposed OWTS. The approved plans are for 121 fixture units, 6 bedrooms and one master bedroom, and a design fiow of 1,050 GPD.
134. Any above-ground equipment associated with the installation of the OWTS shall be screened from View by a solid wall or fence on all four sides. The fence or walls shall not be higher than 42-inches tall.

Water Quality/Water Service
135. A State Construction Activity Permit is required for this project due to the disturbance of more than one acre of land for development. Provide a copy of the letter from the State Water Quality Control Board containing the Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) number prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. 136. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit an updated Will Serve Letter from Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 to the Planning Division indicating the ability of the property to receive adequate water service. 165
Resolution N0. 26—05

137. Prior to flnal inspection (or project sign off, as applicable) by the Planning Division, the applicant shall demonstrate that all requirements of Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 have been met, including installation of a meter, if applicable. 138. For projects including installation of a private water well, prior to final inspection (or project sign, as applicable) by the Building Safety Division, the applicant shall demonstrate that all requirements of Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 have been met, including installation of a backflow prevention device.

Prior to Occupancy
139. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning Division final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to Planning the plumbing permit for the OWTS signed off by the Building Safety Division.
140. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all Planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.
141. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Department. Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled, and state the facilities where all materials were taken. 142. The applicant shall request a final Planning Division inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Division has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Community Development Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.
143. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Fixed Conditions
144. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
145. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under. 166
Resolution No. 26-05

Deed Restrictions
146. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out ofthe acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning staff prior to final planning approval. 147. Prior to final Planning Division approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 15-22.

The property owner shall provide a copy ofthe recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final Planning Division approval.
148. The garage area shall be limited to accessory use as defined by the City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP). The garage area cannot be converted into habitable space at any time in the future. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant is required to execute and record a deed restriction to this effect.
149. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction stating that as part of the project, a view corridor of 31 percent (542 feet, 7 inches) of property width shall be established and maintained, as stipulated in Condition No. 37 shall be specifically identified in the deed restriction, including an exhibit that represents the area of the view corridor on the property. The property owner shall provide a copy ofthe recorded document to Planning Division staff prior to final Planning Division approval. 150. Any future improvements to the single—family residence and related development authorized by this shall require an additional coastal development permit.

SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17m day ofFebruary 2026.

ELIZABETH RIDDICK, Planning Cmmn Chair
ATTEST:
@RMW,
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
167
Resoluti0n N0. 26—05

LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 1320.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specif1ed by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucityorg, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456—2489, ext. 246.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling (805) 585—1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 ofthe MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 26—05 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City ofMalibu at the Regular meeting held on the 17th day ofFebruary 2026 by the following vote:
%W
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Riddick, Leonard, Peak
NOES: 2 Commissioners: Mazza, Kamins
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
Exhibit E
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
From: Alex Hall
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 25200 PCH Comments
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:18:25 AM
Attachments: 20260213 letter final.pdf
SHIFT PILES (002)ra .pdf
Exhibit F
219
Title: Approval is premature with Geotechnical Issues, Inaccuracy of exhibits, Unlimited irrigation in a known slide, causing instability to adjacent properties and creating landslide risk February 13, 2026
Malibu City Planning Commission
City of Malibu
Re: PERMIT NO. 19-012, CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE NO. 21-004, LOT MERGER NO. 24-002 25200 Pacific Coast Highway(revised)
Dear Malibu City Planning Commission,
It is well known that a development on a known slide is a risk, and increased water increases this risk. Currently the Assessment District actively pumps water out and with this project will add irrigation water and soil pressure. On September 18, 2025, City of Rancho Palos Verdes amended its municipal code to prohibit all new residential construction in landslide areas.

While some site improvements may provide benefits, those improvements are being traded for new and significant risks. This is a trade of reducing a set of risks but adding on other risks.

There is no way to show that the net effect is net positive.

1. Soldier Piles relocated North no longer providing Safety Factor due to the shift of Soldier Piles
When the soldier piles were moved uphill, according to Pacific Coast Land Consulting’s peer review, the revised configuration may no longer meet the required factor of safety, since there is no support for this area of soil. The soil in this strip remains native and untouched. See Pacific Coast Land Consulting memo.

2. Master Bedroom Massing and Qlsr Slide Area, Stay away from slide area State’s Policy on Coastal Erosion Planning and Response states avoidance of geologic hazards.…should be the primary means of safeguarding new development. The building mass of the master bedroom should be kept away from the mapped Qlsr landslide area. Placing a mass in close proximity to the slide boundary increases risk and may exacerbate instability in an already sensitive geologic condition. The building must be wood framed and not solid concrete to keep weight of structure at a minimum.
220

3. Property Line Soldier Piles, Breakaway Conditions, and Containment of Impacts, NEW RISKS If soldier piles are placed along the property line, a breakaway weak point is now created that did not exist before. Landslides and water do not follow property lines. If Richard is introducing irrigation water into a known slide area, no irrigation water or soil pressure may cross the property line.

Again, if instability caused by the project must be fully contained, no irrigation, lateral soil loads from the development, or slope pressures from the development should be allowed to transfer beyond Richard’s property boundaries onto adjacent properties. All irrigation, drainage, and soil forces must be entirely self-contained within Richard’s property, with no adverse transfer of risk to neighboring homes.

4. Instability to Adjacent Properties and Onsite Wastewater Systems, NEW RISKS Adding irrigation water and altering slope geometry in a mapped slide zone directly contradicts the requirement to avoid increased instability to neighboring properties.

In addition, no instability may be created that could cause harm to leach fields or onsite wastewater disposal systems located on adjacent properties. Water, soil, soil pressure may not cross the property line. Damage or movement affecting these systems would create serious public health, safety, and habitability impacts for neighboring residences. All irrigation, drainage, and soil forces must be entirely self-contained within Richard’s property, with no adverse transfer of risk to neighboring homes.

5. Injecting Irrigation Water into the water table in a known landslide. NEW RISKS The site has high water tables, the City has installed pumps to pump out water and the new project will be 221
adding irrigation water. This water may cross the property line and there is no discussion on how the water table is being controlled. Again, new risks are being introduced.

The extremely large capacity pool is also a NEW RISK, pools often leak or are drained improperly.

6. Other projects had requirements to mitigate/evaluate instability caused to adjacent properties but was not required for this development NEW RISKS (Malibu LIP § 9.3(A)(1) — requires that a project “will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic hazards due to project design, location, or other reasons.” And must consider “worst case” analysis per Malibu LIP § 9.3(D), and omitting specific data such as SI 5 and SI 6 does not achieve “worst case analysis”.

These houses have Geotech comments requiring that they have no adverse effect on adjacent properties:
25341 Malibu Road – Mitigating measures/evaluation of increased driving forces from soldier piles onto adjacent properties
25365 Malibu Road - Mitigating measure5s/evaluation of increased driving forces from soldier piles onto adjacent properties
25316 Malibu Road – Required to show that the project will not affect off site property 222
223
224
225
226
227

7. Means of Egress, NEW RISK no means of escape in an emergency event Currently residents may run up the hill to escape an emergency event, but an unusually long 228
structure would block egress. Two structures would allow a gap that would allow residents to escape between the two. Consider resident safety in consideration of the lot tie.

8. New Geotechnical Information Submitted
We have transmitted new geotechnical information from Don Kowalewsky to Josh Feffer. Don Kowalewsky stated this would typically be used as data in the design. The design may change as a result of this new data. Any revised conclusions or recommendations should be formally incorporated into the public record and fully analyzed prior to any approvals. Josh Feffer should advise if the design will change as a result of this new information.

9. Pacific Coast Land Consulting Peer Review(PCLC) and Alternative Soldier Pile Design Pacific Coast Land Consulting (PCLC) has provided a peer review and additional comments suggesting that soldier piles may instead be added farther down the hill through easements.

Such an alternative design would involve shorter piles, reduced construction complexity, and potentially lower cost, while providing more effective stabilization and protection for adjacent properties.

This proposal is not intended to provide free structural support to weak soils on neighboring properties. Rather, it is a practical engineering alternative that would allow Richard to construct shorter piles — but still to the embedment depth recommended by PCLC — thereby achieving appropriate stabilization while reducing unnecessary construction costs and impacts.

PCLC’s peer review comments on Feffer reports have not been fully reviewed or addressed.

Geotechnical reviews from 25341 Malibu Road direct the applicant to refer to this development data, if there are deficiencies in this project it will be reflected in other projects:
229

10. Opportunity to View Impacts Through Easements
Residents have indicated that Richard could remove approximately five to ten feet from the top of the hill to allow grading for more views and a compliant fire truck turnaround. In order to facilitate this alternative, the residents may be willing to give easements or dedications allowing the applicant to remove up to six to ten feet of soil where necessary. This option does not appear to have been examined.

11. Project is on a Bluff and requires Bluff setbacks. The projects the applicant listed are lower elevation, this project is actively eroding, unstable and is very steep and is on the seaward side of PCH and is subject to the Bluff setback. All of these projects are on Bayshore at a lower elevation and none of these projects are developing on the bluff. 25200 PCH is on a bluff and is subject to the setback required.

12. Lot Tie creates NEW RISKS with a larger structure rather than two smaller structures. The applicant has a Land Use Attorney that is able to put together legal description for two lots if he wanted to have two lots. If he wants one lot he would draft up a lot tie with the same attorney.

The joining of the two lots is at the discretion of the City. Please consider what it means to the City and the residents when the two lots are joined in terms of life safety as well as to the expansive iconic views that will be lost forever into private hands.

13. Least environmentally damaging feasible alternative would be two smaller structures one on each lot that are set back closer to PCH.

14. Incomplete and Inaccurate Renderings and Story Poles, what are we getting exactly? The renderings provided are not accurate representations of the project, site plans, plans and many exhibits(letters of support) remain outdated. In addition, the story poles have not been 230
updated to reflect the current proposed design. As a result, neither the City nor the public is receiving an accurate representation of what is being presented or evaluated. The City cannot properly assess visual massing, grading impacts, or structural relationships to the slope without accurate and comprehensive materials.

For example the two renderings from the last staff report to this one, the roof heights are identical:
231

15. Here is an alternate plan that is moved back North from the landslide areas with less water features. Pushing closer to the berm would allow for more public views.

For these reasons, we respectfully request that the City require:
• No instability caused by the project onto adjoining properties via irrigation or soil pressure
• Complete and accurate up to date representation of the project, including plans, elevations, renderings, site plans, and all documentation presented in the staff report. • Variance is required as a result of shifting the soldier piles This project is located within a known landslide area and sensitive coastal environment. Any approval must ensure long-term stability, protection of views, proper stormwater management, and safeguarding of neighboring homes consistent with Malibu Development requirements and fundamental life-safety standards. Currently we are trading one risk for another, no risk in the form of irrigation water or instability caused by the development should be allowed to cross the property line.

We appreciate the City’s careful attention to these matters and respectfully request thorough review before any further approvals are granted.

Sincerely,
Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc.
232
233
234
Pacific Coast Land ConsulƟng
Engineering Geologic Services
1525 Pepper Tree Place-Fallbrook CA
TEL (760) 473-4117-Email [email protected]
1 City of Malibu February 16, 2026
Subject: Slope StabilizaƟon and ProtecƟon of Residents
25200PCH Soldier Piles relocated North no longer providing Safety Factor due to the shiŌ When the soldier piles were moved uphill per January 6, 2023,Feffer report, they were shiŌed uphill from the property line without a new analysis of the unsupported area. The shiŌ created an area between the property line and soldier piles that does not add any stabilizaƟon to meet the required safety factor. Moreover, by relocaƟng the piles outside of the two recent landslides slide Qlsr, the piles no longer funcƟon to stabilize the idenƟfied slide mass north of the property line within the property 25200 PCH. This will changes the stability analysis and will now require a variance. 235
Pacific Coast Land ConsulƟng
Engineering Geologic Services
1525 Pepper Tree Place-Fallbrook CA
TEL (760) 473-4117-Email [email protected]
2 There are already 2 failures on the slope that originate from the subject property. That are not addressed nor stabilized.

The lack of stabilizaƟon withing the subject property coupled with the future infiltraƟon of water presents an elevated risk of failure and a threat to property and life for residents below the proposed development.

Ralph Jeffery
Pacific Coast Land ConsulƟng
CEG 1183 RG 3815
236
January 6, 2023 File No. 1992-75
Weintraub Real Estate Group
Malibu, CA 90264
Subject: ADDENDUM LETTER I
Proposed Soldier Pile and Tieback Stabilization System
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
References: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

INVESTIGATION
23000-25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: Feffer Geological Consulting, Dated May 21, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu Dated August 27, 2018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 20, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 14, 2019
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated December 17, 2019

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 30, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated August 4, 2020
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated June 18, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 18, 2021 237
January 6, 2023 File No: 1992-75

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated February 28, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated April 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated July 5, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated September 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET (APPROVAL)
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated November 11, 2022

Dear Mr. Weintraub:

As requested, Feffer Geological Consulting is providing this addendum letter to address the proposed soldier pile and tieback stabilization system required for site development.

This firm previously prepared slope stability analyses to evaluate the overall gross static and seismic stability of the descending slope. Based on multiple iterations of the slope stability analyses under worst-case scenarios and evaluation by the City reviewers, we determined that the site could be stabilized by utilizing two rows of soldier piles and tieback anchors.

Originally, the soldier piles and tieback anchors were planned to be located along the southern property line, and therefore some of the piles would be located on a small portion of the descending slope. It is our understanding that the construction of the stabilization system on the descending slope would require a variance from the City of Malibu.

In order to remove the need for a variance and allow development to move forward, the proposed stabilization system will be shifted slightly north and to the top of the slope.

Based on a detailed review of the updated plans and discussions with the project structural engineer, it is our opinion that the minor shift in location for the proposed stabilization system will not impact the proposed development and will not negatively impact or reduce the integrity of the stabilization system. The slight adjustment in pile locations will not negatively affect the overall gross stability of the site.

The proposed stabilization system has been conservatively designed for worst-case scenarios under both static and seismic conditions. The depths and widths of the proposed stabilization piles are not expected to change substantially. However, the final design details will be thoroughly reviewed by this firm and the structural engineer during plan 238
239
Item 4A - CDP 19-012 - 25200 Pacific Coast Hwy.

Presentation before the
Malibu Planning Commission
February 17, 2026 1
240
Revised CDP Application
2 Project revised in January 2026 to:
• Lower Pad and Structure Height by 2 Feet
• Lower Height of Structure Protruding
Above The Berm
• Eliminate Guest House from Proposed
Development Scope
• Reduce TDSF by 465 square Feet
241
Proposed Guest House
3 242
Guest House Height Originally 15 Feet, 8 Inches
4 15 Ft., 8 In.

Existing Grade
18 Ft.
243
9 Ft.

Guest House Height Originally 15 Feet, 8 Inches
5 Existing Grade
18 Ft.
15 Ft., 8 In.
244
9 Ft.

Guest House Height Originally 15 Feet, 8 Inches
6 Existing Grade
18 Ft.

Guest House No Longer Part of Application
245
Proposed Outdoor Kitchen
7 246
Outdoor Kitchen Originally 17ft., 11 in. Tall
8 18 Ft.
247
Outdoor Kitchen Reduced to 16ft., 5.5 in. Tall
9 Height Reduced by 1 Ft., 5.5 In.
18 Ft.
248
Outdoor Kitchen Reduced to 14ft., 6 in. Tall
10 18 Ft.

Height Further Reduced by 2 Ft.
249
Public View Protection
11 250
Original View Corridor Added to Protect Public View
12 251
Proposed Development Consisted of 69% of Lot Frontage
13 Original 31%
View Corridor
69% of Lot Frontage
With Proposed Development
252
Proposed Development Consisted of 69% of Lot Frontage
14 New Configuration Covers
25% of Lot Frontage Visible from PCH
253
15 Reductions in Height & Elimination of all
Landscaping above PCH Road grade
Minimizes View Impacts & Maximizes Public
View Protection
254

THANK YOU
16 255
Project Application
17 NO DISCRETIONARY REQUESTS
256
February 2026 Zoning Conformance Table
18 PROJECT COMPLIES WITH ALL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS;
IT’S A CLEAN SHEETS PROJECT
257

Constraints Map
19 258
Project Received Requisite Departmental Approvals
20 Biology Public
Works
Environmental Geotechnical
Health
259
No Site Plan Review and No Minor Modification,
Therefore, Neighborhood Character Findings are Not
Required.
21 NEVERTHELESS…..
260
15 Developed Properties Located Along PCH
Between Malibu Road and Malibu Bluffs Park
22 APN Address
4458-015-007 25040 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-009 25000 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-011 24950 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-013 24910 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-019 24840 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-021 24834 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-027 24800 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-030 25126 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-031 25142 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-033 24824 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-038 24818 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-041
24900 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-015-045 24860 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-016-021 24750 PACIFIC COAST HWY
4458-016-023 24700 PACIFIC COAST HWY
261
CDPs Approved by Coastal Commission and City of Malibu
23 APN SitusAddress TDSF
4458-015-007 25040 PACIFIC COAST HWY 10626
4458-015-009 25000 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8070
4458-015-011 24950 PACIFIC COAST HWY 11158
4458-015-013 24910 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6616
4458-015-019 24840 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8181
4458-015-021 24834 PACIFIC COAST HWY 11042
4458-015-027 24800 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6326
4458-015-030 25126 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6682
4458-015-031 25142 PACIFIC COAST HWY 15822
4458-015-033 24824 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6173
4458-015-038 24818 PACIFIC COAST HWY 10106
4458-015-041 24900 PACIFIC COAST HWY 9504
4458-015-045 24860 PACIFIC COAST HWY 9955
4458-016-021 24750 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8148
4458-016-023 24700 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6136
13 Properties with
CDPs Approved
Since Coastal Act
Implemented in 1976
262
5 Projects Approved Pre-Cityhood
24 CDP 5-87-185
24818 PCH
10,106 sq. ft. CDP 5-85-239
24834 PCH
11,042 sq. ft.

