Agenda packet, special meeting, second session — Malibu City Council, September 23, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

Meeting Agenda
CC_260923_AMENDED AGENDA.PDF
Item 1A
Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045 and Variance No. 26-003 (24507 Vantage Point Terrace, APN 4458- 033-006; Owner/Appellant, Meissner Family Trust)
CC_260923_ITEM_1A.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

Amended1 Malibu City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, September 23, 2026

CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
City Hall – Council Chambers
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Zoom Webinar Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87985644870

GUIDE TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS AND DECORUM
ROLE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The presiding officer of the City Council, who shall be the Mayor, shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to ensure that these rules of procedure and decorum are followed at all times. The presiding officer shall maintain control of communication between Councilmembers, between the Council and the public, and chair each meeting in a fair and impartial manner. It shall be the duty of each Councilmember to support the presiding officer in maintaining the order and decorum of Council meetings.

On specific agenda items Councilmembers may question any person addressing the City Council at the conclusion of all public testimony on that agenda item before the Council. Councilmembers shall not engage any member of the public in a dialogue with themselves other Councilmembers, city staff or other members of the public. Specific rules for public hearings are described in more detail below.

MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Members of the audience shall not engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including clapping, whistling, stamping of feet, or other acts which disturb, disrupt, impede or otherwise disturb the orderly conduct of the City Council meeting. Persons addressing the City Council shall not engage in disorderly conduct which disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct or Council meetings. Any person who so disrupts a Council meeting may, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the City Council, be subject to ejection from that meeting.

MEETING PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may participate in-person or remotely via Zoom Webinar.
1 See the addition of teleconference location for Councilmember Riggins.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(b), Councilmember Riggins will be attending the Council meeting via teleconferencing from:

SHERATON PARK HOTEL AT THE ANAHEIM RESORT - Lobby
1855 South Harbor Boulevard
Anaheim, CA 92802
This teleconference location is accessible to the public and will be open to the public for attendance at this meeting.

AMENDED City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 2 - September 23, 2026 Remote participation: In order to participate remotely, you must be present in the Zoom Webinar during the item that you would like to speak on and use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak when the Mayor calls the item. When you join the Zoom Webinar you may see a pop-up asking you to enter an email address, but a valid email address is not required. To join by phone: Dial 1-669-444-9171 or 1-669-900-9128 (Toll Free) and enter Meeting ID: 879-8564-4870. To raise your hand via a phone-in please press *9 and unmute when you are called on by pressing *6. If you are participating via the web platform or application, please press the raise your hand icon and the unmute button when prompted.

In-person participation: If you would like to speak in-person, you must complete and submit to the Recording Secretary a Speaker Slip at the meeting prior to the beginning of the item being announced by the Mayor.

When each item is called, the Mayor will announce a final call for Speaker Slips and raised hands.

Speaker Time: Members of the public will have the opportunity to speak on items on the agenda. Remote and in-person participants will have three (3) minutes to speak on each item on the agenda. In-person participants may also surrender their time to speak on an item on the agenda by deferring one (1) minute to another speaker, not to exceed a total of five (5) minutes. Speakers receiving time deferrals may be participating in-person or remotely. The individuals deferring time must be present in Chambers when the item is heard and their slips must be prior to the beginning of the item being announced by the Mayor. Speakers are taken in the order slips are submitted or hands are raised.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: For Public Hearings involving land use appeals/applications the appellant and applicant will be given 15 minutes each to present their position to the City Council, including rebuttal time. Following the initial presentations from the appellant and applicant and public testimony Councilmembers may address questions to any of the speakers, members of the public in attendance, chairpersons or a designated representative of city commissions, boards or committees, city staff or consultants. Following the question period, the appellant and applicant will have the opportunity to present rebuttal before the public hearing is closed.

Any written comments or audiovisual materials for the hearing from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on September 9, 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 5:00 p.m. on September 18, 2026. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected].

VIEW THE MEETING: The meeting will be live streamed at www.malibucity.org/video, www.youtube.com/CityofMalibu, and via Zoom Webinar.

Two p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order - Mayor
Roll Call - Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance
Report on Posting of Agenda – August 21, 2026
Approval of Agenda
AMENDED City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 3 - September 23, 2026

1. Ordinances and Public Hearings
For Public Hearings involving zoning matters the appellant and applicant will be given 15 minutes each to present their position to the City Council, including rebuttal time.

A. Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045 and Variance No. 26-003 (24507 Vantage Point Terrace, APN 4458-033-006; Owner/Appellant, Meissner Family Trust)
Recommended Action: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-61 denying Appeal (AP) No. 26-017 and determining that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to a project that a public agency rejects or disapproves, and denying Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 21-045 and Variance (VAR) No. 26-003, to grade and construct a new 594 square foot (sf.), approximately 11 foot (ft.) 2 inch (in.) tall, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)/Second Unit; including a variance for relief from Malibu Country Estates Overlay District (MCE Overlay) standards associated with a proposed second building pad, reduced rear yard setback, wall heights, and allowances for impermeable coverage, structure height, and grading outside the existing building pad on a parcel located in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) zoning district at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust); or 2) Direct staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

Staff Contact: Community Development Director Bundy, 456-2489, ext. 229 Adjournment
Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business described above are on file in the office of the City Clerk, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California, and are available for public inspection during regular office hours, which are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday. Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California (Government Code Section 54957.5.b.2). Copies of staff reports and written materials may be purchased for $0.10 per page.

The City Hall phone number is (310) 456-2489. To contact City Hall using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), please call (800) 735-2929 and a California Relay Service operator will assist you. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Community Development Director Yolanda Bundy, (310) 456-2489, ext. 229. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADD Title II].

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Special meeting agendas may be amended up to 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Dated this 22nd day of September 2026 at 1:45 p.m.

Christina Muñoz, Deputy City Clerk

Page 1 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Courtney Brown, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director
Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Date prepared: August 19, 2026 Meeting Date: September 23, 2026 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045 and Variance No. 26-003 (24507 Vantage Point Terrace, APN 4458-033-006; Owner/Appellant, Meissner Family Trust)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-61 (Exhibit 1) denying Appeal (AP) No. 26-017 and determining that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to a project that a public agency rejects or disapproves, and denying Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 21-045 and Variance (VAR) No. 26-003, to grade and construct a new 594 square foot (sf.), approximately 11 foot (ft.) 2 inch (in.) tall, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)/Second Unit; including a variance for relief from Malibu Country Estates Overlay District (MCE Overlay) standards associated with a proposed second building pad, reduced rear yard setback, wall heights, and allowances for impermeable coverage, structure height, and grading outside the existing building pad on a parcel located in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) zoning district at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust): or 2) Direct staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: N/A.

DISCUSSION: The matter is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26-003 (Exhibit 2), an application to construct a detached ADU/Second Unit on a second building pad in the MCE Overlay. The appellant and City Council Meeting
09-23-26
Item

1.A.

Page 2 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
applicant, Matt Jewett, representing Keystone Strategic Planning, subsequently filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the project (Exhibit 3).

Project Background
As shown in Figure 1, the subject parcel is a developed, rectangular-shaped lot located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) adjacent to John Tyler Drive. The parcel is situated within the MCE Overlay, which includes specific development standards in Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 3.4.1(D). The parcel is currently developed with a 3,572 sf. single-family residence that was constructed in 1988 on one building pad located on the flatter portion of the parcel accessible from Vantage Point Terrace. The existing building pad is also occupied by a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck located immediately to the rear of the existing residence. Similar to adjacent parcels in the MCE Overlay, the rest of the subject parcel slopes downward to John Tyler Drive. The parcel is served by a centralized wastewater treatment system, which serves the entire MCE Overlay. With the exception of a vacant parcel immediately north, the subject parcel is in a neighborhood that is similarly developed, with each parcel having one building pad developed in compliance with the MCE Overlay standards.

Figure 1 – Aerial
Source: Google Earth

Page 3 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Project Overview
The original application proposed a 623 sf., prefabricated ADU/Second Unit with a height of 11 ft., 8 in. on a proposed second building pad located downhill of the existing residence near John Tyler Drive. On April 9, 2024, the applicant provided updated plans with a reduced size of 594 sf. and a height of 11 ft., 2 in. (Exhibit C, Attachment 2 – Project Plans). In both versions, the applicant has sited the prefabricated ADU/Second Unit on a proposed second building pad located downslope of the existing building pad. Remedial and re-compaction grading is proposed for the upper three feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of three feet beyond the proposed footprint. Despite having been informed by the Planning Division that the MCE Overlay standards limit all development to one building pad per parcel, without exception, the applicant had requested the Planning Division continue to process the project. The Planning Division had also explained to the applicant that the proposed second building pad does not meet other MCE Overlay standards including height, setbacks, and impermeable coverage. The applicant has sought relief from the MCE Overlay standards and provided written findings justifying the request for consideration by the Planning Commission. This would be more commonly done under a variance request pursuant to LIP Section 13.26; however, at the time, the applicant did not formally request a variance.

On August 26, 2024, the applicant notified the Planning Division that relief through a variance would not be requested and that the City should continue to process the application as revised on April 9, 2024.

On October 9, 2025, the applicant requested the subject application be agendized for the Planning Commission. The Planning Division scheduled this item for the next available Planning Commission meeting, which was December 1, 2025. The Planning Division had recommended the project be denied due to inconsistencies with the LIP and the lack of a variance request. The applicant requested the item be continued to February 2, 2026. On January 19, 2026, the applicant’s representative, Keystone Planners, submitted a rebuttal packet addressing items that were determined by the Planning Division to be inconsistent with the LIP (Exhibit C, Attachment 3). Among the items addressed in the rebuttal package were roofing materials, which have been updated from architectural shingles to Mediterranean Brava tile for consistency with the MCE Overlay standards. Additionally, the rebuttal package clarified that four trees in the proposed development area, previously unidentified, are comprised of three cedar trees and one orange tree, all of which are nonnative trees not subject to the LCP’s Native Tree protection policies.

Page 4 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

The rebuttal package included a historic aerial image from 1980 shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2 – 1980 Aerial Image Provided by Applicant
Source: Provided by Applicant Representative (UCSB Historical Aerials) The applicant representative asserted that the 1980 image proves there are two building pads on the subject parcel – one near Vantage Point Terrace and a second downslope near John Tyler Drive where the proposed ADU/Second Unit is located. Based on the Planning Division’s review, the purported second building pad referenced on the 1980 image is not typical of graded building pads within the MCE Overlay and appeared to be typical vegetation clearing along a roadway and/or vehicle shoulder/turnout along the west side of John Tyler Drive. The same type of cleared area extends onto other MCE Overlay parcels along John Tyler Drive. Additional research conducted by the Planning Division demonstrated that there is no evidence of a second building pad having been graded as part of the MCE Overlay development. This was confirmed in an aerial image obtained by the Planning Division dated 1976, as shown in Figure 3, dated four years prior to the 1980 image.

Page 5 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Figure 3 – 1976 Aerial Image Provided by Staff
The 1976 image depicts one building pad for the subject parcel adjacent to Vantage Point Terrance, similar to other parcels in the MCE Overlay. Regardless of whether there was a legally authorized second building pad, which the evidence does not support, the MCE Overlay district requires that development be limited to one building pad. This requirement is codified in both the LCP and MMC.

The rebuttal package also described two alternate locations for the ADU/Second Unit with justifications as to why each was considered by the applicant to be infeasible. Alternative 1 utilized the existing building pad and placed the ADU/Second Unit over the existing swimming pool and extension over the slope to the rear of the residence. The Planning Division concurred with the applicant that Alternative 1 is not feasible due to design constraints and additional development that would be required. Alternative 2 utilized the existing building pad and placed the ADU/Second Unit on the southeast side yard of the parcel near the southerly side of the residence and behind the three-car garage. The applicant states that the location is not feasible because it does not accommodate a prefabricated structure. Staff found that even if a prefabricated structure would be too difficult to place in that location, a different type of ADU appears feasible to be constructed in that area. Other alternatives not considered by the applicant, but which appear to be feasible, include converting part of the existing residence and/or garage, with or without adding square footage or building an addition to the single-family residence elsewhere on the lot in flatter areas with less existing development. These alternatives would ensure an ADU is constructed on the existing building pad consistent with the MCE Overlay standards. The Planning Division encouraged the applicant to consider one of these alternatives so that the proposed ADU could meet all of the LCP required development

Page 6 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
standards; however, the applicant declined. Planning Division staff has reiterated that an ADU is feasible on the subject parcel and would be in support of an ADU in a compliant location; however, the applicant continues to desire the ADU/Second Unit be located in an area prohibited by the LCP and MMC.

On February 2, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item at the applicant’s request. On February 5, 2026, the applicant representative submitted a variance request and confirmed that the January 19, 2026 rebuttal package sufficed for justification of the variance. However, on February 6, 2026, the applicant representative submitted an amended variance request which included two options for locating the ADU/Second Unit on the proposed second building pad (Exhibit C, Attachment 4). One option included a 4 ft. rear yard setback consistent with the proposed design, while the other option proposed a 15 ft. rear yard setback, consistent with the MCE Overlay, but required the structure to be located higher on the slope and not on the existing building pad required by the overlay.