CDP 5-90-1009
25142 PCH
15,822 sq ft. CDP 5-85-792
24860 PCH
9,000 sq. ft.

CDP 5-82-370
25000 PCH
8,000 sq. ft.
263
8 Projects Approved Post-Cityhood
25 CDP 14-057
24900 PCH
9,504 sq. ft.

CDP 13-047
24840 PCH
8,181 sq. ft.

CDP 4-97-102
24750 PCH
8,143 sq. ft.

CDP 4-99-169
25126 PCH
6,706 sq. ft.

CDP 05-144
24950 PCH
11,158 sq. ft.

CDP 4-97-033
24824 PCH
6,662 sq ft.

CDP 4-98-142
24910 PCH
6,864 sq. ft.

CDP 07-069
25040 PCH
10,620 sq. ft.
264
26 LIP 6.5(E)2 states “Where the topography of the project site does not permit the siting or design of a structure that is located below road grade, new development shall provide an ocean view corridor on the project site by incorporating the following measures.”
LIP 6.5(E)2(a) states “Buildings shall not occupy more than 80 percent maximum of the lineal frontage of the site..”
View Corridors Occupy 75% of the Lineal Frontage
265
Proposed Development Consisted of 31% of Lot Frontage
27 New Configuration Covers
25% of Lot Frontage Visible from PCH
266
Proposed Fencing Along PCH is 90% Visually
Permeable
28 267
Fence Visually Permeable to Not Block Ocean Views
29 The proposed 42-inch-high fence within the front yard setback would be visually permeable so as not to block views to the ocean. 268
Proposed Fencing Along PCH is 90% Visually
Permeable
30 269
Original Landscaping Plan Had Tall Trees
31 Landscaping Plan Revised to Reduce Vegetation Heights 270
Condition Added to Address Landscape Heights
32 271
Proposed Drainage Plan
33 Revised Drainage Plan Discharges to PCH
Existing Pipe to
Be Realigned
Pipe
Realignment
272
Proposed Drainage Plan
34 Existing Pipe to
Be Realigned
Pipe
Realignment
273
OWTS Located Outside of Landslides, Sited Behind
Caissons, & Microdoses Effluent to Maximize Site Stability 35 Proposed OWTS Includes
A Geoflow Field
274
The proposed OWTS utilizes a subsurface drip
dispersal system to Maximize Evapotranspiration
Evapotranspiration
275
68 BORINGS
25200 PCH Geology Map
37 17 TRENCHES

HAVE CONDUCTED HALF MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF INVESTIGATIONS 276
77 Caissons With Tiebacks
38 Proposed Caissons & Tiebacks Will Stabilize Building Site, Hillside to Bayshore Drive, and Pacific Coast Highway
277
77 Caissons With Tiebacks
39 Proposed Caissons & Tiebacks Will Stabilize Building Site, Hillside to Bayshore Drive, and Pacific Coast Highway
Applicant is Willing to Accept a Condition Requiring
Monitoring of site with a Vibration Monitor
278
Proposed Caissons 100-125 Feet Deep
40 $10 Million Worth of Caissons
279
Proposed Caissons 100-125 Feet Deep
41 $10 Million Worth of Caissons
Ralph Jeffery Recommended on January 20th:
280
Add More Caissons Along Bayshore Road…
42 281
Geology Findings Are Made
43 282
Since Application was Submitted in
2019…
44 283
Project was NOT Rushed Through Review
45 6 Biology Reviews Before Approval
On May 1, 2023
284
Project was NOT Rushed Through Review
46 7 Geology Reviews Before Approval
On April 11, 2023
285
Project was NOT Rushed Through Review
47 6 Environmental Health Reviews
Before Approval On April 2, 2025
286
Project was NOT Rushed Through Review
48 6 Planning Reviews Before
Deemed Complete On December 11, 2023
287
Project Has Received Letters of Support from Neighbors
49 288
Project Has Received Letters of Support from Neighbors
50 Supporters
289

CONCLUSION
51 • Property Historically Cleared Dating Back to Before the Coastal Act • Project will Improve Site & Area Stability by Installing 77 Caissons • The Proposed Home is Consistent in Size and Less Height than Average PCH Facing Homes Both Before and After Cityhood
• The Applicant has Worked with the City and made Extensive Plan Revisions to avoid any Significant Adverse Impacts To Public & Private Views • The Project is a Clean Sheets Project Without any Discretionary Requests • We Accept a Condition to Record a Deed Restriction Prohibiting the Use of the Residence as a Rehab Facility
290

THANK YOU
52 291

POCKET SLIDES
53 292
Project Not on a Coastal Bluff
54 CDP 12-056
25423 Malibu Rd.

CDP 05-066
25411 Malibu Rd.

CDP 09-003
25349 Malibu Rd.

CDP 19-052
25429 Malibu Rd.

APR 15-069
25315 Malibu Rd.
293
Project Not on a Coastal Bluff
55 CDP 12-056
25423 Malibu Rd.

CDP 05-066
25411 Malibu Rd.

CDP 09-003
25349 Malibu Rd.

CDP 19-052
25429 Malibu Rd.

APR 15-069
25315 Malibu Rd.
294
13 Projects Approved with Class 3 Cat. Exemption
56 CDP 14-057
24900 PCH
CDP 13-047
24840 PCH
CDP 4-97-102
24750 PCH
CDP 4-99-169
25126 PCH
CDP 07-069
25040 PCH
CDP 4-98-142
24910 PCH
CDP 05-144
24950 PCH
CDP 4-97-033
24824 PCH
CDP 5-90-1009
25142 PCH
CDP 5-82-370
25000 PCH
CDP 5-85-237
24860 PCH
CDP 5-85-239
24834 PCH
CDP 5-87-185
24818 PCH
295
Berm Was Constructed by CALTRANS…
57 296
…Pursuant to a 2004 Lawsuit
58 297
Two Properties Have PVDs Within 1,000 Feet
59 • 3775 Puerco Canyon
• 3945 Puerco Canyon
• These PVDs are Oriented Towards the
Subject Property
298
MMC Section 17.40.040(A)17 states:
“The primary view corridor shall exclude the first 18
feet of the proposed building height as measured from
the existing natural grade or finish grade whichever
results in a lower building height.”
60 299
3775 Puerco Canyon Road
61 300
3945 Puerco Canyon Road
62 301
Property Historically Cleared
63 1959
302
Property Historically Cleared
64 1979
303
Proposed Project History
65 • CDP 19-012 Submitted March 7, 2019, for a new SFR with Basement/Garage, and a Guest House.
• Project Went Through Multiple Redesigns to Respond to Planning & Departmental Comments
• Project was to Appear at the May 20, 2024, Planning Commission Hearing. Item Postponed for Additional Reductions as Requested by Staff.
• Applicants Worked With Staff to Address Concerns before Returning to Hearing Tonight with a Recommendation of Approval. 304
Original CDP Application
66 • Project Originally Proposed an 18 Foot tall
SFR and 15 Foot Tall Guest House
• Project Originally Contained Two
Discretionary Requests:
• A Variance for Construction of Retaining
Walls Over 6 Feet for the Fire Dept.

Turnaround
• A Site Plan Review for Freestanding Walls
Over 6 Feet
305
Constraints Map
67 306
Constraints Map
68 307
Constraints Map
69 308

Constraints Map
70 309

Constraints Map
71 310

Constraints Map
72 311
Project Meets LIP 9.4(D) and Updated Factors of Safety
73 312
Microdosing Systems are Regularly Utilized in the City
74 • An Example: 21490 Paseo Portola
• Project Included a new AOWTS with a
Geoflow Dispersal System
• City Council Approved Project on June 8,
2020
313
Microdosing Systems are Regularly Utilized in the City
75 • An Example: 21490 Paseo Portola
• Project Included a new AOWTS with a
Geoflow Dispersal System
• City Council Approved Project on June 8,
2020
Geoflow Approved for
21490 Paseo Portola
314
Project Conditioned to Prevent Landscape View Obstructions 76 315
Proposed 18 Ft. By Right SFR
Will Minimize Bluewater
View Obstructions
Proposed View from PCH
77 316
4 Properties with CDPs Approved after LCP Implementation 78 APN SitusAddress TDSF
4458-015-007 25040 PACIFIC COAST HWY 10626
4458-015-009 25000 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8070
4458-015-011 24950 PACIFIC COAST HWY 11158
4458-015-013 24910 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6616
4458-015-019 24840 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8181
4458-015-021 24834 PACIFIC COAST HWY 11042
4458-015-027 24800 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6326
4458-015-030 25126 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6682
4458-015-031 25142 PACIFIC COAST HWY 15822
4458-015-033 24824 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6173
4458-015-038 24818 PACIFIC COAST HWY 10106
4458-015-041 24900 PACIFIC COAST HWY 9504
4458-015-045 24860 PACIFIC COAST HWY 9955
4458-016-021 24750 PACIFIC COAST HWY 10255
4458-016-023 24700 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6136
317
9 More Properties with CDPs Approved by Coastal Comm.
79 APN SitusAddress TDSF
4458-015-007 25040 PACIFIC COAST HWY 10626
4458-015-009 25000 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8070
4458-015-011 24950 PACIFIC COAST HWY 11158
4458-015-013 24910 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6616
4458-015-019 24840 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8181
4458-015-021 24834 PACIFIC COAST HWY 11042
4458-015-027 24800 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6326
4458-015-030 25126 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6682
4458-015-031 25142 PACIFIC COAST HWY 15822
4458-015-033 24824 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6173
4458-015-038 24818 PACIFIC COAST HWY 10106
4458-015-041 24900 PACIFIC COAST HWY 9504
4458-015-045 24860 PACIFIC COAST HWY 9955
4458-016-021 24750 PACIFIC COAST HWY 8148
4458-016-023 24700 PACIFIC COAST HWY 6136
13 Properties with
CDPs Approved
Since Coastal Act
Implemented in 1976
318
From: Jyoti Drummond
To: Malibu Township Council; Barbara@Coastal Carey
Cc: Gabriella@Coastal Gough; [email protected]; Bill Sampson; Patt Healy; R Y A N; Bruce Silverstein; Rob Duboux; Tyler Eaton; Yolanda Bundy; Frank Angel; Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans; Trevor Rusin; Kellan Martz
Subject: Re: One more chance to remove Item 4B (25200PCH) off the PC agenda for Jan 20 Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 5:28:28 PM
Attachments: 2021-04-26 Ltr to City Council re Appeal No. 19-010; 20238 Piedra Chica Road.pdf variancerequired.pdf
Hello Barbara...

Just letting you know that the hearing is set for next Tuesday, Feb 17 at 6:30p and if the PC approves the project we will be appealing it straight to the Coastal Commission due to the LACK of the required variance and we hope you can have it then sent back to the CDD for this addition to the application.

Quote from latest staff report on 25200 PCH from a letter dated Jan 5, 2026, by the geotechnical consultant, Feffer on p. 86.
https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/7879?fileID=85696 "Currently the properties along Bayshore currently have a slope and a pad above that don't have the code required factor of safety. There is theoretically a potential for the load from the slope and the pad to come down; this is the fear I would think that the properties along Bayshore have."
Thus, because the pad at the proposed site at worse case conditions cannot meet the factor of safety a VARIANCE to the factor of safety is REQUIRED and our city has yet to enforce this LCP code for this particular huge potential project in a known landslide area so this risk can be properly evaluated.

For 14 pages from pps 103 in the staff report the applicant's geotechnical consultant attempts to explain how they can "stabilize" all the slopes so that they meet the required factors of safety - so they ADMIT that the slopes where this build is taking place cannot meet this WITHOUT a stabilization system in place, which is NOT worse case conditions.

See p 110 - "Conclusion - The attached analyses indicate that the existing slopes require a stabilization system to achieve a 1.5 and 1.0 factor of safety and to mitigate potential geologic instability. Once reinforced, the slopes are considered grossly stable. The updated site map and cross sections illustrate the proposed locations of the support system." I am greatly aware that none of us are geologists but we can READ - and the code states again that slope stability analysis must be taken from "worse case condition" scenarios and if it CAN NOT meet the factor of safety then it MUST apply for a variance. Why the applicant refuses to meet this code requirement is baffling - the project I have referred to in the past at 20238 Piedra Chica Rd could only meet the factor of safety AFTER designing and installing 30 ft deep caissons for the foundation for an Inland lot YET was sent back to apply for the REQUIRED variance because it could not meet the code without this - so it IS a comparable project. Except this project wants to dig 100 + ft caissons into essentially a coastal bluff in order to secure the slope, a much more risky endeavor that needs further investigation through the Variance process. There is NO WAY that the City would have approved that project on Piedra Chica Rd unless it could be stabilized to build WITH the variance for the factor of 319
safety.

I am attaching the letter from April 2021, from our attorney re: 20238 Piedra Chica Rd (which for some reason is missing in the current staff report) which caused this project to go back to the Planning Dept and apply for the required variance (see p 3). 5 years later the owners are finally starting to build after satisfying all the variance requirements. This is EXACTLY what needs to happen for this project or there is no point of even having the Variance option in the LCP if post construction can satisfy the Factor of Safety requirement of 9.4 D.

If there is any way to review this and inform the City before the hearing on Tuesday that a variance must be applied for before proceeding further that would save the applicant much headache in the future with an appeal and being sent back in a year or so.

This is a contentious project already as it will be blocking an iconic ocean view and has much public opposition so should be scrutinized to the fullest.

Thank you,
Jo Drummond
On Sun, Jan 25, 2026 at 11:32 PM Malibu Township Council wrote:

Barbara,
Thank you for your response — I appreciate your engagement on this matter.

Based on the City’s existing staff report, it should be straightforward for your team to confirm the deficiencies I have raised, as all citations are taken directly from the City’s own record. Under the Hazards section, the staff report (p 10/11) does not meaningfully identify that the site lies within a mapped landslide area, nor does it analyze compliance with the factor-of-safety requirements under LIP §9.4(D). That omission alone is significant.

The attached presentation highlights, within the first nine slides, the specific geotechnical requirements that have not been met. Each slide cites relevant page numbers from the staff report (linked here for
reference: https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/7832?fileID=85371, to facilitate efficient review by your staff.

This situation is fundamentally different from like-for-like fire rebuilds of up to 10%, on historically stable parcels that are consistently testing above required factor-of-safety thresholds in their existing condition, that regardless, do not require a variance. Instead, this proposal involves brand-new construction on an untested landslide site where stability has not been demonstrated.

In May 2022, the Coastal Commission advised the City of Malibu that it could not lawfully process Fire Rebuild Option 4, which relied on hypothetical future construction to justify new or expanded development entitlements—up to 70% larger than a like-for-like plus 10% replacement of a structure that had not yet been rebuilt. That approach was rejected. The 320
same flawed framework is being applied here. This project similarly attempts to justify compliance with LIP §9.4(D) by deferring critical safety analysis until after postconstruction stabilization is assumed, rather than evaluating whether the site meets required standards in its existing, worst-case condition or through the legally required variance process.

Allowing this project to proceed without first requiring a variance would establish a dangerous and legally unsupportable precedent. It would effectively allow any new large development project in landslide assessment districts—such as Big Rock, Calle del Barco, Las Flores, Malibu Road, and others—to bypass the Local Coastal Program by proposing extreme post-construction mitigation measures without subjecting those measures to the variance findings mandated under LIP §13.26, including whether the proposed development would endanger adjacent properties or public safety, a determination that cannot be made outside the variance process. This would undermine the enforceability of LIP §9.4(D) and the LCP’s core public-safety protections.

For these reasons, the application cannot lawfully proceed as currently processed. A variance must be applied for and evaluated before any further discretionary review occurs.

Perhaps you can ask the City to postpone the hearing until your staff can complete this due diligence that the City has neglected to perform. The hearing is currently set for the Feb 17 Planning Commission date.

Thank you again for your attention to this issue.

Warm regards,
Jo Drummond
Malibu Township Council
On Jan 23, 2026, at 12:08 AM, Carey, Barbara@Coastal <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jo—
Thank you for the update. We are aware of this project but have not yet had the staff time to review the City staff recommendation in detail or provide any comments to the City staff.

Gabriella Gough (copied here) is our analyst that covers the City of Malibu. I will be supervising that jurisdiction while Denise is out on leave.

Barbara
321
322
323
from this project that the applicant has maxxed out in size STRICTLY for financial gain which goes against EVERYTHING in Malibu's vision & Mission statement.

They also need permission from Caltrans to take over that broken continuously leaking pipe into their lot (that was not taken into consideration by the applicant's geologist in his reports) or whomever is responsible and if it's been over 10 years that no one has claimed responsibility how can this ever get done - this needs to be resolved before ANY approval.

I hope staff will be addressing this as you stated. Tyyy…Jo Drummond On Jan 20, 2026, at 9:45 PM, Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> wrote:

Jo,
Thank you. We have received your comments and they will be shared with the Planning Commission. The geology concerns will be discussed in greater detail tonight. We will have staff available to answer any questions. The typo regarding septic tank size will be addressed for the record during staff presentation.

Although we have not received any significant correspondence from the Coastal Commission staff to date, this project is appealable to the CCC as stated in the staff report.

Regards,
Tyler Eaton
Assistant Community Development Director
Community Development Department
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 273
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
324
325
326
Thank you, Jo Drummond
On behalf of MTC
327

4132471v4
Monica R. Briseno
D: 310.746.4479
[email protected]
April 26, 2021

VIA E-MAIL
City Council
City of Malibu
c/o City Clerk, Heather Glaser
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265-4861
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re: Appeal (AP) No. 19-010; 20238 Piedra Chica Road (the “Property”) Appealing Planning Commission Resolution No. 19-25, approving Coastal Development Permit No. 18-002 to allow for an interior and exterior remodel and 770 square foot addition to an existing 3,453 square foot single-family residence, including construction of a courtyard, balcony, exterior stairs, ground-mounted mechanical equipment, fencing, permeable pavers, grading, relocation of the dispersal field for an existing onsite wastewater treatment system, and replacement of existing landscaping (the “Project”)
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Our office represents Colin and Joanne Drummond (“Appellants”) in connection with the above-referenced appeal. On April 21, 2021, Appellants’ requested a continuance of the hearing of the appeal.

We have yet to receive confirmation of a continuance. As such, and in the event the City Council decides to hear the appeal today, Monday, April 26, 2021, which, as previously explained, Appellants view as premature, we detail below how the Project does not conform to the LCP, requires a variance, does not comply with applicable building code sections, and is not exempt from CEQA. The record does not support the findings necessary to approve the requested coastal development permit, and you must nullify the Project approvals. 328
City Council
April 26, 2021

4132471v4
I. Background
On December 2, 2019, the City of Malibu Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 20-18, approving Coastal Development Permit No. 18-002 for property located at 20238 Piedra Chica Road (the “Property”) (approval referred to as “Planning Commission Approval”). The Planning Commission Approval found the project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and allows for the interior and exterior remodel and 770 square foot addition to an existing 3,453 square foot single-family residence, including the construction of a courtyard, balcony, exterior stairs, ground-mounted mechanical equipment, fencing, permeable pavers, grading, relocation of the dispersal field for an existing onsite wastewater treatment system, and replacement of existing landscaping.

On December 12, 2019, Appellants appealed the Planning Commission Approval based on, among other things, a lack of adequate stability analysis.

On June 22, 2020, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Yeh and Associates, Inc. (“Y&A”) for maintenance and monitoring services for the Big Rock Mesa Landslide Assessment District. Importantly, a slope stability study was not included in Y&A’s scope of work.

On November 9, 2020, Y&A presented its findings and recommendations to the City Council. Based on its review of the system, Y&A made several recommendations, including for capital improvements and slope stability modeling. Hearing community concerns concerning continued development in this area without a proper slope stability analysis, the City Council directed staff to bring back a review of the safety factor and development impacts in the Big Rock area.

On February 24, 2021, the City's geotechnical consultants presented a report addressing the City Council's November 9, 2020 question. Community questions regarding the report and future development remained unanswered at the meeting. To address this, Mayor Pierson proposed a follow-up meeting with Big Rock Mesa residents, geologists, and City staff to discuss the next steps. The matter was to be brought back to the City Council after the community meeting.

This meeting has yet to occur.

The City Council understood the need to respond to community concerns and correctly requested that additional meetings with the community occur before continuing with development decisions. The Appeal should not be heard until that happens. 329
City Council
April 26, 2021

4132471v4
II. Appeal Summary and Response to Staff Report
The proposed addition will be the most substantial, both in size and increase of water fixtures, approved in Big Rock Mesa since the most recent landslide. Despite this fact, the Staff Report goes to great lengths to state that no need exists for a slope stability study to approve the Project and continues to recommend approval for a Project that does not meet either the City’s Local Coastal Program (“LCP”) or Building Code.

A. The Project Does Not Conform To LCP Policies Concerning Hazards And Requires a Variance
The City acknowledges that the Project does not meet the LCP standards for new development on landslides. However, it fails to explain why the City can approve a coastal development permit without addressing such conflicts through a variance, the mechanism created by the LCP for instances where a Project requires deviation from LCP standards or requirements.

LCP, Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”) Section 9.2.B states that development on any parcel "located on or near any area subject to hazards” is governed by LIP Chapter 9. The Project is within a known geologic hazard, an active landslide. As such, LIP Chapter 9 applies to the Project.

LCP, LIP Section 9.4.D provides that “[n]ew development proposed on landslides . . . shall be permitted only where a factor of safety of 1.5 (static) and a factor of safety of 1.1 (pseudostatic) can be provided..”1 The staff report acknowledges that the Property cannot provide a 1.5 factor of safety because the “Big Rock Mesa Landslide, on which the property is situated, has a static factor of safety below 1.5.” Staff Report, pg. 6.

Finally, LCP, LIP Section 9.4.M prohibits new development “on property or in areas where such development would present an extraordinary risk to life and property due to an existing or demonstrated potential public health and safety hazard.” Evidence in the record proves existing effluent overflow originates from the Property to affect adjoining properties. We attach copies of photos of such overflow issue as Exhibit A. These issues will increase with the approval of additional water fixtures proposed by the Project. We attach a copy of the Property’s current water 1 The Project is “new development” as defined by the LCP. It consists of land-disturbing activities, including but not limited to, construction of a building or structure that will increase the floor area by more than ten percent. LCP, LIP §2.1
330
City Council
April 26, 2021

4132471v4
usage, showing existing elevated water levels (which averages almost three times the capacity of the existing septic system flow) as Exhibit B.
2 The above provisions taken together prohibit the approval of the Project absent a variance.

The Project does not seek the required variance. Such an attempt to sidestep the LCP is improper, and the Council must deny the Project for its failure to conform with the LCP.

B. The City’s Building Code Does Not Supersede The City’s LCP The Project's Staff Report does not explain the Project’s sidestepping the variance requirements in the LCP. However, we understand that an incorrect assumption may exist that complying with the Building Code is enough to satisfy the LCP. This is incorrect. The City’s LCP takes precedence over the City-adopted County and State Building Codes. The Project must comply with the LCP, specifically the provisions regarding hazards.

LCP, LIP Section 9.2.B states that “[w]here any policy or standards provided in this chapter [LIP Chapter 9] conflicts with any other policy or standards contained in . . . City-adopted plan, resolution or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible . . . to comply with both the Malibu LCP and other plan . . . the policies, standards or provisions contained herein [LIP Chapter 9] shall take precedence.”
As the LIP takes precedence over the City-adopted County and State Building Code, the City cannot discard development standards and variance requirements under the LCP. Especially where there are no noted impediments to complying with both the LCP and building codes. The Project applicant must file and process a variance to comply with the LCP.

C. The Project Is Not The Least Environmentally Damaging Alternative The City cannot make the required finding that the Project is the least environmentally damaging alternative when it failed to consider an alternative that eliminates the additional water 2 Public water usage records show approximately 902 to 2248 gallons per day (gpd) for the Property the last two years, which is substantially higher than the City wastewater design flows that provide for 600 gpd for a home with three bedrooms or 750 gpd for a home with four bedrooms. Malibu Municipal Code § 15.42.050. The Property’s current water consumption is closer to a 6+ bedroom home. This can only increase with the Project’s proposed increase in water fixtures.
331
City Council
April 26, 2021

4132471v4
fixtures, which would reduce the potential significant Project adverse impacts on the environment i.e., the existing landslide.

Geologists for the City, Project, and Appellant agree that water consumption is one of the primary factors influencing the safety factor for the Big Rock Mesa District. Yet, the Staff Report fails to analyze a Project alternative that eliminates additional water consumption. Such analysis is incomplete.

Donald B. Kowalewsky, the Project’s geologist, when evaluating a project on 20272 Inland Lane in 2018, concluded that the introduction of additional mass and water into the ground in Big Rock Mesa “will result in a lower safety factor,” thereby adversely affecting offsite properties.

We attach a copy of Mr. Kowalewsky Report as Exhibit C. Specifically, Mr. Kowalewsky concluded that “[i]ncreasing the mass of a structure and increasing the water that enters the ground (wastewater) will decrease the stability of a landslide.” See Ex. B, g. 2.

The Project proposes to increase water fixtures without increasing the size of the onsite wastewater treatment system (“OWTS”). This is a problem because of the increase in water use and because the existing OWTS is insufficient for the current development. The OWTS has experienced failures, which will only worsen with additional water fixtures.

The Project applicant has argued that water usage will not increase with the new development because the same number of occupants, namely his family, will continue to reside at the Property. However, land use approvals run with the land and planning must account for the increased water use caused by an overall increase in water fixtures.

An increase in water fixtures will result in increased water use in an area where the Project applicant’s geologist previously found that an increase in water entering the ground will decrease the stability.
3 The Project is clearly not the least environmentally damaging alternative.

D. The Project Does Not Meet County Building Code Requirements The Staff Report incorrectly claims that this Project is subject to County Building Code Section 110.2.3.4 as an addition to a structure in an existing landslide area. 3 Water usage data for the Property enclosed as part of Exhibit A shows incredibly high water usage for the Property, which is concerning given the previous failures and impact of effluent on adjoining properties.
332
City Council
April 26, 2021

4132471v4
County Building Code Section 110.2.3.4 requires that:

When the proposed work involves an addition . . . to an existing structure but is not a change in use or occupancy and such work does not increase the gross floor area of the structure by more than 25 percent of the area of the structure as it existed on July 6, 1968, and the Building Official determines that the proposed work will not impact a historically active landslide (emphasis added).

Here, the Building Official has not, and cannot, determine that the Project will not impact the historically active landslide because no studies opine on the current stability of the area. The Building Official cannot make this finding until completion of a stability assessment of the Big Rock Mesa Landslide District. The continued approval of development in an active landslide area without proper analysis of its stability supports only the conclusion that the cumulative impact of such approvals will impact the historically active landslide.

Importantly, analysis from both Appellant and Applicant's geologists supports the conclusion that the Project’s approval will impact the landslide. As stated above, Mr. Kowalewsky previously concluded that “[i]ncreasing the mass of a structure and increasing the water that enters the ground (wastewater) will decrease the stability of a landslide.” See Ex. B, g. 2. As detailed above, the Project will increase the mass and water fixtures, which decreases the landslide's stability.

Additionally, before a permit may be issued, an owner must:

Submit an engineering geology and/or soils engineering report or reports that contain(s), at a minimum, a qualitative and/or conditional finding that the proposed work complies with the provisions of Section 110.2.1.

Section 110.2.1 provides that “[n]o building or grading permit shall be issued under the provisions of this section when the Building Official finds that property outside the site of the proposed work could be damaged by activation or acceleration of a geotechnically hazardous condition and such activation or acceleration could be attributed to the proposed work on, or change in use of, the site for which the permit is requested.”
333
City Council
April 26, 2021

4132471v4
Again, as noted above, no reports have been submitted because no one has completed an adequate assessment of the stability of the landslide . As such, the Project cannot show that it will not damage adjacent properties. On the contrary, the Applicant’s geologist previously found that the introduction of water and mass to the area decreases the stability of the landslide, making the approval of the Project contrary to County Building Code requirements.

E. The Project Is Not Exempt From CEQA
The Planning Commission incorrectly found the Project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Planning Commission relied on inapplicable categorical exemptions – Section 15301(a) for interior and exterior alterations, Section 15301(2) for additions to existing structures, and Section 15303(d) for new construction.

The Planning Commission, without analysis, found that no exemptions applied to these exceptions.

The Planning Commission's analysis is incorrect.
“All exemptions . . . are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.” 14 CCR § 15300.2(b). Moreover, “[a] categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” 14 CCR § 15300.2(c).

Here, the approval of additional development on an existing landslide without studying the overall stability of the area will create significant environmental impacts over time. There have been approximately one-hundred twenty-five (125) new additions to the landslide district since 1992, the last available stability assessment. All approved without additional study of the stability of the landslide. The continued approval of new additions in Big Rock constitutes a significant cumulative impact. The cumulative impact exception to the categorical exemption is meant to address situations such as this one.

Relatedly, the existing landslide creates unusual circumstances. Multiple signs of cracks exist in the periphery of the landslide, indicating movement of the mass as a whole. We attach copies of photos of such peripheral cracks as Exhibit D. The unusual circumstances of the active landslide create a possibility of a significant environmental impact from the Project as it will increase water consumption, which is one of the primary factors influencing the safety factor of the landslide.

Categorical exemptions do not apply to the Project.
334
City Council
April 26, 2021

4132471v4
III. Conclusion
As detailed above, the Project does not conform to the City’s LCP or building code, and the City improperly found the Project categorically exempt from CEQA. The City must nullify the Planning Commission Approvals and work to implement the work needed to understand the stability of the landslide district and the impact of future development.

Concerned residents understand the existing threat and have sought your leadership to address it. Continuing to approve new development without heeding the community’s concerns is irresponsible planning, putting the property and health of residents at risk.

We appreciate your consideration of the above request. Please contact our office with questions or comments.

Very truly yours,
MONICA R. BRISENO
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
MRB
cc: Kenneth A. Ehrlich (via e-mail [email protected]) Mikke Pierson (via e-mail [email protected])
Paul Grisanti (via e-mail [email protected])
Karen Farrer (via e-mail [email protected])
Bruce Silverstein (via e-mail [email protected]) Steve Uhring (via e-mail [email protected])
Jessica Thompson (via e-mail [email protected])
Richard Mollica (via e-mail [email protected])
Robert DuBoux (via e-mail [email protected])
335

EXHIBIT A
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344

EXHIBIT B
345
346

EXHIBIT C
347
348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360
361
362

EXHIBIT D
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371

372
From: Jake Jesson
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Allison Cook
Subject: PARPCH: Community Correspondence
Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 1:17:02 PM
Attachments: RE Jun meet Jake.msg
RE Jun meet Jake.msg
RE Jun meet Jake.msg
RE Jun meet Jake.msg
RE access.msg
RE access.msg
RE meeting geo tech engineer.msg
RE meeting geo tech engineer for 25200 PCH.msg
RE RESCHEDULE MEETING.msg
WEINTRAUB MEETING.msg
RE meeting geo tech engineer for 25200 PCH.msg
RE RESCHEDULE MEETING.msg
RE RESCHEDULE MEETING.msg
PARPCH Meeting.msg
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Jake Jesson and I’m reaching out to you on behalf of PARPCH, LLC in regards to the project proposed at 25200 PCH, item 4A on your upcoming agenda.

It’s been brought to my attention that a below neighbor of ours, Jun Fujita has expressed to some of you that she has attempted to meet with us previously to discuss the project but that we declined that offer. Unfortunately this is not correct and I’ve provided a below summary of my correspondence with Jun dating back to July of 2025 where I continuously have tried to meet with her either in person or over the phone but she has declined each offer. I even reached out to her as recently as yesterday along with a number of the other neighbors but still that email was not responded to.

Over the past few months, Jun has been very vocal in her opposition of the project, however for reasons unknown to me she continuously declined to participate in meetings with us and our Consultants to discuss the project and answer any questions. Along with the below timeline summary are the corresponding emails for each outreach attempt.