As proposed, the ADU/Second Unit does not comply with the following LIP sections within the MCE Overlay District:

1. One building pad allowed (LIP 3.4.1(D)(6)(a)&(b));

2. No structures allowed downslope of existing pad (LIP 3.4.1(D)(6)(c));

3. Rear yard setbacks shall be 15 ft. (LIP §3.4.1(D)(2)(c));

4. All impermeable coverage surfaces shall be on the existing building pad (LIP §3.4.1(D)(7));

5. Structure height is limited to additions/remodels of existing structure (LIP §3.4.1(D)(5)(d)(i-ii));

6. No grading for purposes of extending the existing building pad (LIP §3.4.1(D)(8));

7. No walls exceeding 6 ft. in height within required rear yard (LIP 3.4.1(D)(4)(a));

8. LIP Section 8.3 (G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed Development ”.

As described in Table 3 of the Planning Commission Agenda Report dated June 1, 2026 (Exhibit 4), the proposed project is inconsistent with several objective development standards in the MCE Overlay including the location of new structures, impermeable coverage, structure height, setback wall heights, grading, and an approximate 73% reduction in the required rear yard setback (from 15 ft. to 4 ft.). The proposed second building pad is also inconsistent with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading as otherwise limited pursuant to LIP Section 8.2) and LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological Resources).

As previously mentioned, the parcel is located within the MCE Overlay, which restricts development for all properties to one building pad per parcel and prohibits the creation of a secondary building pad pursuant to LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(a), (b), and (c), which states:

Page 7 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
a. All development, excluding walls and fences, shall be limited to the existing building pad.
b. There shall be no more than one building pad per lot. c. No structure, excluding walls and fences, shall extend beyond, or be cantilevered over, any downhill slope extending from the existing building pad.

LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(d) provides the following definition of a building pad in the MCE Overlay District, which states:
d. For the purpose of this Overlay District, a building pad shall be defined as a single, continuous, graded area, not exceeding three percent in slope, designed to accommodate development.

At the April 20, 2026, meeting, the Planning Commission requested additional clarification regarding TDSF, impermeable coverage, and fire access. The MCE Overlay supersedes typical residential development standards in LIP Section 3.6 and does not set a maximum TDSF or impermeable coverage limitation. Instead, the MCE Overlay limits development to one building pad per parcel and stipulates that impermeable coverage be limited to one building pad with no maximum. The MCE Overlay also prescribes a minimum building size for development on one building pad with no maximum. As proposed, the ADU/second unit would be located on a second building pad in the MCE Overlay, which means that any additional increases in impermeable coverage or building size would be inconsistent with the allowances in the MCE Overlay pertaining to one building pad. The single building pad drives the allowable development standards for the MCE Overlay. The proposed second building pad would demonstrate noncompliance with the one building pad development standard, which would result in the other development standards exceeding what is permitted in the MCE Overlay. No other parcel within the MCE Overlay is developed with a second building pad and allowing a second building pad as requested would create a special privilege to the applicant not allowed for anyone else in the neighborhood.

As currently designed, the Planning Division was unable to recommend to the Planning Commission that the required findings per LIP 13.9 could be made in support of the CDP, including CDP Finding 1 that the project as described in the application and accompanying materials conforms with the certified LCP; and CDP Finding 3 that the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. Additionally, the Planning Division was unable to recommend that the required variance findings in LIP 13.26 could be made as the applicant had not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist or that approving the project would not create a special privilege for the applicant/appellant. As mentioned, an alternative location on the existing building pad appears feasible and could support an ADU, which the Planning Division could recommend for approval; however, the applicant has refused to select an alternate location compliant with the LCP and MMC.

Page 8 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

On June 1, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the item. After deliberation, the Planning Commission denied the project on a 3-2 vote. The June 1, 2026, agenda report, and related correspondence are attached as Exhibit 4. Appeal No. 26-017 was filed on June 11, 2026 (Exhibit 3). The appeal was submitted by the applicant Matt Jewett, from Keystone Strategic Planning. The Planning Commission agenda report goes into greater detail regarding the project. The videos regarding the Planning Commission deliberation on the items can be found on the City’s website at https://www.malibucity.org/662/PublicMeeting-Video-Archive

APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The appellant, Matt Jewett, provided written and oral testimony during the public hearing before the Planning Commission. In the appeal, the appellant contends that the findings are not supported by the evidence, that there was a lack of fair or impartial hearing, and that the decision was contrary to law. The specific arguments are summarized below in italics. The full text of the appeal documents can be found in Exhibit 3.

Appeal Item 1. The Planning Commission denied the project upon the erroneous assertion that the proposed project would create a second building pad.

Staff Response: The appellant claims that the existing lower building pad was established prior to the incorporation of the City of Malibu and the adoption of the MCE Overlay. The proposed location of the ADU/Second Unit would be on a portion of the parcel that is composed of approximately 20 ft. of previously graded fill. LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(b) states that there shall be no more than one building pad per lot. The existing lower pad does not comply with the LIP Section 2.1 definition for the primary development pad, where “the main building pad, disturbed area, or development area which supported the primary building in which the principal use of the lot was situated or conducted, as distinguished from a secondary building pad or development area that is not attached to the main building pad or development area.” The proposed location of the ADU/Second Unit would be constructed on a second development pad where the only connection to the primary development pad would be via a graded staircase located along the northwest side yard within an existing 26 ft. water and sewer easement on the parcel. LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(6) stipulates that the site of construction for all development is limited to one single building pad and that no structures shall be sited downhill from the existing building pad. The project proposes a second building pad and has located the proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad. Furthermore, new development is subject to MMC Section 17.42.020(D)(7) and LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(7), which state that impermeable surfaces shall only be permitted on the existing single, continuous, graded area not exceeding three percent in slope building pad. Compared to the surrounding properties that contain a single building pad, the subject site contains a separation between the primary and secondary building pads that would not comply with the MCE Overlay development standards.

Page 9 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Appeal Item 2. The grading restriction and prohibition on grading are not supported.