If you have any questions in regards to the below / attached, please do not hesitate to reach out. 25200 PCH
Community Outreach Timeline
Date Basis of Email Jun's Response
7/18/2025
Introductory email and offer to arrange for a time to speak about the project. Declined to speak and asked for plans instead. 7/18/2025 Jesson sending plans to Jun and offering to be available to speak. No reply 7/21/2025
Jake following up with Jun to see if she reviewed the plans and seeing if she'd like to schedule a call.

Rather than scheduling a call, Jun requested that
we voluntarily continue the hearing until she can
review furhter.
7/21/2025
Jake explaining that we the hearing has long been pending and again offering to speak.

Jun responding that she doesn't have any
availability to speak.
8/13/2025
Jun and Jake coordinate a zoom meeting for 8/15 to discuss the project. N/A
8/15/2025
Jun cancels the zoom meeting 30 mins prior to when it was scheduled for. N/A
10/7/2025
Jake invites Jun to attend a community meeting that is being scheduled for 10/22 where the Project Geologist, Josh Feffer will be present and avaialbe to anwer any questions.

Jun declines acceptance and instead asks if we
can instead perform additional borings on our
property.
10/9/2025
Jake responds to Jun explaining that we cannot allow third party drilling but encourages Jun to be present on 10/22 No reply.

Jake reaches out to community (including Jun) to arrange for a group meeting with our Geologist present to discuss the Pacific Coast Land 373
10/21/2025 Consulting report which was commissioned by Jun. Jun replies by saying that she's unable to attend. 12/4/2026
Chris Reed (neighbor) reaches out to Jun to see when she would be available for a community meeting prior to the 12/16 hearing. Jun declined to attend. 1/7/2026
Jake writing to Jun informing her that we would be arranging for another community meeting and encouraging her to attend.

Jun responded saying that she declined to
attend.
1/9/2026
Jake reaching out to the neighborhood offering to organize a community
meeting on 1/14 No reply by Jun
1/12/2026
Jake following up on the previous email in regards to trying to schedule a community meeting on 1/14. Also specifically mentioning that we hope that Jun is able to attend.

Jun replies more or less saying that she will only
attend if we agree in advance that her Geologist
will be granted authority to redesign our pile
system and disregarding what the City has
approved.
1/14/2026
Neighborhood zoom was held but only one neighbor, Holly Sawyer chose to attend.N/A
2/11/2026
Email to neighborhood (including Jun) offering to again arrange for a community meeting to discuss the project. No reply from any neighbors.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers
374
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:20 PM
To: Tony Canzoneri; Jun Fujita Hall
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake
Thank you for the introduction Tony.

Jun – Pleasure to meet you here via email. I’d be happy to discuss the project with you so please let me know when would be a good time to speak.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Tony Canzoneri
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>; Jun Fujita Hall Subject: Jun meet Jake
Jun, Jake is prepared to go over the plans with you and hear about any concerns you have. Please let him know when you are available and your contact info.

Just to confirm that our firm will not be involved in representing any parties related to the 25200 PCH project as we have attorney client relationships with both parties.

Have a great week-end!
Tony Canzoneri
Strategic Solutions for Business and Government
375
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 4:45 PM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake
Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out. The plan set is pretty robust and makes it hard to filter through due to file size but I’ve pulled the high level sheets into a smaller set here for you to review.

Tony referenced that you had concerns with privacy which I completely understand. I can assure you that the development intends to fully screen visibility to and from all lower properties. Please flip through these and give me a call when you have a chance to discuss.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nizcp3bpr6xjb9gm8kxr6/AMHGGgTaICyTbt6n5wpbLc?rlkey=ezgx11y6tlo6hf2rqnt4gn4ci&st=qiur6k1b&dl=0 Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 3:43 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake
Jake,
Thank you for your quick response, could you send us a pdf of the plans so I may review and then give you a call to discuss?
Thanks,
Jun
On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:20 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:
376
2 Thank you for the introduction Tony.

Jun – Pleasure to meet you here via email. I’d be happy to discuss the project with you so please let me know when would be a good time to speak.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Tony Canzoneri <
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>; Jun Fujita Hall Subject: Jun meet Jake

Jun, Jake is prepared to go over the plans with you and hear about any concerns you have. Please let him know when you are available and your contact info.
377
3 Just to confirm that our firm will not be involved in representing any parties related to the 25200 PCH project as we have attorney client relationships with both parties.

Have a great week-end!
Tony Canzoneri
Strategic Solutions for Business and Government

378
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 11:13 AM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake
Hi Jun,
Are you able to speak at all today?
As I understand it, your concerns center around privacy which I firmly believe won’t be an issue given that this will be a focal point for us as well during working drawings as we won’t visibility from below into our site as well. Please let me know if you have a few minutes to discuss today and on that call we can speak about concerns as well as the idea of a continuance.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 10:51 AM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake
Hi Jake,
Thank you for checking in, I would like to request a mutual 30 day continuance so that we can discuss further.

Let me know if that sounds ok.

Thanks,
Jun
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:35 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:
379
2 Hi Jun,
I hope that you enjoyed a nice weekend and just wanted to check in to see if you’ve had a chance to review the plans for 25200 PCH.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jake Jesson
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 6:54 AM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake
Hi Jun,
380
3 Below is a link to the full set. As mentioned, the file size is pretty large so it can be slow to flip through but this will include anything that you’re looking for.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/whnr0515hgtntoy20rnw8/AA7J4Ru2m1fSZVfpUoz4070?rlkey=jifh3ps9 rztjw00pmhuiqlq0t&st=uuv5b1ev&dl=0

Best Regards,

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers

From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 8:47 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,
381
4 More specifically, could you send over sheet A108,A109, A110, A111, A 200, A201, A202, A203, A204, A205, A206, A207, A300, A 301, A302, and A303.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 8:27 PM Jun Fujita < > wrote:

Jake,

Thanks for sending this over, could you send over all the elevations drawing sheets.

Thank you,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out. The plan set is pretty robust and makes it hard to filter through due to file size but I’ve pulled the high level sheets into a smaller set here for you to review.

Tony referenced that you had concerns with privacy which I completely understand. I can assure you that the development intends to fully screen visibility to and from all lower properties. Please flip through these and give me a call when you have a chance to discuss.
382
5 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nizcp3bpr6xjb9gm8kxr6/AMHGGgTaICyTbt6n5wpbLc?rlkey=ezgx11y6tlo6hf2rqnt4gn4ci&st=qiur6k1b&dl=0 Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 3:43 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,
Thank you for your quick response, could you send us a pdf of the plans so I may review and then give you a call to discuss?
Thanks,
383
6 Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:20 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for the introduction Tony.

Jun – Pleasure to meet you here via email. I’d be happy to discuss the project with you so please let me know when would be a good time to speak.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Tony Canzoneri
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>; Jun Fujita Hall Subject: Jun meet Jake
384
7 Jun, Jake is prepared to go over the plans with you and hear about any concerns you have. Please let him know when you are available and your contact info.

Just to confirm that our firm will not be involved in representing any parties related to the 25200 PCH project as we have attorney client relationships with both parties.

Have a great week-end!
Tony Canzoneri
Strategic Solutions for Business and Government

385
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 1:42 PM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake
Hi Jun,
We received notice that a few of the commissioners weren’t able to attend due to personal matters. As a result of this, tonight’s hearing is being postponed.

Please let me know what your availability looks like this week.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 12:44 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake
Hi Jake,
Unfortunately I do not, which is why I would like a mutual continuance, let me know if this is possible.

Thank you
Jun
On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 11:13 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
386
2 Are you able to speak at all today?
As I understand it, your concerns center around privacy which I firmly believe won’t be an issue given that this will be a focal point for us as well during working drawings as we won’t visibility from below into our site as well.

Please let me know if you have a few minutes to discuss today and on that call we can speak about concerns as well as the idea of a continuance.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 10:51 AM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jake,
387
3 Thank you for checking in, I would like to request a mutual 30 day continuance so that we can discuss further.

Let me know if that sounds ok.

Thanks,
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:35 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
I hope that you enjoyed a nice weekend and just wanted to check in to see if you’ve had a chance to review the plans for 25200 PCH.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers 388
4 From: Jake Jesson
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 6:54 AM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jun,

Below is a link to the full set. As mentioned, the file size is pretty large so it can be slow to flip through but this will include anything that you’re looking for.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/whnr0515hgtntoy20rnw8/AA7J4Ru2m1fSZVfpUoz4070?rlkey=jifh3ps 9rztjw00pmhuiqlq0t&st=uuv5b1ev&dl=0

Best Regards,

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, 389
5 this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers

From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 8:47 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,

More specifically, could you send over sheet A108,A109, A110, A111, A 200, A201, A202, A203, A204, A205, A206, A207, A300, A 301, A302, and A303.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 8:27 PM Jun Fujita < wrote:

Jake,

Thanks for sending this over, could you send over all the elevations drawing sheets.

Thank you,
Jun

390
6 On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out. The plan set is pretty robust and makes it hard to filter through due to file size but I’ve pulled the high level sheets into a smaller set here for you to review.

Tony referenced that you had concerns with privacy which I completely understand. I can assure you that the development intends to fully screen visibility to and from all lower properties. Please flip through these and give me a call when you have a chance to discuss.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nizcp3bpr6xjb9gm8kxr6/AMHGGgTaICyTbt6n5wpbLc?rlkey=ezgx11y6tlo6hf2rqnt4gn4ci&st=qiur6k1b&dl=0 Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers 391
7 From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 3:43 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,
Thank you for your quick response, could you send us a pdf of the plans so I may review and then give you a call to discuss?
Thanks,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:20 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for the introduction Tony.

Jun – Pleasure to meet you here via email. I’d be happy to discuss the project with you so please let me know when would be a good time to speak.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
392
8 The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Tony Canzoneri
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>; Jun Fujita Hall < Subject: Jun meet Jake

Jun, Jake is prepared to go over the plans with you and hear about any concerns you have. Please let him know when you are available and your contact info.

Just to confirm that our firm will not be involved in representing any parties related to the 25200 PCH project as we have attorney client relationships with both parties.

Have a great week-end!
Tony Canzoneri
Strategic Solutions for Business and Government

393
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 2:47 PM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: access
Hi Jun,
I have a conflict on Thursday but I am available to meet via zoom on Friday at 2:00. Below is a zoom link for us to use.

Weintraub Zoom is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: My Meeting
Time: Aug 15, 2025 02:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86188788314?pwd=342GmAzRHfvRZo7dzv28UMNp5yua5e.1 Meeting ID: 861 8878 8314
Passcode: 803619
---
One tap mobile
+16694449171,,86188788314#,,,,*803619# US
+16699009128,,86188788314#,,,,*803619# US (San Jose)
Join instructions
https://us02web.zoom.us/meetings/86188788314/invitations?signature=N5qLfoqa_PGYqUoMQC2NqE 0HwvNOhqNRw3PCC53dDlY
Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers 394
2 From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 1:52 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: access
Hi Jake,
I would also like to set up a meeting with you, let me know what time works for you on zoom.

Thursday, August 14: 11 am or
Friday, August 15: 2 pm, 4 pm
Thanks,
Jun
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 11:00 AM Jun Fujita wrote:

Hi Jake,
Could we have access to the site to do some of our own geotech studies? See attached, please use this one.

Thanks,
Jun
On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:57 AM Jun Fujita > wrote:

Hi Jake,
Could we have access to the site to do some of our own geotech studies? See attached
Thanks,
Jun
On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 2:20 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Sounds good Jun.

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
395
3 C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:35 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,
Yes I understand.

Let me take a closer look at the drawings you have sent to me and I will get back to you.

Thanks,
Jun

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:53 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
I’m unfortunately not authorized to share the Architect’s revit model with parties outside of the internal design team. This is something that Oppenheim takes very seriously and as an architect I’m sure that you can understand.

I remain open to speak and would even welcome Tony to be part of that conversation if you think that would be helpful. Please let me know.
396
4 Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita <
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 11:21 AM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jake,

Unfortunately I am booked solid the rest of this week but I would also like to take a closer look at the plans.

The plans appear to have been prepared in revit, could you send me the native file?

Thank you,
397
5 Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 2:39 PM Jun Fujita wrote:

Hi Jake,
Great, let me find a time and get back to you.

Thanks,
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 1:41 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
We received notice that a few of the commissioners weren’t able to attend due to personal matters. As a result of this, tonight’s hearing is being postponed.

Please let me know what your availability looks like this week.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
398
6 The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 12:44 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jake,

Unfortunately I do not, which is why I would like a mutual continuance, let me know if this is possible.

Thank you
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 11:13 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Are you able to speak at all today?
As I understand it, your concerns center around privacy which I firmly believe won’t be an issue given that this will be a focal point for us as well during working drawings as we won’t visibility from below into our site as well. Please let me know if you have a few minutes to discuss today and on that call we can speak about concerns as well as the idea of a continuance.
399
7 Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 10:51 AM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jake,

Thank you for checking in, I would like to request a mutual 30 day continuance so that we can discuss further.

Let me know if that sounds ok.

400
8 Thanks,
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:35 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
I hope that you enjoyed a nice weekend and just wanted to check in to see if you’ve had a chance to review the plans for 25200 PCH.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jake Jesson
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 6:54 AM
401
9 To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jun,

Below is a link to the full set. As mentioned, the file size is pretty large so it can be slow to flip through but this will include anything that you’re looking for.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/whnr0515hgtntoy20rnw8/AA7J4Ru2m1fSZVfpUoz4070?rlkey=ji fh3ps9rztjw00pmhuiqlq0t&st=uuv5b1ev&dl=0

Best Regards,

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers

402
10 From: Jun Fujita <
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 8:47 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,

More specifically, could you send over sheet A108,A109, A110, A111, A 200, A201, A202, A203, A204, A205, A206, A207, A300, A 301, A302, and A303.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 8:27 PM Jun Fujita > wrote:

Jake,

Thanks for sending this over, could you send over all the elevations drawing sheets.

Thank you,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out. The plan set is pretty robust and makes it hard to filter through due to file size but I’ve pulled the high level sheets into a smaller set here for you to review. 403
11 Tony referenced that you had concerns with privacy which I completely understand. I can assure you that the development intends to fully screen visibility to and from all lower properties. Please flip through these and give me a call when you have a chance to discuss. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nizcp3bpr6xjb9gm8kxr6/AMHGGgTaICyTbt6n5wpbLc?rlkey=ezgx11y6tlo6hf2rqnt4gn4ci&st=qiur6k1b&dl=0 Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 3:43 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

404
12 Jake,
Thank you for your quick response, could you send us a pdf of the plans so I may review and then give you a call to discuss?
Thanks,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:20 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for the introduction Tony.

Jun – Pleasure to meet you here via email. I’d be happy to discuss the project with you so please let me know when would be a good time to speak.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers 405
13 From: Tony Canzoneri
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>; Jun Fujita Hall < Subject: Jun meet Jake

Jun, Jake is prepared to go over the plans with you and hear about any concerns you have.

Please let him know when you are available and your contact info.

Just to confirm that our firm will not be involved in representing any parties related to the 25200 PCH project as we have attorney client relationships with both parties.

Have a great week-end!
Tony Canzoneri
Strategic Solutions for Business and Government

406
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 1:28 PM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: access
No problem Jun. Hope you enjoy a nice weekend.

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Friday, August 15, 2025 1:24 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: access
Hi Jake,
I apologize, I need to cancel our meeting for today at 2pm.

Thanks,
Jun
On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 5:00 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Sounds good Jun and look forward to speaking then.

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
407
2 P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2025 4:48 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: access

Hi Jake,

I am available Friday at 2pm, my attorney will join the call also.

Thank you,
Jun

On Wed, Aug 13, 2025 at 2:47 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,

I have a conflict on Thursday but I am available to meet via zoom on Friday at 2:00. Below is a zoom link for us to use.
408
3 Weintraub Zoom is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Topic: My Meeting
Time: Aug 15, 2025 02:00 PM Pacific Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86188788314?pwd=342GmAzRHfvRZo7dzv28UMNp5yua5e.1

Meeting ID: 861 8878 8314
Passcode: 803619

---

One tap mobile
+16694449171,,86188788314#,,,,*803619# US
+16699009128,,86188788314#,,,,*803619# US (San Jose)

Join instructions
https://us02web.zoom.us/meetings/86188788314/invitations?signature=N5qLfoqa_PGYqUoMQC2Nq E0HwvNOhqNRw3PCC53dDlY

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
409
4 Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers

From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2025 1:52 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: access

Hi Jake,

I would also like to set up a meeting with you, let me know what time works for you on zoom.

Thursday, August 14: 11 am or
Friday, August 15: 2 pm, 4 pm

Thanks,
Jun

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 11:00 AM Jun Fujita > wrote:

Hi Jake,
Could we have access to the site to do some of our own geotech studies? 410
5 See attached, please use this one.