Staff Response: The appellant claims the existing second building pad would result in nonexempt removal and recompaction of previously engineered fill. However, the proposed development is inconsistent with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading) and the MCE Overlay standards provide more strict regulations for grading of property within the MCE Overlay (LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(8)) by prohibiting grading on existing building pads except for export of 500 cubic yards (c.y.) associated with the construction of a swimming pool and spa. The MCE Overlay includes additional provisions for cut and fill grading and remedial grading subject to the approval of a site plan review (SPR). Based on the applicant’s submitted materials, the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and re-compaction grading for the upper three feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of three feet beyond the proposed footprint. The proposed grading is for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and, therefore, does not comply with LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(8) or LIP Chapter 8 pursuant to the provision in LIP Section 8.2. Additionally, LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” The proposed grading does not meet the definition of remedial grading as it is not necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff, and the grading would also be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

Appeal Item 3. The findings that feasible alternatives exist are not supported by substantial evidence.

Staff Response: The applicant claims constructing the ADU/Second Unit on the second building pad is the least environmentally damaging alternative. The applicant further states that constructing the structure in the location of the existing pool would result in cantilevering over descending slopes and is prohibited per LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(c), where no structure shall extend beyond, or be cantilevered over, any downhill slope extending from the existing building pad. Additionally, the applicant states that constructing the ADU/Second Unit in the side yard would result in the structure not maintaining the minimum six-foot distance between accessory and main building per MMC Section

17.40.050(B). Furthermore, the applicant states that converting the existing garage into a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) would create non-conforming parking requirements.

However, the applicant ignores that there are alternatives that would allow the property owner to construct an ADU within the existing building pad in compliance with MCE Overlay standards. The applicant represented that the proposed location is the only suitable location on the parcel due to an existing sewer and storm drain easement and steep slopes; however, the alternate locations deemed infeasible by the applicant are not

Page 10 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
the only locations that appear feasible. As previously discussed, there are other locations within the existing building pad that may accommodate an ADU. Based on the Planning Commission’s review of the parcel, existing development, and thorough analysis of the variance justifications provided, the applicant has design options adjacent to the existing residence on the side and/or front yards that could accommodate an ADU. These could be in the form of an attached structure to the residence and/or converted space associated with the residence or a portion of the three-car garage. MMC Section 17.44.090(D)(3) states that no replacement of parking is required when a garage is converted to an ADU; thus the off-street parking spaces would not be required to be replaced. An alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other accessory uses including a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck. All feasible options described would not require special consideration and would fall within the allowable uses of the MCE Overlay, particularly development within the existing building pad. Feasible options to build an ADU exist on the lot; the applicant is simply choosing not to move forward with a feasible option that would comply with the LCP and MMC --instead asserting that those rules should not apply as they do for everyone else in the neighborhood.

Appeal Item 4. The Planning Commission denied the requested variance on conclusions that lack evidentiary support.

Staff Response: The appellant claims that the proposed project would not constitute a special privilege and believes that staff and the Planning Commissioners did not take into consideration the existing sewer and water easement, engineered grading that created the second building pad, or the infeasibility of the alternative locations.

As described in more detail in the planning commission report, granting the variance would constitute a special privilege to the property owner because no special circumstances or exceptional characteristics exist on the subject parcel, different from other parcels in the MCE Overlay, that would require the proposed structure to be located on a second building pad downslope from the existing building pad in conflict with objective standards in the MCE Overlay. While a 26 ft. wide sewer and storm drain easement extends across the northwest side yard, alternate locations for an ADU appear feasible and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8 and 11. The alternate locations are outside of the 26 ft. wide easement area and do not appear to necessitate the extent of proposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. The Planning Commission found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the proposed ADU could not make Variance Finding 1 and 3 and would create a special circumstance/characteristics that would require the proposed structure be located on a secondary building pad. The project would be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health, or welfare and would violate the established objective zoning requirements of the parcel’s location and could not make Finding 2. Finding 4 and 8 could not be made since the granting of the variance request would not meet the general purpose and intent of

Page 11 of 11 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Chapter 13.26 since there are feasible alternate locations. The Planning Commission also found that granting the requested variance would constitute a special privilege to the applicant because no other property in the neighborhood has been allowed to exceed the MCE Overlay requirements, and specifically the requirement that development be limited to one building pad. This requirement is fundamental to the structure of the MCE Overlay Zone as it drives all other development standards in the zone.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Commission has analyzed the project. The Planning Commission found that pursuant to Sections 15270, CEQA does not apply to a project that a public agency rejects or disapproves. However, should the City Council accept the appeal and approve the project, the City Council would need to make the findings that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: No correspondence has been received by staff since the appeal was filed on June 11, 2026.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On August 28, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and public notice was mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties within a radius of 500 ft. of the subject parcel (Exhibit 5).

EXHIBITS:

1. Resolution No. 26-61

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02

3. Appeal No. 25-009

4. June 1, 2026, Planning Commission Agenda Report with Attachments, including Correspondence
Exhibits
A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Denial)
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Approval)
C. Original Commission Agenda Report, dated April 20, 2026

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02

2. Project Plans

3. Applicant Rebuttal Package

4. Applicant Variance Request

5. Department Review Sheets

6. Correspondence

7. Public Hearing Notice
D. Public Hearing Notice, mailed March 27, 2026

5. Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit 1
RESOLUTION NO. 26-61

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, DENYING APPEAL NO. 26-017, AND DETERMINING THAT THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO A

PROJECT THAT A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES, AND DENYING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21-045 AND
VARIANCE NO. 26-003, TO GRADE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 594
SQUARE-FOOT, APPROXIMATELY 11 FOOT 2-INCH TALL, DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)/SECOND UNIT; INCLUDING A

VARIANCE FOR RELIEF FROM MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY

DISTRICT STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED SECOND

BUILDING PAD, REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK, WALL HEIGHTS,

AND ALLOWANCES FOR IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE, STRUCTURE

HEIGHT, AND GRADING OUTSIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING PAD ON A

PARCEL LOCATED IN THE MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY AND SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM ZONING DISTRICT AT 24507 VANTAGE POINT

TERRACE (MEISSNER FAMILY TRUST)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review. The proposed development is located in the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District (MCE Overlay), included within the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) as LIP Section 3.4.1(D).

B. On October 9, 2025, the applicant requested the subject application be agendized for the Planning Commission. The applicant was informed that the application was not deemed incomplete.

C. On October 30, 2025, the applicant posted a Notice of CDP Application sign at the subject property.

D. On November 20, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 foot (ft.) radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

E. On December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 2, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

F. On February 2, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item date uncertain at the applicant’s request.

Resolution No 26-61

Page 2 of 10 ends

______________________
G. On February 5, 2026, the applicant submitted a request for Variance (VAR) No. 26-003 for relief from certain MCE Overlay standards. MM No. 21-028 was no longer considered applicable to the project as the requested rear yard setback exceeded the allowance under a MM.