Thanks,
Jun

On Mon, Aug 11, 2025 at 10:57 AM Jun Fujita > wrote:

Hi Jake,
Could we have access to the site to do some of our own geotech studies? See attached
Thanks,
Jun

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 2:20 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Sounds good Jun.

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers 411
6 From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 1:35 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,
Yes I understand.

Let me take a closer look at the drawings you have sent to me and I will get back to you.

Thanks,
Jun

On Wed, Jul 23, 2025 at 11:53 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
I’m unfortunately not authorized to share the Architect’s revit model with parties outside of the internal design team. This is something that Oppenheim takes very seriously and as an architect I’m sure that you can understand.

I remain open to speak and would even welcome Tony to be part of that conversation if you think that would be helpful. Please let me know.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
412
7 P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2025 11:21 AM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jake,

Unfortunately I am booked solid the rest of this week but I would also like to take a closer look at the plans.

The plans appear to have been prepared in revit, could you send me the native file?

Thank you,
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 2:39 PM Jun Fujita > wrote:

Hi Jake,
Great, let me find a time and get back to you.
413
8 Thanks,
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 1:41 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
We received notice that a few of the commissioners weren’t able to attend due to personal matters. As a result of this, tonight’s hearing is being postponed.

Please let me know what your availability looks like this week.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers 414
9 From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 12:44 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jake,

Unfortunately I do not, which is why I would like a mutual continuance, let me know if this is possible.

Thank you
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 11:13 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Are you able to speak at all today?
As I understand it, your concerns center around privacy which I firmly believe won’t be an issue given that this will be a focal point for us as well during working drawings as we won’t visibility from below into our site as well. Please let me know if you have a few minutes to discuss today and on that call we can speak about concerns as well as the idea of a continuance.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
415
10 Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita <
Sent: Monday, July 21, 2025 10:51 AM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jake,

Thank you for checking in, I would like to request a mutual 30 day continuance so that we can discuss further.

Let me know if that sounds ok.

Thanks,
Jun

On Mon, Jul 21, 2025 at 10:35 AM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
416
11 I hope that you enjoyed a nice weekend and just wanted to check in to see if you’ve had a chance to review the plans for 25200 PCH.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jake Jesson
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2025 6:54 AM
To: Jun Fujita <
Subject: RE: Jun meet Jake

Hi Jun,

417
12 Below is a link to the full set. As mentioned, the file size is pretty large so it can be slow to flip through but this will include anything that you’re looking for.

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/whnr0515hgtntoy20rnw8/AA7J4Ru2m1fSZVfpUoz4070?rlkey =jifh3ps9rztjw00pmhuiqlq0t&st=uuv5b1ev&dl=0

Best Regards,

Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers

From: Jun Fujita <
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 8:47 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,
418
13 More specifically, could you send over sheet A108,A109, A110, A111, A 200, A201, A202, A203, A204, A205, A206, A207, A300, A 301, A302, and A303.

Thank you.

Kind regards,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 8:27 PM Jun Fujita > wrote:

Jake,

Thanks for sending this over, could you send over all the elevations drawing sheets.

Thank you,
Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 4:44 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out. The plan set is pretty robust and makes it hard to filter through due to file size but I’ve pulled the high level sheets into a smaller set here for you to review.

Tony referenced that you had concerns with privacy which I completely understand. I can assure you that the development intends to fully screen visibility to and from all lower properties. Please flip through these and give me a call when you have a chance to discuss. 419
14 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/nizcp3bpr6xjb9gm8kxr6/AMHGGgTaICyTbt6n5wpbLc?rlkey=ezgx11y6tlo6hf2rqnt4gn4ci&st=qiur6k1b&dl=0 Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita <
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 3:43 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Jun meet Jake

Jake,
Thank you for your quick response, could you send us a pdf of the plans so I may review and then give you a call to discuss?
Thanks,
420
15 Jun

On Fri, Jul 18, 2025 at 2:20 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for the introduction Tony.

Jun – Pleasure to meet you here via email. I’d be happy to discuss the project with you so please let me know when would be a good time to speak.

Thanks,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Tony Canzoneri
Sent: Friday, July 18, 2025 2:15 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>; Jun Fujita Hall Subject: Jun meet Jake
421
16 Jun, Jake is prepared to go over the plans with you and hear about any concerns you have.

Please let him know when you are available and your contact info.

Just to confirm that our firm will not be involved in representing any parties related to the 25200 PCH project as we have attorney client relationships with both parties.

Have a great week-end!
Tony Canzoneri
Strategic Solutions for Business and Government

422
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 4:50 PM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: meeting geo tech engineer
Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out.

We along with our Geologist will be meeting with some of the other neighbors at 4:00 on 10/22. I believe that Chris Reed has extended an invite for you to attend this meeting and would be great if you could be present along with your Geologist so that we can all discuss together. Please let me know if that works for you.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2:31 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: meeting geo tech engineer
Jake,
Could we set up a meeting with Josh and our geotech engineer Please send me some times that would work
Thanks,
Jun
423
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 1:47 PM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: meeting geo tech engineer for 25200 PCH
Hi Jun,
For a number of reasons, we unfortunately cannot allow a third party consultant perform work on our property. We hope to see you at the meeting on the 22nd.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 12:31 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: meeting geo tech engineer for 25200 PCH
Hi Jake,
We have not gotten a response from you on the access agreement, please allow us to do our own borings and place inclinometers on the property. We would like to do these borings prior to meeting with your engineer.

Thanks,
Jun
On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:49 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out.
424
2 We along with our Geologist will be meeting with some of the other neighbors at 4:00 on 10/22. I believe that Chris Reed has extended an invite for you to attend this meeting and would be great if you could be present along with your Geologist so that we can all discuss together. Please let me know if that works for you.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2:31 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: meeting geo tech engineer
Jake,
425
3 Could we set up a meeting with Josh and our geotech engineer Please send me some times that would work

Thanks,
Jun
426
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 4:20 PM
To: Chris Reed; TOM & HOLLY; ALEX & JUN HALL; RICHARD & BEATA; TRICIA; Sandro Dazzan; Wendy Carroll Eskan; Matt Eskan; NANETTE & PETER; SHARONE KARSH Cc: PAT SCHONE
Subject: RE: RESCHEDULE MEETING
Attachments: 2025.08.20 Feffer Response to Pacific Coast Land Consulting Report re PARPCH.pdf Hi All,
If we haven’t yet spoken, my name is Jake Jesson and I work with Richard Weintraub. We are looking forward to meeting with you tomorrow at the Reed’s residence and in advance I wanted to send you a copy the attached report which addresses the comments made by Pacific Coast Land Consulting.

Our Geologist will be present at the meeting tomorrow and ready to address any questions that you may have.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Chris Reed
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:34 PM
To: TOM & HOLLY ; ALEX & JUN HALL ; RICHARD & BEATA
; TRICIA >; Sandro Dazzan >; Wendy Carroll Eskan
>; Matt Eskan >; NANETTE & PETER ;

SHARONE KARSH
Cc: PAT SCHONE
Subject: RESCHEDULE MEETING
Hello Neighbors.

Richard Weintraub and I have rescheduled the meeting at my house for Wednesday, October 22 @ 4:00 pm. I hope all of you can arrange your schedules to include this important meeting. Bring your questions and concerns and they will be addressed and answered. 427
2 P.S. Jun, Richard particularly asked if you would please attend so he and his geologist could address your concerns. Please come.

Chris Reed
428
August 20, 2025 File No. 1992-75
PARPCH, LLC.

P.O. Box 6528
Malibu, CA 90264
Subject: RESPONSE TO RALPH JEFFERY LETTER
Preliminary Report by Pacific Coast Land Consulting
Dated August 15, 2025
References: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

INVESTIGATION
23000-25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: Feffer Geological Consulting, Dated May 21, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu Dated August 27, 2018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 20, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 14, 2019
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated December 17, 2019

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 30, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated August 4, 2020
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated June 18, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 18, 2021

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
429
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

City of Malibu Review Letter Dated February 28, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated April 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated July 5, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated September 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET (APPROVAL)
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated November 11, 2022

ADDENDUM LETTER I
Proposed Soldier Pile and Tieback Stabilization System
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated January 6, 2023

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated February 14, 2023

RESPONSE TO CITY OF MALIBU
Proposed Soldier Pile and Tieback Stabilization System
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated March 17, 2023

GEOTECHNICAL APPROVAL SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated April 11, 2023
430
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

Dear PARPCH, LLC:

As requested, Feffer Geological Consulting is providing this letter in response to the referenced report by Pacific Coast Land Consulting. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service. Should you have any questions regarding the information contained in this report, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,
FEFFER GEOLOGICAL CONSULTING, INC.

Joshua R. Feffer
Principal Engineering Geologist
C.E.G. 2138
Distribution: Addressee– (1)
431
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

INTRODUCTION
Pacific Coast Land Consulting (Ralph Jeffery) has brought up several points that we will refute in a line by line reply below. However, it should be noted that Ralph is questioning the judgement of both the City of Malibu’s reviewing geologist and engineer, as well as the competency of Feffer Geological Consulting, Inc. Furthermore, many of the points that Ralph brings up have already been exhaustively addressed, explained, and analyzed within the 9 reports that were prepared by this office over a 5-year period along with the associated City of Malibu review and approval sheets.

A summary of the allegations is as follows and were taken from Ralphs 4.0 Conclusions of his letter:

ALLEGATION 1
The Feffer report for 25200 PCH does not address previously existing and well documented sliding.

RESPONSE
This statement is not correct, and it appears that Ralph has not reviewed the extensive discussion that has already occurred regarding this allegation. We recommend he familiarize himself with the documents produced by this firm.

As taken from the initial report that we wrote dated May 21, 2018:

3.5.1 LANDSLIDE DISCUSSION
Since the study of this property began in the Early 1960’s ancient landslides have been inferred to underlie much of the subject site. A preliminary map produced by the USGS in 1961 delineated a slide area that surrounded most of the property and extended from Puerco Canyon as far west as Corral Canyon, and as far north as the Pacific Coast Highway.

Many of the previous consultants that have provided a geotechnical report for the subject property have built their conclusions around a combination of aerial photographs, geologic maps, and the geotechnical reports produced by Stone Geological (which later became Robert Stone and Associates), and the work of Leighton and Associates.

The first geotechnical investigation was conducted by Stone Geological (SG) and completed on December 11, 1962. The investigation consisted of 16 total bucket-auger borings within the vicinity and 8 along the subject property, which ranged in depth from 18 to 55 feet beneath the surface.

Stone Geological determined that the subject property was underlain by multiple intersecting ancient landslides that crossed the property line to the south, and continued beneath neighboring properties below the south-facing descending slope. 432
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

To delineate these slide boundaries, SG used a compilation of aerial photographs, geologic maps, and subsurface investigation. The borings were drilled and logged by the Donald R. Warren Company for Stone Geological.

Careful review of the report, and the data collected by SG, indicate that some liberty was taken in the interpretation of the data to identify possible ancient landslide boundaries and slide planes. Of the eight exploratory borings along the subject property, only one boring (SG B-4), contains a structural measurement that could potentially be identified as a feature related to landsliding. Interpretations of landsliding was based predominantly on the review of aerial photographs.

In April of 1965 Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc. (PSE) produced a landslide investigation of the subject property. A total of 17 bucket-auger borings were drilled to depth ranging from 5.5 to 64 feet beneath the surface. None of the boring logs, maps, or associated figures completed by Pacific Soils could be located in the records, and therefore locations of borings, findings, and interpretations cannot be verified.

In March of 1968 F. Beach Leighton provided a preliminary geologic review of the subject property. This preliminary review did not include a subsurface investigation, and therefore contains no data for comparison with past or recent explorations.

Additional work by Robert Stone and Associates (RSA) was conducted in May of 1969, once again in collaboration with Donald R. Warren. Of the 21 total bucket-auger borings completed, 10 were excavated on the subject site. Within the 10 borings conducted on the subject site, seven contained structural measurements, and none positively identified ancient or recent landslide planes or related features.

In 1979 Leighton and Associates (L&A) completed a final geotechnical investigation which included 12 continuous trenches on the subject property. None of the 16 bucketauger borings were located on the subject site. Within the 12 trenches along the subject property only four trenches (LT-2, LT-7, LT-8, LT-11) identified features that could potentially be related to ancient landsliding. Fault trench 8 (LT-8), located near the eastern most edge of the subject site adjacent to the southern oriented canyon, was used in conjunction with our findings from the recent exploration to create an area delineated as a “No Build Zone” (Section 3.4.3).

Leighton identified several ancient slides on and in the vicinity of the subject site that were labelled as Qlsa 1-6. According to Leighton and Associates, none of these slides have exhibited any evidence of recent movement. These boundaries were ultimately used to delineate the landslide boundaries within the Malibu Road Landslide Assessment District report, which began in 1981. These landslide areas are discussed as follows:

Qlsa1-The majority of this ancient slide is located offsite the subject property and only partially affects the northeast corner. The ancient slide movement in this area is inferred to be towards the east and affects Pacific Coast Highway. 433
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

Qlsa2- This slide affects the easternmost portion of the subject site and is located within the thin layer of fill that was placed by Donald R. Warren circa 1952. Movement is inferred in an easterly direction towards the canyon located on the east side of the property.

Based on the uncertainty of the landslide in the area of Qlsa-1 and Qlsa-2, and its depth and location adjacent to a canyon, we have established a “No Build Zone” as shown on the Geologic Map. This area will be isolated from the remainder of the subject lot by the installation of soldier piles.

Qlsa3- This ancient slide, according to Leighton, has had no evidence of recent movement. Leighton’s trenches LT-7 and LT-8 extended across the mapped edge of the slide and are described as “disturbed terrace” in contact with bedrock. This firm drilled borings FGB-1, FGB-7, FGB-8 and Trench FGT-1 within the delineated area of Qlsa3 and found no evidence of ancient sliding and simply a contact between the terrace and bedrock with no adverse orientations. Nonetheless, as discussed below, the entirety of the terrace (or ancient slide as described by Leighton) will be remedially removed and recompacted as a controlled and certified fill.

Qlsa4- This ancient slide is delineated by Leighton as a smaller slide to the west of Qlsa3. No concise evidence was found within Leighton’s exploratory logs for the existence of this slide on the subject pad. Within Leighton LT-4, a questioned possible rupture surface was delineated. However this firm drilled FGB-3 and FGB-6 and simply observed a contact between the terrace and bedrock with no adverse orientations.

Nonetheless, as discussed below, the entirety of the terrace (or ancient slide as described by Leighton) will be remedially removed and recompacted as a controlled and certified fill.

Qlsa5- This ancient slide is delineated by Leighton as a smaller slide to the west of Qlsa4. No evidence was found within Leighton’s exploratory logs for the existence of this slide on the subject pad. The interpretation of this ancient slide is based entirely on borings located along Bayshore Drive to the south of the subject property. This firm drilled FGB-9 and found no evidence of ancient sliding or adverse orientations.

Nonetheless, as discussed below, the entirety of the terrace (or ancient slide as described by Leighton) will be remedially removed and recompacted as a controlled and certified fill.

Qlsa6- This slide is located entirely offsite and to the west, and does not affect the subject property.

In summary, evidence from Leighton and Associates (L&A) which positively identifies or locates head scarps, toes, slide planes, or other geomorphic features that are related to landsliding, appears to be very limited. Furthermore, L&A concluded that there are no known reactivations of the underlying ancient landslides. 434
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

According to L&A, the recent landsliding which occurred below the property line followed excessive rainfall in 1978 and occurred due to the failure of fill material that was placed on the lower pad, making up the lower terrace adjacent to Bayshore Drive, during early grading in 1952.

Smaller surficial failures were observed by Leighton and Associates on the south descending slope along the southern property line. Leighton and Associates attributed these shallow slumps to the uncontrolled or concentrated runoff over the top of the slopes due to diversions caused by CalTrans. The superficial failures were determined to have occurred in fill material overlying the subject site. None of the recent surficial slides have been observed to be deep seated.

In October of 1989, LeRoy Crandall and associates provided a geotechnical review of the subject site which did not include any additional on-site investigations. This report provided little to no value for the purpose of landslide assessment on the subject property.

In 1981 the County of Los Angeles established The Malibu Road Landslide Assessment District, following the activation of the recent landslide in 1978 on the properties below the subject on Bayshore Drive and Malibu Road. The Malibu Road district was monitored annually by the City until 1991, then independently monitored by consultants from 1991 to the present.

In an effort to quantify movement and the stability of the Malibu Road district, a series of hydraugers, slope inclometers, piezometers, and dewatering wells were installed beginning in the early 1980’s. By 1998 Slope inclometers/piezometers SI-5 and SI-6 were installed along Bayshore drive, just south of the subject property. Since quarterly measurements began in 1998 (and continue today) of both SI-5 and SI-6, annul reports conclude that no significant movement is occurring.

C.Y. Geotech, Inc. (CYG) provided a geotechnical investigation in August of 2000, which included the drilling of 5 bucket-auger borings to a maximum depth of 66 feet, five test pits, and five seismic trenches to a maximum depth of 12.5 feet. Data collected by CYG contains no evidence of landslide planes or landslide debris within any of the excavations on the subject property.

3.5.2 LANDSLIDE CONCLUSION
Intensive review of research shows that, while there has been an abundance of exploration on the subject property, no one has been able to clearly identify and map the ancient landslide boundaries or related structural features that likely exist beneath the subject property.

The pre-graded site topography does suggest that ancient landslides exist, at least partially, beneath the subject property. However, the extent and depth to which the ancient slides exist remains uncertain as indicated by previous and current geologic explorations. 435
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

No evidence of ancient landsliding was observed within the recent excavations performed by this firm. The inferred landsliding on the subject site seems to be the contact between the overlying alluvium/terrace and the underlying bedrock. No evidence of landsliding within the bedrock was observed.

The recent landsliding that has occurred (e.g. 1978) and surficial slumping are not related to deep seated failures and were predominantly due to poor drainage conditions. Active landsliding along the slope below the subject property is entirely offsite.

In addition, we answered the following specific question from the City of Malibu Reviewers in our response letter dated November 20, 2018.

Item 5
The PGC (Project Geotechnical Consultant) states in the Landslide Conclusion section of their report that no evidence of ancient landsliding was observed based on their exploration, and no evidence of landsliding within the bedrock was observed. They also state that, while there has been an abundance of exploration on the property in the past, no consultant has been able to clearly identify and map the landslide boundaries, and the extent and depth to which the landslides exist remains uncertain as indicated by previous and current exploration. However, the geotechnical map indicates most of the exploratory borings performed by the consultant to further assess landslides at the site are located very close to the limit of the landslides. Based on the above, the PGC needs to update their geotechnical map and cross-sections to depict their interpretation of the geologic conditions under the site based on all subsurface data presented to date.

Additional exploration appears necessary to further characterize the conditions and map with certainty the limits and depths of landslides which may affect the proposed development on and adjacent to the property.

Response:

An updated map is provided to illustrate the interpretations by this office of the existing subsurface conditions. Any material previously identified as part of an ancient landslide by others will be removed as part of the development of the property. Further investigation of a condition that will be remediated as part of the development does not appear to be warranted.

An additional map, separate from the “Geotechnical Map” is labeled as a “Geologic Map” and is included to illustrate all previous investigations in the site vicinity. This additional map is being used to reduce confusion on the Geotechnical Map and to illustrate the extent of work completed within and around the site.

To summarize, the ancient landslides that are illustrated on the maps are a conservative acceptance of previous interpretation. The site will be stabilized with a row of soldier piles at the top of the descending slope, and any potentially adverse geologic conditions will be completely removed through grading. Moreover, geogrid will be utilized to reinforce the newly removed and recompacted material to achieve an acceptable factor of safety.
436
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

As outlined in the landslide summary below, even though the site was previously interpreted to have ancient landslides, a detailed review of the individual boring logs within the delineated ancient landslides does not conclusively support those findings.

Boring logs by this firm and others are also attached for reference.

Landslide Summary
A discussion of borings by others on site and within the inferred ancient landslides is included below.

Qlsa-2
Robert Stone and Associates (1968/69)
B-11: Boring eleven only provides structural measurements at depths of 40.5, 42.5 and 49 feet beneath the surface in the bedrock. The orientation observed at 40.5’ is simply a contact between the marine terrace material and the bedrock. The contact is a shallow southeast dipping plane (9-12°) that is reasonable for such wave cut and near shore depositional environments.

Two clay beds were measured at 42.5 and 49 feet and they both dip approximately 30° towards the northeast and into the slope. Fracturing typical of normal geologic process were recorded, but no landslide was directly observed in this boring.

B-13: Boring thirteen contains structural measurements at 4, 21, 25, and 40 feet below the ground surface. All measurements, with the exception of one, dip generally in a north direction ranging from 11 to 60° at most. Similar to boring 11, a gently (~20°) southeast dipping contact is recorded between the terrace material and bedrock. Fracturing and minor shearing typical of normal geologic process were recorded, but no landslide was directly observed in this boring.

Additionally, this inferred ancient slide will be completely isolated by a row of northsouth trending piles and no habitable structures will be built within the delineated “No Build Zone”. This is a precautionary measure adopted to isolate the site from the historically unstable Puerco Canyon.

C.Y. Geotech (2000)
B-1: Boring one contains no structural measurements for reference. Fracturing and minor shearing typical of normal geologic process were recorded, but no landslide was directly observed in this boring.

Qlsa-3a
Stone Geological (1962)
B-4: Boring four contains one structural measurement striking N 68° E 37°S at a depth of 33-35’ beneath the surface. This feature was interpreted as a “glide” plane, but the material was not designated as being landslide affected. Fracturing and minor shearing typical of normal geologic process were recorded, but no landslide was directly observed in this boring.
437
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

Robert Stone and Associates (1968/69)
B-10: Boring ten contains structural measurements at 10, 20, and 43’ beneath the ground surface. A west dipping 25° contact is observed between the marine terrace material and underlying bedrock. At 20 feet the observed bedding orientation is dipping 25° towards the northeast, into the slope. A “possible slide plane” is observed at 32.5’ however no orientation or description is given. The final bedding orientation at 43’ is also observed to dip towards the northeast approximately 70°. Fracturing and minor shearing typical of normal geologic process were recorded, but no landslide was directly observed in this boring.

C.Y. Geotech (2000)
B-2: Boring two contains structural measurements at 17.3, 32.5, and 59 feet beneath the ground surface. A south dipping (33°) plane was measured at 17.3 feet and is interpreted as a thin clay layer. It is unclear if the measurement is in bedrock or terrace material, but descriptions more closely represent the onsite terrace material and we therefore interpret this plane as a basal contact between the terrace and bedrock. The depth of this contact is consistent with other interpretations and is a reasonable assumption based on the available data. At 32.5 feet a bedding orientation within the bedrock is measured to dip 73° towards the south. While this is a steep bedding orientation, it is consistent with overturned and folded bedding previously observed within this bedrock. At 59 feet a joint is measured to dip 83° towards the north. Fracturing and minor shearing typical of normal geologic process were recorded, but no landslide was directly observed in this boring.

Qlsa-5
Stone Geological (1962)
B-8: Boring eight contains no recorded structural measurements within the boring. A “slide plane” is recorded at 15 feet beneath the ground surface but not substantiated with a measurement or description of the material. This observation is therefore not considered useful for interpreting underlying conditions. Fracturing and minor shearing typical of normal geologic process were recorded, but no landslide was directly observed in this boring.

C.Y. Geotech (2000)
B-5: Boring five contains an abundance of structural measurements within the bedrock at 10, 13, 19.5, 23.5, 53.5, and 58.5 feet beneath the ground surface. At 13 feet bedding was observed to dip 40° to the north, into the slope. South dipping bedding orientations were measured to range from 19 to 54° for the remaining depths. While these orientations are locally out of slope, no landslide was directly observed within this boring. The observed fracturing and shearing is typical within this bedrock due to normal geologic processes.

Additionally, annual reporting by Fugro (2018) of the Malibu Road Landslide Assessment District indicates that no detectable movement has occurred in the slope inclinometers installed along Bayshore drive, south of the site. If ancient landslides do underlie the site, there is no evidence of recent movement since observations began in 1998.
438
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

In conclusion, despite an abundance of work, no consultant has been able to clearly identify and map the ancient landslide boundaries, and the extent and depth to which these landslides exist remains uncertain. Our interpretation is therefore a conservative acceptance of previous work to err on the side of safety for this project and neighboring properties.

ALLEGATION 2
The Feffer report only uses circular failure modes in analysis. The failure modes should be a user specified input. Furthermore, Shear strength utilized are not appropriate for the analysis.

RESPONSE
The statement is factually incorrect, and it appears Ralph just ignored or did not review the submitted reports. This firm performed both circular and translational (also known as planar) slope stability analysis to evaluate both types of failures for static and seismic conditions.

Furthermore, our extensive analysis evaluated the entire site slope, offsite portions of the slope, and even considered the possibility of the offsite slope failing away at the request of the City’s reviewing engineer.

The complex analyses modeled landslide material, weak bedrock, high groundwater levels, and any potentially geologically hazardous conditions to provide the most conservative, and therefore safest approach for development.

The resulting soldier pile and tieback design that was approved was designed such that the entire site will remain safe and standing, even if the offsite portions (not owned by our client) has any instability issues.

As stated in the November 18, 2021 report as a response to a specific review item presented by the City of Malibu the following was provided:

Item 4
The consultant needs to perform translational slope stability analyses on all crosssections with potential adverse geologic conditions (examples: Cross-Sections 2-2', 3-3', 4-4', 5-5' and 6-6'). Substantiated residual shear strength (example: residual shear strength used for landslide planes) should be utilized to model along-bedding shear strength. Mitigation measures should be recommended, as necessary.

Response:

A letter titled “Preliminary Slope Stability Analysis, 25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265” dated March 25, 2021 was provided to the reviewers to open a discussion regarding the selection of appropriate shear values for use in the requested translational analyses. A copy of this letter is provided at the back of this response for the record.
439
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

A conference call was initiated between this firm and the reviewers to mutually review and agree on the selection of shear values. Based on that call and the presented letter, all parties agreed that the following values could be used for the translational analysis.

Material Phi Angle (°) Cohesion (psf) Type
Bedrock

34.5 520 Ultimate
41 720 Peak
16 200 Back calc.

The ultimate value shall be used to model static conditions, and the peak value shall be used to model seismic conditions that apply a 0.35g horizontal acceleration. To model potential adverse bedding planes an anisotropic function shall be adopted for south dipping bedding planes ranging from 10 to 30 degrees and the selected residual value will be applied to this range of bedding planes for translational analysis. Groundwater was also modeled in the additional analyses where applicable.

Translational Stability Analysis
As requested, cross sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 were analyzed for translational stability to model potential adverse geologic conditions. Each section was analyzed under the “post construction” condition to consider all proposed new grades, building loads, groundwater conditions, and reinforcements. Each analysis utilized the spencer method with a non-circular block search. Search windows were placed at the top and bottom of each slope based on a trial-and-error method of selection. Once search windows were defined, reinforcements were added to the slopes and modified until reaching a 1.5 and

1.0 factor of safety (FS) for static and seismic conditions.

The analyses indicate that the existing slopes require a stabilization system to achieve a

1.5 and 1.0 factor of safety and to mitigate potential geologic instability.

It should be noted that section 6-6’ was not evaluated further because most of the slope for section 6-6’ is within the delineated “No-Build Zone”. As stated in previous responses, the proposed row of piles is only recommended to isolate the proposed development from the “No-Build Zone” and are not required to increase the global factor of safety for the slope. As illustrated on the updated translational analysis, all factors of safety less than 1.5 exist within the “No-Build Zone”, do not intersect the proposed row of piles, and do not intersect the proposed development. The existing slope in this area is performing well under current conditions but should not be modified.

Pile Design Analysis
After performing the translational analyses, a separate set of analyses were performed for sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 to evaluate the pile loads needed to achieve a 1.5 and 1.0 FS for each portion of the slope. A discussion is provided below:
440
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

Offsite Slope
First, we evaluated the offsite portion of the slope from the southern property line to Bayshore Drive. The purpose of this analysis was to determine if the offsite portion of the slope had adequate factors of safety. A summary of the results is provided below:

Section Static/Seismic Factor of Safety
2-2’ Static 0.874
Seismic 0.460
3-3’ Static 0.952
Seismic 0.528
4-4’ Static 1.007
Seismic 0.562
5-5’ Static 1.141
Seismic 0.670
Offsite Slope Removal
Once we determined the existing FS for the offsite portion of the descending slope, the “failed” wedge of material was removed from each section until the FS was no longer less than 1.5 or 1.0 for static and seismic conditions.

The removal of this material left a freestanding portion of the piles at the property line.

The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate the project site under the theoretical assumption that the descending slope failed away and left behind the slope stabilization system.

Due to the complexity of the site geology, the following analyses were used to determine the pile loads required to retain the project site in a post failure condition.

Upper Slope
Next, we evaluated the pile loads required to stabilize the site between the top of the slope and the bottom of the freestanding pile (determined from the analysis above) under static and seismic conditions. This required an iterative approach in which piles were added and loads were increased until achieving a 1.5 and 1.0 FS.

Entire Slope
Finally, to evaluate deep seated instability we evaluated the pile loads required to stabilize the site between the top of the slope and the bottom of the slope. This also required an iterative approach in which piles were added and loads were increased until achieving a 1.5 and 1.0 FS. A summary of the analyses and recommendations for the design of the stabilization system is provided on Table 1. The project engineer should use these values to design an appropriate stabilization system. A combination of grade beams, tiebacks, or other methods may be used to assist in the design to accommodate high pile loads.
441
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

Conclusion
The attached analyses indicate that the existing slopes require a stabilization system to achieve a 1.5 and 1.0 factor of safety and to mitigate potential geologic instability. Once reinforced, the slopes are considered grossly stable. The updated site map and cross sections illustrate the proposed locations of the support system.

The updated geotechnical map is color coded to illustrate the approximate proposed pile locations. Transitions between piles with different depths shall occur approximately at the midpoint between analyzed sections. The actual number of piles, their precise locations, and actual dimensions will be determined by the project Structural engineer given the information provided herein. Prior to submittal, the slope stabilization design and layout should be provided to this firm for review and approval.

The analysis we used, the shear strengths adopted, and the depiction of the underlying geology was developed over 5 years with extensive review and subsurface investigation and laboratory testing and is appropriate for the site.

Our offices analysis was conducted utilizing both a geologist and civil engineer and in the opinion of the City reviewer, Ali Abdel-Haq, was well founded on appropriate data and methodology.

Pacific Coast Land Consulting has provided no analysis or alternative methodologies to support their allegation.

ALLEGATION 3
The pile system is too shallow to accommodate an upper slide surface and a lower slide surface. The existing factor of safety is based on rotational conditions only and does not include any analysis of a complex slide surface.

RESPONSE
Not only is this statement false, but is not based on any independent analysis. Ralph has not provided any evidence to support the claims made.

Our conclusions are based on the most conservative interpretation of the underlying geology that is supported by extensive subsurface exploration, laboratory data, and stability analysis completed by this firm. This issue was extensively reviewed and approved over 5 years and multiple reports on an iterative process with Chris Dean and Ali Abdel-Hak, reviewers for the City of Malibu.

The descending slope is about 70 feet in height. The preliminary structural design consists of two rows of piles near southern property line and one row of piles along the western portion of the site. These piles extend nearly the entire length of the site and will extend to depths ranging from 48 to 78.4 feet below the ground surface.

In addition, two rows of tiebacks ranging in length from 101 to 129 feet will also penetrate the slope and provide additional support for the soldier piles. 442
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

This complex design is based on the geotechnical recommendations that were provided by this firm in our report dated November 18, 2021. A preliminary pile design schematic is attached to the back of this letter.

ALLEGATION 4
There is inclinometer monitoring data that indicates the active slide is much larger and deeper that has been previously analyzed. Slope indicator reports show movement in si-5 and si-6 at depths of elevations of 32’ and 39’. This much deeper that the currently mapped active slide and indicates that the head scarp of the upper slide will, be located up slope on the subject proper(sic)

RESPONSE
This allegation is contradicted by the City of Malibu Assessment District Report dated March 20, 2025 “FY23/24 Maintenance and Monitoring AD98-3, Malibu Road, City of Malibu by Yeh Project No.220-278.”
The following is taken directly from section 2.2.1 Summary of Slope Inclinometer Monitoring Events, Page 5 of the referenced report.

The report specifically states that no movement was recorded in SI-5 and SI-6.

Additionally on Page 6 of the report, table 5 summarizes all of the inclinometer data.

As can be seen, no movement was recorded in SI-5 and SI-6. 443
August 20, 2025 File No: 1992-75

CONCLUSION
Over a more than 5-year period, this firm has spent countless hours performing onsite exploration (including physical downhole logging and trenching), a suite of laboratory testing, thorough and extensive review of previous work, and complex engineering calculations. The time spent has allowed us to not only become intimately familiar with this site, but to provide conservative geotechnical recommendations that will allow for a safe and habitable development. The construction of the recommended soldier pile and tieback design will ultimately result in a slope condition that is safer than its present condition.