H. On March 5, 2026, the applicant requested the Planning Commission hearing be continued to a date certain of April 20, 2026.

I. On March 26, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and on March 27, 2026 was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

J. On April 20, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. This item was continued to the June 1, 2026, Commission meeting for further discussion, to obtain clarification of certain development standards from staff, and to determine if findings in support of the CDP and VAR can be made to approve the project.

K. On June 1, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record, and denied Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02.

L. On June 11, 2026, Appeal No. 26-017 was filed by the homeowner’s representative, Matt Jewett, representing Keystone Strategic Planning.

M. On August 20, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in the newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the subject parcel.

N. On September 23, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposed project and finds that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproved.

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

The appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s decision is based on findings or conditions that are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings, and the decision was contrary to law. Based on the evidence in the record, including as detailed below, in the agenda report, the materials submitted, and at the hearings on the matter, the City Council has Resolution No 26-61

Page 3 of 10 ends

______________________
determined that the project does not conform to the findings required by the LCP and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), and denies the appeal. The Council finds that the evidence supports the findings and is consistent with the City’s past application of the applicable provisions of the LIP.

The Council also finds the conditions proposed by the appellant lack nexus with the existing LIP and MMC standards. The appellant has not provided substantial evidence to support its claims, or that the requested conditions are legal, appropriate, or otherwise required. In addition:

1. The appellant claims that the existing lower building pad was established prior to the incorporation of the City of Malibu and the adoption of the MCE Overlay. The proposed location of the ADU/Second Unit would be on a portion of the parcel that is composed of approximately 20 ft. of previously graded fill. LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(b) states that there shall be no more than one building pad per lot. The existing lower pad does not comply with the LIP Section 2.1 definition for the primary development pad, where “the main building pad, disturbed area, or development area which supported the primary building in which the principal use of the lot was situated or conducted, as distinguished from a secondary building pad or development area that is not attached to the main building pad or development area.” The proposed location of the ADU/Second Unit would be constructed on a second development pad where the only connection to the primary development pad would be via a graded staircase located along the northwest side yard within an existing 26 ft. water and sewer easement on the parcel. LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6) stipulates that the site of construction for all development is limited to one single building pad and that no structures shall be sited downhill from the existing building pad. The project proposes a second building pad and has located the proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad). Furthermore, new development is subject to MMC Section 17.42.020 (D)(7) and LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(7), which state that impermeable surfaces shall only be permitted on the existing single, continuous, graded area not exceeding three percent in slope building pad. The separation between the primary and secondary building pads would not comply with the MCE Overlay development standards.

2. The appellant claims the existing second building pad would result in non-exempt removal and recompaction of previously engineered fill. However, the proposed development is inconsistent with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading) and the MCE Overlay standards provide more strict regulations for grading of property within the MCE Overlay (LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8)) by prohibiting grading on existing building pads except for export of 500 cubic yards (c.y.) associated with the construction of a swimming pool and spa. The MCE Overlay includes additional provisions for cut and fill grading and remedial grading subject to the approval of a site plan review (SPR). Based on the applicant’s submitted materials, the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and re-compaction grading for the upper three feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of three feet beyond the proposed footprint. The proposed grading is for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and, therefore, does not comply with LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) or LIP Chapter 8 pursuant to the provision in LIP Section 8.2. Additionally, LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

Resolution No 26-61

Page 4 of 10 ends

______________________

3. The appellant claims constructing the ADU/Second Unit on the second building pad is the least environmentally damaging alternative. The applicant further states that constructing the structure in the location of the existing pool would result in cantilevering over descending slopes and is prohibited per LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(c), where no structure shall extend beyond, or be cantilevered over, any downhill slope extending from the existing building pad. Additionally, the applicant states that constructing the ADU/Second Unit in the side yard would result in the structure not maintaining the minimum six-foot distance between accessory and main building per MMC Section 17.40.050(B). Furthermore, the applicant states that converting the existing garage into a Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) would create non-conforming parking requirements.

There are alternatives that grant the property owner the opportunity for an ADU within the existing building pad in compliance with MCE Overlay standards. The applicant represented that the proposed location is the only suitable location on the parcel due to an existing sewer and storm drain easement and steep slopes; however, the alternate locations deemed unfeasible by the applicant are not the only locations that appear feasible; as previously discussed, there are other locations within the existing building pad that may accommodate an ADU. Based on the Planning Commission’s review of the parcel, existing development, and thorough analysis of the variance justifications provided, the applicant has design options adjacent to the existing residence on the side and/or front yards that could accommodate an ADU. These could be in the form of an attached structure to the residence and/or converted space associated with the residence or a portion of the three-car garage. MMC Section 17.44.090(D)(3) states that no replacement of parking is required when a garage is converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. An alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other accessory uses including a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck. All feasible options described would not require special consideration and would fall within the allowable uses of the MCE Overlay, particularly development within the existing building pad.

Feasible options to build an ADU exist on the lot, the applicant is choosing not to take a feasible option that would comply with the LCP and MMC and instead is asserting that those rules should not apply as they do for everyone else in the neighborhood. The City Council finds that constructing the ADU/Second Unit on the second building pad is not the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. The appellant claims that the proposed project would not constitute as a special privilege and believes that staff and the Planning Commissioners did not take into consideration the existing sewer and water easement, engineered grading that created the second building pad, or the infeasibility of the alternative location.

Granting the variance would constitute a special privilege to the property owner because no special circumstances or exceptional characteristics exist on the subject parcel, different from other parcels in the MCE Overlay, which would require the proposed structure to be located on a second building pad downslope of the existing building pad and in conflict with objective standards in the MCE Overlay. While a 26 ft. wide sewer and storm drain easement extends across the northwest side yard, alternate locations for development of some form of an ADU appear feasible and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8 and 11. The alternate locations are outside of the 26 ft. wide easement area and do not appear Resolution No 26-61

Page 5 of 10 ends

______________________
to necessitate the extent of proposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. The City Council found that the applicant did not justify the need for a second building pad and did not explore feasible alternatives within the existing building pad. The City Council also found that if granted this would create a special privilege to the applicant because nobody else in the neighborhood has been allowed to exceed the MCE Overlay requirements, specifically being able to build on more than one building pad which drives all other development standards.

SECTION 4. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on the evidence contained within the record, including the analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions set forth by staff in the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Reports for the project and the hearings on April 20, 2026 and June 1, 2026, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and City Council, and pursuant to the LIP, including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, and the MMC, the City Council makes the findings of fact below, and denies CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26-003 to construct a 594 sf.