Mr. Jeffery makes numerous allegations in a short 5-page report against our professional judgment, reporting and analysis, none of which is based on any independent engineering analysis/calculations, thorough review of reports (both our reports and decades worth of previous reporting by previous consultants, which are all publicly available), or any presentation of supporting data.
444
1 Planning Commission
From: Chris Reed
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2025 10:29 AM
To: ALEX & JUN HALL
Cc: Jake Jesson; Lisa Strickland; cc: Josh Feffer; Richard Weintraub; PAT SCHONE Subject: WEINTRAUB MEETING
Hi Jun. We have reached out to you for a convenient date for you to meet with your neighbors re: the Weintraub proposed construction of a house directly above many of us. The hearing at city hall is scheduled for Dec 16th so we would like to meet on an afternoon around 4:00pm between now and then. Surely you can come up with a day in that time frame.

Please let me know of the date of your choice asap so I can set it up with the other neighbors and the Weintraub team.
--
Chris Reed
445
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 3:15 PM
To: Jun Fujita
Subject: RE: meeting geo tech engineer for 25200 PCH
Hi Jun,
Thank you for reaching out. As you know, we’ve tried to organize multiple community meetings with our consultants present to address any questions that you or other community members may have about our project.

I’m not sure why but the Reed’s who have been trying to schedule these meetings say that they’ve never heard back from you as to your availability to attend.

We will be reaching out to try for another meeting and really hope that you can come.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Monday, January 5, 2026 1:08 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: meeting geo tech engineer for 25200 PCH
Hi Jake,
Following up, on 25200 PCH we are very concerned that 25200 PCH is going to cause instability and the soil is going to come down the slope to the homes below, this has happened before if you didn't know, residents remember a house being washed away right below 25200 PCH. Residents familiar with landslides in the city say putting water in a known slide is a bad idea, the city is pumping out water and 25200 PCH is putting water in.

Thanks,
Jun
446
2 On Mon, Dec 15, 2025 at 1:53 PM Jun Fujita wrote:

Hi Jake,
Hope all is well.

We still have the same concerns, could you have Josh Feffer respond to alleviate our concerns, with water is being introduced to a known slide assessment area where water is actively being removed from it, he did not address that in his response...it seems like only your site was studied and not the impact to our properties down below and causing instability. You guys are putting water into our slide plane...and is very concerning.

Thanks,
Jun
On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 10:22 AM Jun Fujita wrote:

Hi Jake,
Unfortunately I am not able to attend.

Thanks,
Jun
On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 1:47 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
For a number of reasons, we unfortunately cannot allow a third party consultant perform work on our property.

We hope to see you at the meeting on the 22nd.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
447
3 The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2025 12:31 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: meeting geo tech engineer for 25200 PCH

Hi Jake,
We have not gotten a response from you on the access agreement, please allow us to do our own borings and place inclinometers on the property. We would like to do these borings prior to meeting with your engineer.

Thanks,
Jun

On Tue, Oct 7, 2025 at 4:49 PM Jake Jesson <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jun,
Thanks for reaching out.

We along with our Geologist will be meeting with some of the other neighbors at 4:00 on 10/22. I believe that Chris Reed has extended an invite for you to attend this meeting and would be great if you could be present along with your Geologist so that we can all discuss together. Please let me know if that works for you.

Best Regards,
448
4 Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jun Fujita
Sent: Tuesday, October 7, 2025 2:31 PM
To: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Subject: meeting geo tech engineer

Jake,

Could we set up a meeting with Josh and our geotech engineer Please send me some times that would work

Thanks,
Jun
449
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 7:56 AM
To: Chris Reed; TOM & HOLLY; ALEX & JUN HALL; RICHARD & BEATA; TRICIA; Sandro Dazzan; Wendy Carroll Eskan; Matt Eskan; NANETTE & PETER; SHARONE KARSH Cc: PAT SCHONE
Subject: RE: RESCHEDULE MEETING
Hello All,
My name is Jake Jesson reaching out to you on behalf of the Weintraub Real Estate Group in connection to the proposed house at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway.

We’ve attempted to arrange for a community meeting to discuss the project in the past but for a variety of reasons have not yet gotten something scheduled. Our project was on calendar for the December 16th Planning Commission hearing but unfortunately the item ahead of us ran long so we were continued to the next hearing on January 20th.

In the past, Chris Reed has graciously offered to host this meeting but he will be out of town this coming week and therefore I’m reaching out to see if anyone would be interested in a zoom meeting to learn more about the project and ask questions. There is some flexibility in regards to scheduling but as of now I’m thinking Wednesday afternoon, 1/14.

Please let me know if you would be interested in participating in this meeting and also if that time frame works for you.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Chris Reed
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:34 PM
To: TOM & HOLLY < ; ALEX & JUN HALL >; RICHARD & BEATA
; TRICIA ; Sandro Dazzan >; Wendy Carroll Eskan
>; Matt Eskan ; NANETTE & PETER
450
2 SHARONE KARSH
Cc: PAT SCHONE
Subject: RESCHEDULE MEETING
Hello Neighbors.

Richard Weintraub and I have rescheduled the meeting at my house for Wednesday, October 22 @ 4:00 pm. I hope all of you can arrange your schedules to include this important meeting. Bring your questions and concerns and they will be addressed and answered.

P.S. Jun, Richard particularly asked if you would please attend so he and his geologist could address your concerns. Please come.

Chris Reed
451
1 Planning Commission
From: Jake Jesson <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2026 9:10 AM
To: Chris Reed; TOM & HOLLY; ALEX & JUN HALL; RICHARD & BEATA; TRICIA; Sandro Dazzan; Wendy Carroll Eskan; Matt Eskan; NANETTE & PETER; SHARONE KARSH Cc: PAT SCHONE; Richard Weintraub; Lisa Strickland; Joshua R. Feffer Subject: RE: RESCHEDULE MEETING
Circling back on the below.

I’ve heard back from Patricia and Holly and sounds like 4:00 on the 14th works for them via zoom. Would anyone else like to participate and if so would that time also work for you? Jun – You’ve been very vocal about the project and it’s unfortunate that you don’t want to attend any of these meetings. If your intention truly is to learn more about the project then this would be the perfect scenario to do so and we very much encourage both yourself as well as your Geologist to attend so that we can all speak openly together.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Jake Jesson
Sent: Friday, January 9, 2026 7:57 AM
To: 'Chris Reed' ; TOM & HOLLY ; ALEX & JUN HALL
>; RICHARD & BEATA >; TRICIA ; Sandro Dazzan
; Wendy Carroll Eskan >; Matt Eskan
; NANETTE & PETER < ; SHARONE KARSH
Cc: PAT SCHONE <
Subject: RE: RESCHEDULE MEETING
Hello All,
452
2 My name is Jake Jesson reaching out to you on behalf of the Weintraub Real Estate Group in connection to the proposed house at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway.

We’ve attempted to arrange for a community meeting to discuss the project in the past but for a variety of reasons have not yet gotten something scheduled. Our project was on calendar for the December 16th Planning Commission hearing but unfortunately the item ahead of us ran long so we were continued to the next hearing on January 20th.

In the past, Chris Reed has graciously offered to host this meeting but he will be out of town this coming week and therefore I’m reaching out to see if anyone would be interested in a zoom meeting to learn more about the project and ask questions. There is some flexibility in regards to scheduling but as of now I’m thinking Wednesday afternoon, 1/14.

Please let me know if you would be interested in participating in this meeting and also if that time frame works for you.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers From: Chris Reed
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2025 3:34 PM
To: TOM & HOLLY < >; ALEX & JUN HALL RICHARD & BEATA
; TRICIA >; Sandro Dazzan < Wendy Carroll Eskan
< ; Matt Eskan ; NANETTE & PETER < ;

SHARONE KARSH
Cc: PAT SCHONE
Subject: RESCHEDULE MEETING
Hello Neighbors.

Richard Weintraub and I have rescheduled the meeting at my house for Wednesday, October 22 @ 4:00 pm. I hope all of you can arrange your schedules to include this important meeting. Bring your questions and concerns and they will be addressed and answered.

P.S. Jun, Richard particularly asked if you would please attend so he and his geologist could address your concerns. Please come.
453
3 Chris Reed
454
From: Jake Jesson
To: Chris Reed; TOM & HOLLY; ALEX & JUN HALL; RICHARD & BEATA; TRICIA; Sandro Dazzan; Wendy Carroll Eskan; Matt Eskan; NANETTE & PETER; SHARONE KARSH
Cc: PAT SCHONE; Richard Weintraub; Don Schmitz - Schmitz & Associates, Inc. ([email protected]); Chris Deleau - Schmitz & Associates, Inc. ([email protected]) Subject: PARPCH: Meeting
Hi All,
It’s been a few weeks since we last communicated and hope that everyone has been well.

As you may know, we have our follow up hearing with the Planning Commission for 25200 PCH coming up in one week on 2/17. Similar to before, we want to extend the availability of ourselves along with our consultants so please let me know if there is a desire to meet prior to the hearing.

We hope to hear from you and will remain open to answer any questions or discuss project concerns that anyone may have so please do reach out if you’d like to discuss.

Best Regards,
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers
455
From: Jake Jesson
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Allison Cook
Subject: PARPCH: Voluntary Conditions
Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 1:18:55 PM
Dear Commissioners,
My name is Jake Jesson and I’m reaching out to you as a member of the Applicant’s team regarding 25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Item 4.A on your upcoming agenda.

Pursuant to concerns raised by some members of the public, we are proposing to voluntarily add the two below conditions of approval for the subject property.

1. Applicant shall record a deed restriction on the property noting that the home can never be used for operations of a residential rehab facility.

2. Applicant to voluntarily incorporate vibration monitoring during construction of the proposed home as directed by the City Geologist.

Best Regards
Jake Jesson
Sr. Project Manager
Weintraub Real Estate Group
P.O. Box 6528, Malibu, CA 90264
[email protected]
O: (310) 456-2600 ext. 4
C: (310) 739-7931
The information transmitted herein is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential, proprietary, and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please immediately contact the sender and delete the material from all computers
456
From: Jan Ravlich
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 25200 Pacific Coast Highway
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:49:04 AM
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, We respectfully oppose the proposed development at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway due to unresolved geologic risks and permanent scenic impacts.

The property lies within a mapped landslide hazard area and the Malibu Road Landslide Assessment District. The record reflects that stabilization elements relied upon have been altered, and the applicant’s own calculations show the required 1.5 factor of safety is not met without extraordinary structural measures.

Under these conditions, a variance is required before any discretionary approval. It has not been applied for.

There is also documented evidence of water-related slope instability in this area. Water is a primary landslide trigger, and the proposed irrigation plan introduces additional unknown loading into an already unstable slope. Slope failure would affect not only this parcel, but downslope homes, Malibu Road, and Pacific Coast Highway.

In addition, Pacific Coast Highway is a designated scenic corridor. The scale of this project and proposed lot merger would permanently block iconic public views toward Paradise Cove, Point Dume, Catalina Island, Palos Verdes, and the open Pacific horizon. Once blocked, these views are lost forever.

Because the required findings cannot be made and a variance has not been secured, this project should not proceed.

Separately, Item 5A at 33008 PCH should not move forward until the potential burial site is properly evaluated and confirmed by the Chumash Tribe’s designated cultural resource manager.

Malibu’s safety, heritage, and coastline deserve careful protection.

Respectfully,
Jan Ravlich
Lived in Malibu 15 years
457
From: Leticia Aloi
To: Planning Commission
Cc:

Subject: Item 4A and 5A Planning commission
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:35:05 AM
25200 Pacific Coast Highway
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, We respectfully oppose the proposed development at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway due to unresolved geologic risks and permanent scenic impacts.

The property lies within a mapped landslide hazard area and the Malibu Road Landslide Assessment District. The record reflects that stabilization elements relied upon have been altered, and the applicant’s own calculations show the required 1.5 factor of safety is not met without extraordinary structural measures.

Under these conditions, a variance is required before any discretionary approval. It has not been applied for.

There is also documented evidence of water-related slope instability in this area. Water is a primary landslide trigger, and the proposed irrigation plan introduces additional unknown loading into an already unstable slope. Slope failure would affect not only this parcel, but downslope homes, Malibu Road, and Pacific Coast Highway.

In addition, Pacific Coast Highway is a designated scenic corridor. The scale of this project and proposed lot merger would permanently block iconic public views toward Paradise Cove, Point Dume, Catalina Island, Palos Verdes, and the open Pacific horizon. Once blocked, these views are lost forever.

Because the required findings cannot be made and a variance has not been secured, this project should not proceed.

Separately, Item 5A at 33008 PCH should not move forward until the potential burial site is properly evaluated and confirmed by the Chumash Tribe’s designated cultural resource manager.

Malibu’s safety, heritage, and coastline deserve careful protection.

Respectfully,
Leticia Aloi
Lived in Malibu 26__ years
458
From: Malibu Township Council
To: Planning Commission; Skylar Peak; Elizabeth Riddick; John Mazza; Marni Kamins; Drew Leonard; Rebecca Evans Cc: Barbara@Coastal Carey; Gabriella@Coastal Gough; Patt Healy; Jun; Bill Sampson; Charlotte Frieze; Peter Jones; Mariela Guastavino; Dru Jacobson; Rosemarie Ihde; Tyler Eaton; Yolanda Bundy; Tiffany Murray; Jan Ravlich Subject: Fw: 25200 PCH -
Date: Monday, February 16, 2026 8:56:29 PM
Attachments: unnamed-5.png
unnamed-4.png
2" 2".png
3" 3".png
5" 5".png
viewcatalina.png
viewpalos verdecatalina-3.png
SHIFT PILES (002)ra .pdf
21 25200 GEO REVIEW LETTER Rep 20230106.pdf
25200 Pacific Coast Highway
Coastal Development Permit No. 19-012
Honorable Chair Riddick and Members of the Planning Commission, The Malibu Township Council has advocated for responsible development since 1947. Our mission has always been to protect public safety, preserve Malibu’s scenic resources, and ensure development complies fully with the City’s certified Local Coastal Program.

We raise a threshold legal and safety issue:

This project cannot lawfully be approved as proposed. And it should be IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAWN from tomorrow's agenda due to the recent changes made to the plans that now, for certain, require a variance to the factor of safety.

1. The Deep Stabilization Piles Were Moved — Leaving the Landslide Unsupported The original geotechnical analysis (dated March 25 and November 18, 2021) relied on deep soldier piles along the lower slope to stabilize the mapped and historic landslide mass within the property lines.
459
460
The most vulnerable portion of the slope is now unsupported.

If that slope fails, the movement does not stop at the property line.

It moves downslope — toward existing homes below and toward Malibu Road.

Ralph Jeffery of Pacific Coast Land Consulting, Registered State California Geologist, CEG 1183 RG 3815, confirmed all this in the attached memo dated today - Feb 16, 2026.

2. The Site Fails the Required Factor of Safety
LIP §9.4(D) requires that development on landslides demonstrate a 1.5 static factor of safety under worst-case geologic conditions.

The applicant’s own analyses show static factors between 1.076 and 1.234 — well below the required minimum.

Those calculations already fail the code.

More importantly, those numbers were inflated by assuming stabilization that has now been materially altered. Without piles supporting the lower slope face in front of the primary bedroom/residence, etc. the factor of safety can no longer be met.

The site fails today.

If deep piles are required to pass the test, then the site has already failed it.

Regardless, because the site cannot meet the required factor of safety under existing conditions, a variance is mandatory before any discretionary approval. If the applicant does NOT move the piles as stated on p 158 of the latest staff report (attached below) in the geotechnical consultant's updated report dated Jan. 14, 2026 where it still shows the piles in the slope in front of the main residence then they MUST apply for a variance building in steep slopes which has not yet been applied for.

EITHER WAY A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.

In this cross section below it also shows the ancient landslide extending below the proposed residence. This should be at the VERY least addressed under HAZARDS in the findings for the CDP and the variance for the factor of safety recognized and evaluated properly.
461

3. This Is a Deep-Seated Landslide — Movement Travels Downslope Cross-sections confirm that this is not a localized instability. The landslide mass extends across the site.

Water intrusion, erosion, and prior infrastructure failures further weaken the slope.

When upslope material loses structural support, it loads the slope below.

That is how downslope homes are damaged.

Approving development under these conditions exposes neighboring properties and the traveling public on Pacific Coast Highway to real risk.

We have already seen the consequences of approving large projects in unstable coastal terrain such as 25040 PCH which caused damage to downslope neighbors upon construction.

The LCP exists to prevent repeat failures. If all the cross sections (below) described in detail in Feffer's Nov. 18, 2021 report on pps 17-22 (including 4' 4' above)
-https://drive.google.com/file/d/19FUSy7YI0qoR1q2m90WYfTSiE20DACJZ/view? usp=sharing - can no longer have piles within the 3:1 plus slope then they CANNOT meet the factor of safety and thus require a VARIANCE. 462

4. Scenic Corridor Impacts — Iconic Malibu Views at Risk Pacific Coast Highway is a designated scenic corridor.

This project introduces permanent mass that blocks established public views toward:

Paradise Cove
Point Dume
Catalina
Palos Verdes
463
The open Pacific horizon
The opposition materials show substantial blockage of public views along PCH and from Puerco Canyon.

The elevated berm and proposed walls further obstruct ocean vistas.

Malibu has historically preserved these open coastal views. Other coastal cities allowed canyon-like oceanside development. Malibu chose differently.

Once these views are blocked, they are lost permanently.

This dangerous project not only threatens public safety — it diminishes one of Malibu’s most iconic public assets.

It should not even be under consideration in its current form.

5. Scale and Character — A Speculative Compound on Unstable Land The proposed development exceeds 11,000 square feet and includes:
7 bedrooms
11 bathrooms
Five pools and water features
Extensive basement and underground structures and grading 464
Irrigation
It is more than six times the neighborhood average.

This is not the least environmentally damaging alternative.

It is a speculative compound designed to maximize financial return on land long understood to be unstable.

The property was purchased in 2011 for approximately $270,000 because it was widely known to be unbuildable due to geologic instability and kept as open space.

Nothing about that geologic condition has changed.

6. The Lots Should Remain Separate
Finally, the proposed lot merger is central to the scale of this project.

The two lots should remain separated to ensure:

A smaller, safer home on each parcel
Reduced grading and stabilization demand
Greater open space retention
Preservation of public ocean views across both lots
The staff report describes only the joined configuration. It does not adequately analyze the alternative of maintaining two separate lots and evaluating development potential accordingly.

Maintaining two separate lots provides a materially different development envelope — one that reduces mass, protects views, and better aligns with Malibu’s General Plan and Coastal Program policies. This needs to be presented to the Planning Commission to be able to evaluate this reasonable alternative.

The Commission must evaluate not only what is proposed, but what is legally and environmentally preferable.

The lot merger enables the oversized compound now before you.

Without the merger, the scale, intensity, and scenic blockage would be significantly reduced.

For that reason alone, the merger should not be approved.

Conclusion
This project:

Relocates deep stabilization piles, leaving a known landslide unsupported Fails to demonstrate the required factor of safety
465
Threatens downslope homes and public safety
Blocks iconic public coastal views
Proposes massive development on unstable terrain by joining two lots Under the Local Coastal Program, a variance is required before any discretionary approval.

Without that variance, the Planning Commission lacks legal authority to proceed.

The only lawful and responsible action is denial or continuance pending a properly filed and evaluated variance.

Once these views are blocked, they are gone forever.

Once this slope moves, it cannot be undone.

Thank you for your careful consideration.

Jo Drummond
Malibu Township Council
466
Pacific Coast Land ConsulƟng
Engineering Geologic Services
1525 Pepper Tree Place-Fallbrook CA
TEL (760) 473-4117-Email [email protected]
1 City of Malibu February 16, 2026
Subject: Slope StabilizaƟon and ProtecƟon of Residents
25200PCH Soldier Piles relocated North no longer providing Safety Factor due to the shiŌ When the soldier piles were moved uphill per January 6, 2023,Feffer report, they were shiŌed uphill from the property line without a new analysis of the unsupported area. The shiŌ created an area between the property line and soldier piles that does not add any stabilizaƟon to meet the required safety factor. Moreover, by relocaƟng the piles outside of the two recent landslides slide Qlsr, the piles no longer funcƟon to stabilize the idenƟfied slide mass north of the property line within the property 25200 PCH. This will changes the stability analysis and will now require a variance. 467
Pacific Coast Land ConsulƟng
Engineering Geologic Services
1525 Pepper Tree Place-Fallbrook CA
TEL (760) 473-4117-Email [email protected]
2 There are already 2 failures on the slope that originate from the subject property. That are not addressed nor stabilized.

The lack of stabilizaƟon withing the subject property coupled with the future infiltraƟon of water presents an elevated risk of failure and a threat to property and life for residents below the proposed development.

Ralph Jeffery
Pacific Coast Land ConsulƟng
CEG 1183 RG 3815
468
January 6, 2023 File No. 1992-75
Weintraub Real Estate Group
Malibu, CA 90264
Subject: ADDENDUM LETTER I
Proposed Soldier Pile and Tieback Stabilization System
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
References: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

INVESTIGATION
23000-25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: Feffer Geological Consulting, Dated May 21, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu Dated August 27, 2018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 20, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 14, 2019
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated December 17, 2019

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 30, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated August 4, 2020
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated June 18, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 18, 2021 469
January 6, 2023 File No: 1992-75

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated February 28, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated April 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated July 5, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated September 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET (APPROVAL)
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated November 11, 2022

Dear Mr. Weintraub:

As requested, Feffer Geological Consulting is providing this addendum letter to address the proposed soldier pile and tieback stabilization system required for site development.

This firm previously prepared slope stability analyses to evaluate the overall gross static and seismic stability of the descending slope. Based on multiple iterations of the slope stability analyses under worst-case scenarios and evaluation by the City reviewers, we determined that the site could be stabilized by utilizing two rows of soldier piles and tieback anchors.

Originally, the soldier piles and tieback anchors were planned to be located along the southern property line, and therefore some of the piles would be located on a small portion of the descending slope. It is our understanding that the construction of the stabilization system on the descending slope would require a variance from the City of Malibu.

In order to remove the need for a variance and allow development to move forward, the proposed stabilization system will be shifted slightly north and to the top of the slope.

Based on a detailed review of the updated plans and discussions with the project structural engineer, it is our opinion that the minor shift in location for the proposed stabilization system will not impact the proposed development and will not negatively impact or reduce the integrity of the stabilization system. The slight adjustment in pile locations will not negatively affect the overall gross stability of the site.

The proposed stabilization system has been conservatively designed for worst-case scenarios under both static and seismic conditions. The depths and widths of the proposed stabilization piles are not expected to change substantially. However, the final design details will be thoroughly reviewed by this firm and the structural engineer during plan 470
471
January 6, 2023 File No. 1992-75
Weintraub Real Estate Group
Malibu, CA 90264
Subject: ADDENDUM LETTER I
Proposed Soldier Pile and Tieback Stabilization System
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
References: PRELIMINARY GEOTECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

INVESTIGATION
23000-25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: Feffer Geological Consulting, Dated May 21, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu Dated August 27, 2018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 20, 2018

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 14, 2019
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated December 17, 2019

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated January 30, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
By: City of Malibu, Dated August 4, 2020
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated June 18, 2020

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated November 18, 2021 472
January 6, 2023 File No: 1992-75

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated February 28, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated April 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated July 5, 2022
Response By: Feffer Geological, Dated September 28, 2022

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET (APPROVAL)
25200-25300 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
APN: 4459-013-021, 4459-014-018
City of Malibu Review Letter Dated November 11, 2022
Dear Mr. Weintraub:

As requested, Feffer Geological Consulting is providing this addendum letter to address the proposed soldier pile and tieback stabilization system required for site development.

This firm previously prepared slope stability analyses to evaluate the overall gross static and seismic stability of the descending slope. Based on multiple iterations of the slope stability analyses under worst-case scenarios and evaluation by the City reviewers, we determined that the site could be stabilized by utilizing two rows of soldier piles and tieback anchors.

Originally, the soldier piles and tieback anchors were planned to be located along the southern property line, and therefore some of the piles would be located on a small portion of the descending slope. It is our understanding that the construction of the stabilization system on the descending slope would require a variance from the City of Malibu.

In order to remove the need for a variance and allow development to move forward, the proposed stabilization system will be shifted slightly north and to the top of the slope.

Based on a detailed review of the updated plans and discussions with the project structural engineer, it is our opinion that the minor shift in location for the proposed stabilization system will not impact the proposed development and will not negatively impact or reduce the integrity of the stabilization system. The slight adjustment in pile locations will not negatively affect the overall gross stability of the site.

The proposed stabilization system has been conservatively designed for worst-case scenarios under both static and seismic conditions. The depths and widths of the proposed stabilization piles are not expected to change substantially. However, the final design details will be thoroughly reviewed by this firm and the structural engineer during plan 473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
25200 Pacific Coast
Highway

MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
Opposition to Coastal Development Permit No. 19-012
1 Landslide + Variance Required +
Scenic Views Maintained
486
2 This project is proposed on a mapped, deep-seated landslide and cannot meet required slope safety without extreme stabilization triggering mandatory variance. 487
This is where the safety
factor is clearly not met – They moved/relocated
the soldier piles a few
feet to avoid a slope
variance and now they
need a variance because
there is space between the
property line and the
soldier piles where the
safety factor is not met.

In addition, they are no
longer supporting the slide
in front of the MASTER
area, and this would cause
a slide into adjacent
properties. This first image is
before they moved the piles
and shows the property line,
it used to follow a straight line
and now it follows the ridge.
3 488
4 On p 2 of this report – it states that the piles will be shifted north and to the top of the slope thus NO LONGER stabilizing the slope below and no longer meeting the factor of safety on the property site. 489
5 490
6 491
7 • Required minimum (LIP §9.4(D)): 1.5 static
•Calculated results: 1.076 – 1.234
• Values near 1.0 = marginal equilibrium / instability
These results alone require a variance
THE

NUMBERS
THAT

TRIGGER THE

VARIANCE
Existing
Factor of
Safety Fails
Code
492
8 THE SCALE OF

INTERVENTION -

EXTREME
• Piles >100 feet deep
•Installed through the landslide
mass
• Excavation, vibration, groundwater
Cross Section 2' 2’ redirection NOT EVALUATED AT ALL
confirms landslide
conditions
493
9 From geo report dated Jan 14, 2026, in latest staff report 494
Evidence of ongoing movement & water issues
Failures already occur here.

Reinforces “potentially
active landslide”
classification
10 495
11 Broken drain pipe ALSO
not taken into consideration
for slope stability
Destruction caused by slide
below 25040 PCH – at least $15
million in damage – the City
would be LIABLE if any damage
occurred to adjacent properties
496
12 Also, these views were not
considered:

Palos Verdes blocked 100%
Catalina and Palos Verdes
view blocked 100%
Horizon blocked 100%
These photos were taken
from the far side of PCH
where the berm breaks
497
13 498
Conclusion
This project: Relocates deep stabilization piles,
leaving a known landslide unsupported
Fails to demonstrate the required factor of safety
Threatens downslope homes and public safety
Blocks iconic public coastal views
Proposes massive development on unstable terrain
Under the Local Coastal Program, a variance is
required before any discretionary approval.

Without that variance, the Planning Commission
lacks legal authority to proceed.

The only lawful and responsible action is denial or
continuance pending a properly filed and
evaluated variance.
14 499
Previous consultant’s conclusions as reported by Feffer • Stone – 1962
• “Downhole logging of the borings
indicated that the subject property
was underlain by Monterey
Formation bedrock, ancient
landslides, Quaternary terrace deposits, and artificial fill.” • “Stone Geological determined that the subject property was underlain by multiple intersecting ancient
landslides that affected the south
side of the subject pad and
continued beneath neighboring
properties below the south-facing descending slope.”
• Pacific Soils 1965
• “Pacific Soils Engineering
concluded that the subject property
was underlain by a series of ancient
landslides and determined that the
ancient slides could be stabilized.”
500
Previous consultants conclusions as reported by Feffer
Leighton 1968
• “Leighton concluded that over
50% of the subject property
was free of ancient
landsliding”
• The remaining 50 % is
underlain by ancient slides
• Stone 1968
• “building could occur on the
area that is not underlain by
ancient slide material”
501
Previous consultant’s conclusions as reported by
Feffer
• Leighton 1979
• “Leighton and Associated
concluded that approximately
65% of the study area was
affected by three types of
landsliding, which included
ancient landsliding, recent
landsliding, and superficial slope
failures.”
• “A significant risk in attempting
partial stabilization work
(particularly on an active slide),
whether by buttresses, retaining
walIs or soldier piles, could be
that while the corrective work
may stabilize on individual lot, it
may result in relatively greater
damage occurring on on
adjoining property than would
otherwise have occurred had the
work not been done.”
502
Boring log Comparison
• Stone B-4 1962 • Feffer B-1
503
Boring log Comparison
• Stone B-8 1962 • Feffer B-9
504
Pile Base Elevation vs Slide Base Elevation
Pile base @~50’
Pile base at 60’ Pile base at ~60’ Pile base at ~60’
Slide @36’ &19’ Slide @37 &23.5 Slide @ 29’ Slide @42 & 31 LB4
LB2 LB3
LB1
SI6 SI5
505
Table of pile depth vs. slide depth
Pile color from map Red Green Blue and Yellow
Depth/pile length 50’ 60’ 60’
Bottom elevation of
pile
50’ 60’ 60’
Slide Plane Elevation 36’& 19’/37’23.5 37’-29’ 29’-31’
Deficit 14’ to 31’ 36.5’-31’ 31’-29’
506
Untreated slide conditions map
507
Untreated conditions surficial and slope
------
------
Qt
slide @ 36 & 19’
slide @ 37’& 23.5’
slide @ 29’
slide @ 41’ &32’
Lorem Ipsum
existing surficial failures untreated
originating from the proposed development
508
Conclusions
• This is a known landslide with a history of failures that resulted in loss of homes and this fact was not adequately addressed in the Feffer report. Reports of slide movement include 1962, 1967, 1978-9, 1995, 1998. There is no discussion or analysis of the history of slide movement in the Feffer report • This is a very sensitive site in terms of stability and injecting water into a slide is major destabilizing factor.
• In the history of landslides in Malibu injection of ground water through any means has always been a factor in the subsequent failure. This site is no different. • The investigation did not address the presence of deeper sliding as identified by Stone, Leighton and Pacific Soils
• There are untreated surficial slides that originate from this property and will impact the residents below. This is a life safety issue.
• The piles as designed are too shallow with average lengths being only 50 -60 ft. • The piles are NOT deeper than the slide planes as identified by Leighton along Bayshore. These slide planes extend into and under the subject property. • Water originating from any and all sources on this property will negatively impact the stability of the site, including surfical stability, the slope above Bayshore, and the deeper seated landslide. • This. conclusion was alos contained in the Leighton report • The pile plan does not treat the entire slide because Feffer could not identify the slide limits. • The development as proposed presents a hazard to the residents below the site. • Since the site will transmit water and into an active slide it should be encapsulated so that NO water and NO additional risk is transmitted to the people and properties below the proposed development. 509
Depth of slide on Bayshore outside of active marked slide not analyzed by Feffer
Slide at 36.5’ elev. and 19’elev
• Leighton B-1
Leighton B-1 pg 2
510
Leighton LB-2. slide at 19’ elev.
511
Leighton B-3 slide at 32’
512
Leighton B-4
513
From: Steve Rucker
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Maintaining PCH Ocean Views
Date: Saturday, February 14, 2026 2:02:45 PM
Dear Commission,
The planned development at 25200 PCH
is an insult to the beauty and magic of our stunning coastline. To see those story poles and the height of the planned structure is heartbreaking. PLEASE reconsider and limit the dimensions of this project. You have the power.

You have our trust. Please do the right thing for us all.

Sincerely,
Steve and Robbi Rucker
Sent from my iPhone
514

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public a public hearing on WEDNESDAY, August 19, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Multi-Purpose Room, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the project identified below.

APPEAL NO. 26-007 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 26-05 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 19-012 to construct a new 9,219 square foot, onestory, single-family residence, including a 1,000 square foot subterranean two-car garage, 1,523 square foot basement, 676 square foot gym, swimming pools, spa, driveways, decks, landscape, water features, hardscape, grading, retaining walls, and onsite wastewater treatment system, including Certificate of Compliance No. 19-009 to recognize an illegally created lot consisting of two Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (4459-013-021 and 4459-014-018), and Lot Merger No. 24-002 to consolidate two existing parcels into one parcel, located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre zoning district at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway (PAR PCH LLC) Location: 25200 Pacific Coast Highway
APN: 4459-013-021
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Applicant: Jake Jesson
Owner: PAR PCH LLC
Appellant: Jun Hall for Concerned Citizens of Malibu Road, Inc.

Application Filed: March 7, 2019
Appeal Filed: February 27, 2026
Case Planner: Allison Cook, Contract Planner
(805) 415-1991
[email protected]
_______________________________________________________________ Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Community Development Department has analyzed the proposed project. The Community Development Department found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction. The Community Development Department has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the project. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicant, appellant, 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 August 5, 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 August 14, 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 Exhibit G
515
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.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – An aggrieved person may appeal the City Council’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling 805-585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

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: July 16, 2026
516