ADU/Second Unit on a proposed second building pad on a parcel in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) Zoning District located at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust).

The required findings of LIP Chapter 13 cannot be made by the City as enumerated below, and therefore, the project does not comply with the City’s LCP and, by extension, the California Coastal Act.

A. Coastal Development Permit Findings (LIP Chapter 13)

1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The proposed location of the ADU/Second Unit is not consistent with the MCE Overlay standards in LIP Section 3.4.1(D) or residential development standards in LIP Section 3.6(N)(1) and, therefore, does not meet the requirements for LIP Chapter 3 (Zoning). Furthermore, the proposed location does not comply with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading) and compliance with LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological/Cultural Resources) cannot be determined based on the information submitted.

The proposed project fails to meet various requirements outlined in LIP Chapter 3 including: LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(2)(c) which requires rear yard setback to be at least 15 ft. (4 ft. proposed); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(4)(a) which stipulates that “no walls…in excess of 6 ft. shall be allowed within the required rear…yard setback areas” (wall heights associated with the proposed structure extend above 6 feet in the rear yard setback); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(5) which limits structure height to additions/remodels of an existing structure, a new structure on a vacant parcel, or where an existing structure is replaced (no modifications to the existing structure are proposed, the site is not vacant, and the proposed structure is not associated with the replacement of the existing residence); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6), which stipulates that the site of construction for all development is limited to one single building pad and that no structures shall be sited downhill from the existing building pad (the project proposes a second building pad and has located the proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(7) which strictly limits impermeable Resolution No 26-61

Page 6 of 10 ends

______________________
surfaces on the existing building pad (the proposed structure is located on a proposed second building pad); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) which states grading shall only be permitted for the construction of swimming pools and spas and that no grading occur for purposes of extending the existing building pad (proposed grading associated for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and proposed for an additional building pad); and LIP Section 3.6(N)(c)(i) that requires a second residential unit be located within the required development area for the project site and clustered with the primary dwelling unit (the proposed second unit is located downhill from the existing residence, is not within the required development area as stipulated in the MCE Overlay standards, and is not clustered with the existing residence).

3.4.1(D)(8) or LIP Chapter 8 pursuant to the provision in LIP Section 8.2. Additionally, LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

Based on the information submitted by the appellant, the City Council was unable to determine if the proposed project complies with LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological/Cultural Resources).

Although the project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archeological resources and it has been determined that due to the previous grading activities to create the existing building pad and MCE community, the project has a very low probability of disturbing archaeological resources for the construction proposed on the existing building pad. It is not clear if the location of the proposed second building pad would have potential impacts given that it is proposed downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area and has not been evaluated for potential impacts during construction. The applicant has not provided information demonstrating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for impacts to archeological resources.

In the event there is a conflict between a provision of the LCP and a provision of the General Plan or of any other City-adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for the development to comply with both the LCP and the other provision, pursuant to LIP Section 1.3.1, the LCP governs. Consequently, the development may not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision.

2. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea. The project conforms to the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

Resolution No 26-61

Page 7 of 10 ends

______________________
The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As discussed in Finding A.1, the applicant represented that the proposed location on a proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad is the only suitable location due to the site’s sewer and water line easements and steep slopes. However, the applicant did not adequately justify why the ADU/Second Unit could not be developed within the existing building pad in compliance with the MCE Overlay standards. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that an alternate location within the residence as part of a conversion or adjacent to the residence on a flat portion of the existing building pad was infeasible. Additionally, the applicant did not provide information indicating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological/cultural resources.

As part of the Planning Commission’s review of the subject application, alternate locations for development appeared feasible and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8 and 11. The alternate locations do not appear to necessitate the extent of proposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. As proposed, the second building pad location is not considered to be the least environmentally damaging alternative. After conducting their own review, the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission’s determination to deny the project.

4. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explain why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

The LCP Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) and Marine Resources Map does not identify any ESHA on the subject parcel or on any adjacent properties. The subject parcel is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer and, therefore, Environmental Review Board review was not required. This finding does not apply.

B. Variance No. 26-003 from LIP Section 3.4.1(D) for Development on a Proposed Second Building Pad in the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section 13.27)

1. There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings such that strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.

There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances/characteristics that require the proposed structure to be located on a secondary building pad in the MCE Overlay District. The proposed second building pad is situated approximately 25 ft. downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area. There are alternatives that grant the property owner the opportunity for an ADU/Second Unit within the existing building pad in compliance with MCE Overlay standards.

Resolution No 26-61

Page 8 of 10 ends

______________________
The applicant represented that the proposed location is the only suitable location on the parcel due to sewer and storm drain easement and steep slopes; however, the alternative locations deemed unfeasible by the applicant are not the only locations available, there are other locations within the existing building pad that may accommodate an ADU/Second Unit. Based on the City Council’s review of the parcel, existing development, and thorough analysis of the variance justifications provided it appears the applicant has design options adjacent to the existing residence on the side and/or front yards that could accommodate an ADU/Second Unit and/or Junior ADU (JADU).

These could be in the form of an attached structure to the residence and/or converted space associated with the residence or a portion of the garage. An alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other accessory uses including a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck. All feasible options described would not require special consideration and would fall within the allowable uses of the MCE Overlay, particularly development within the existing building pad.

2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.

Granting the variance request would be detrimental to the improvements in the same SFM zone and MCE Overlay, as it would violate the established objective zoning requirements of the parcel’s location. Furthermore, it would establish a precedent for disregarding the certified LCP.

3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

Granting the variance would constitute a special privilege to the property owner because no special circumstances or exceptional characteristics exist on the subject parcel, different from other parcels in the MCE Overlay, which would require the proposed structure to be located on a second building pad downslope of the existing building pad and in conflict with objective standards in the MCE Overlay. While a 26 ft. wide sewer and storm drain easement extends across the northwest side yard, alternate locations for development of some form of an ADU/Second Unit appear feasible and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8, and 11. The alternate locations are outside of the 26 ft. wide easement area and do not appear to necessitate the extent of proposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. As described in Finding A.3, the applicant did not justify the need for a second building pad and did not explore feasible alternatives within the existing building pad.

4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.

The granting of the variance request would not meet the general purpose and intent because alternate locations appear feasible within the existing building pad that would allow for an ADU/Second Unit to be developed on the subject parcel consistent with the objective standards of the MCE Overlay.

5. For variances to environmentally sensitive habitat area buffer standards or other environmentally sensitive habitat area protection standards, that there is no other feasible Resolution No 26-61

Page 9 of 10 ends

______________________
alternative for siting the structure and that the development does not exceed the limits on allowable development area set forth in Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.

The variance request is not for an ESHA buffer nor is the project located within an ESHA.

Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

6. For variances to stringline standards, the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 12 of the Malibu LIP.

Stringline standards are not part of the variance request, and the subject parcel is not beachfront.

Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

7. The variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zone(s) in which the site is located. A variance shall not be granted for a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.

Variance requests are designed to provide relief to sites with special circumstances or exceptional characteristics that severely hinder development thus negating the opportunity to enjoy the same privileges as surrounding neighbors. As described in Findings B.1 and B.3, alternate locations appear feasible within the existing building pad that would allow for some form of an ADU/Second Unit to be developed on the subject parcel consistent with the objective standards of the MCE Overlay.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

Alternate locations for development of an ADU/Second Unit appear feasible on the existing building pad and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards. The proposed second building pad would necessitate a variance for relief from objective development standards in the MCE Overlay and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed location would be physically suitable for the proposed development. The applicant did not provide information indicating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological/cultural resources consistent with LIP Chapter 11. Furthermore, the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and re-compaction grading for the upper three feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of three feet beyond the proposed footprint. LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.

The City is entirely within the coastal zone and has a certified LCP that governs new development, including ADUs, JADUs, and Second Units. ADUs in the City must comply with state law and the LCP, as applied to implement the Coastal Act in the City. As proposed, the project does not represent the least environmentally damaging alternative as required by CDP Finding A.3 or comply with objective standards in the MCE Overlay (LIP Section 3.4.1(D)).

Resolution No 26-61

Page 10 of 10 ends

______________________

10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.

The proposed project is located within a residential community and not located in an area that provides public parking for access to the beach, public trails, or parklands. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

SECTION 5. City Council Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby denies Appeal No. 26-017, upholds the Planning Commission’s decision, and denies CDP No. 21- 045 and VAR No. 26-003.

SECTION 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of September 2026.

BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
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 of the 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.

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 26—02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU DETERMINING THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES, AND DENYING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21—045 TO GRADE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 594 SQUARE FOOT, 11 FOOT“ 2 INCH TALL, DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT/SECOND UNIT; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 26—003 FOR RELIEF FROM MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED SECOND BUILDING PAD, REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK, WALL HEIGHTS. AND ALLOWANCES FOR IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE, STRUCTURE HEIGHT, AND GRADING OUTSIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING PAD ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY AND SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM ZONING DISTRICT AT 24507 VANTAGE POINT TERRACE (MEISSNER FAMILY TRUST) The Planning Commission of the City 0f Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION l. Recitals.

A. On September 23. 2021 , an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No 21 045 with Minor Modification (MM) No. 21—028 was submitted to the Planning Division by the applicant Keystone Strategic Planning, on behalfof property owner, the Meissner Family Trust. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers. Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review. The proposed development is located in the Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Overlay District, included within the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) as LIP Section 3.4.I(D).

B. On October 9, 2025, the applicant requested the subject application be agendized for the Planning Commission. The applicant was informed that the application was not deemed incomplete.

C. On October 30. 2025, the applicant posted a Notice of CDP Application sign at the subject property.

D. On November 20, 2025. a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500—foot radius ofthe project site and to all interested parties.

E. On December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 2, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

F. On February 2. 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item date uncertain at the applicant’s request.

G. On February 5, 2026, the applicant submitted a request for Variance (VAR) No. 26—003 for Exhibit 2
Resolution N0. 26—02

Page 2 of 8 ends

relief from certain MCE Overlay District standards. MM No. 21—028 was no longer considered applicable to the project as the requested rear yard setback exceeded the allowance under a MM.

H. On March 5, 2026, the applicant requested the Planning Commission hearing be continued to a date certain of April 20, 2026.

I. On March 26, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and on March 27, 2026 was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500—foot radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

J. On April 20, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. This item was continued to the June 1, 2026 Commission meeting for further discussion, to obtain clarification of certain development standards from staff, and to determine if findings in support of the CDP and VAR can be made to approve the project.

K. On June l, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staffreport, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project and finds that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproved.

SECTION 3. Findings for Denial.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearings on April 20, 2026 and June 1. 2026, and pursuant to LIP Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the findings offact. and denies CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26— 003 to construct a 594 square foot (sf) Accessory Dwelling Unit/Second Unit (ADU/Second Unit) on a proposed second building pad on a parcel in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) Zoning District located at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust).

The required findings of LIP Chapter 13 cannot be made by the City as enumerated below, and therefore the proj ect does not comply with the California Coastal Act by extension ofthe City's LCP.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. Thai [he pro/ect as described in [he application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions ofapprovai, conforms with certified City ofMaiibu Local Coastal Program.

Page 3 ends

does not meet the requirements for LIP Chapter 3 (Zoning). Furthermore, the proposed location does not comply with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading) and compliance with LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological/Cultural Resources) cannot be determined based on the information submitted.

The proposed project fails to meet various requirements outlined in LIP Chapter 3 including: LIP Section 3.4.I(D)(2)(c) which requires rear yard setback to be at least 15 feet (ft) (4 ft. proposed); LIP Section 3.4.l(D)(4)(a) which stipulates that “no walls...in excess of 6 ft. shall be allowed within the required rear. . .yard setback areas” (wall heights associated with the proposed structure extend above 6 feet in the rear yard setback); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(5) which limits structure height to additions/remodels of an existing structure, a new structure on a vacant parcel, or where an existing structure is replaced (no modifications to the existing structure are proposed, the site is not vacant, and the proposed structure is not associated with the replacement of the existing residence); LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(6), which stipulates that the site of construction for all development is limited to one single building pad and that no structures shall be sited downhill from the existing building pad (the project proposes a second building pad and has located the proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad); LIP Section 3.4.l(D)(7) which strictly limits impermeable surfaces on the existing building pad (the proposed structure is located on a proposed second building pad); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) which states grading shall only be permitted for the construction of swimming pools and spas and that no grading occur for purposes of extending the existing building pad (proposed grading associated for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and proposed for an additional building pad); and LIP Section 3.6(N)(c)(i) that requires a second residential unit be located within the required development area for the proj ect site and clustered with the primary dwelling unit (the proposed second unit is located downhill from the existing residence, is not within the required development area as stipulated in the MCE Overlay standards and is not clustered with the existing residence).

The proposed development is inconsistent with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading). The MCE Overlay standards provide more strict regulations for grading of property within the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section

3.4. 1 (D)(8)) by prohibiting grading on existing building pads except for export ofSOO cubic yards (c.y.) associated with the construction of a swimming pool and spa, with additional provisions for cut and fill grading and remedial grading subject to the approval of a site plan review. Based on the applicant’s submitted materials the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and re-compaction grading for the upper 3 feet ofpreviously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of a 3 ft. beyond the proposed footprint. The proposed grading is for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and, therefore, does not comply with LIP Section 3.4. l (D)(8) or LIP Chapter 8 pursuant to the provision in LIP Section 8.2. Additionally, LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission is unable to determine if the proposed project complies with LIP Chapter ll (Archaeological/Cultural Resources). Although the project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archeological resources and it has been determined that due to the previous grading activities to create the existing building pad and MCE community, the project has very low probability ofdisturbing archaeological resources for construction Resolution N0. 26-02

Page 4 ends

proposed on the existing building pad. It is not clear ifthe location of the proposed second building pad would have potential impacts given that it is proposed downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area and has not been evaluated for potential impacts during construction. The applicant has not provided information demonstrating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for impacts to archeological resources.

In the event there is a conflict between a provision of the LCP and a provision of the General Plan or ofany other City—adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for the development to comply with both the LCP and the other provision, pursuant to LIP Section 1.3.1, the LCP governs. Consequently. the development may not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision.

2. [/‘lhe project is located Ive/ween lhefirs/ public mad and [he sea. The project conforms lo Ihe public access and recreation policies ofClrapler 3 ofllze Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing wtth Sections 30200 oft/7e Public Resources Code).

The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative As discussed in Finding A. l , the applicant represented that the proposed location on a proposed second building pad downhill ofthe existing building pad is the only suitable location due to the site’s sewer and water line easements and steep slopes. However, the applicant did not adequately justify why the ADU/Second Unit could not be developed within the existing building pad in compliance with the MCE Overlay standards. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that an alternate location within the residence as part of a conversion or adj acent to the residence on a flat portion of the existing building pad was infeasible. Additionally, the applicant did not provide information indicating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological/cultural resources.

As part of the Planning Commission’s review of the subject application, alternate locations for development appeared feasible and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8 and l l. The alternate locations do not appear to necessitate the extent ofproposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. As proposed, the second building pad location is not considered to be the least environmentally damaging alternative

4. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 ofthe Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if'it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explain why it is notfeasible to take the recommended action.

Page 5 ends

designated ESHA 0r ESHA buffer and. therefore Environmental Review Board review was not required. This finding does not apply.

B. Variance No. 26-003 from LIP Section 3.4.1(D) for Development 0n a Proposed Second Building Pad in the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section 13.27) l. There are Special circumsiances 0r exceptional charac/eris/ics applicable f0 the subject proper/y including size, Shape, topography, location, or surroundings such that strict application ofthe zoning ordinance deprives such property of’privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under the identical zoning classification.

There are no exceptional or extraordinary oircumstances/eharacteristics that require the proposed structure be located on a secondary building pad in the MCE Overlay District. The proposed second building pad is situated approximately 25 ft. downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area. There are alternatives that grant the property owner the opportunity for an ADU/Second Unit within the existing building pad in compliance with MCE Overlay standards. The applicant represented that the proposed location is the only suitable location on the parcel due to sewer and storm drain easement and steep slopes; however. the alternative locations deemed unfeasible by the applicant are not the only locations available. there are other locations within the existing building pad that may accommodate an ADU/Second Unit. Based on the Planning Commission’s review of the parcel, existing development, and thorough analysis of the variance justifications provided it appears the applicant has design options adjacent to the existing residence on the side and/or front yards that could accommodate an ADU/Sccond Unit and/or Junior ADU (JADU). These could be in the form of an attached structure to the residence and/or converted space associated with the residence or a portion of the garage. An alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other accessory uses including a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck. All feasible options described would not require special consideration and would fall within the allowable uses of the MCE Overlay, particularly development within the existing building pad.

2. The granting ofsuch variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property 0r improvements in the same vicinity and zonets) in which the property is located.

3. The granting ofthe variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

While a 26 ft. wide sewer and storm drain easement extends across the northwest side yard, alternate locations for development of some form of an ADU/Second Unit appear feasible and would maintain Resolution N0. 26—02

Page 6 ends

consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8 and ll. The alternate locations are outside ofthe 26 ft. wide easement area and do not appear to necessitate the extent ofproposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. As described in Finding A3, the applicant did not justify the need for a second building pad and did not explore feasible alternatives within the existing building pad.

4. The graming ofsuch variance will r101 be con/wry f0 01‘ in conflict will; the general purposes and intent ofilzis Chapter, n0r Ia /lie goals, Objectives andpalicies afflie LCP.

The granting of the variance request would not meet the general purpose and intent because alternate locations appear feasible within the existing building pad that would allow for an ADU/Second to be developed on the subject parcel consistent with the objective standards ofthe MCE Overlay.

5. For variances la environmentally sensitive liabiiaf area buffer standards 0r other environmentally sensitive habitat area protection standards, that there is no otherfeasible alternativefbr siting the structure and that the development does not exceed the limits on allowable development area setforth in Section 4. 7 ofthe Malibu LIP.

The variance request is not for an ESHA buffer nor is the project located within an ESHA. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

6. For variances to stringline standards, the pro/eel provides maximumfeasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 12 of/he Malibu LIP.

Stringline standards are not part of the variance request, and the subject parcel is not beachfront. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

7. The variance request is consistent with the purpose and intent ofthe zone(s) in which the site is located. A variance shall not be granted for a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel ofproperty.

Variance requests are designed to provide relief to sites with special circumstances or exceptional characteristics that severely hinder development thus negating the opportunity to enjoy the same privileges as surrounding neighbors. As described in Findings B.l and B.3, alternate locations appear feasible within the existing building pad that would allow for some form of an ADU/Second Unit to be developed on the subject parcel consistent with the objective standards of the MCE Overlay.

8. The subject site is physically suitablefor the proposed variance.

Alternate locations for development of an ADU/Second Unit appear feasible on the existing building pad and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards. The proposed second building pad would necessitate a variance for relief from objective development standards in the MCE Overlay and it has not been demonstrated that the proposed location would be physically suitable for the proposed development. The applicant did not provide information indicating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological/cultural resources consistent with LIP Chapter ll. Furthermore, the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and re— Resolution N0. 26-02
Paga 7 0f8
compaction grading for the upper 3 ft. of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 ft. beyond the proposed footprint. LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location ofthe proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

9. The variance COI'npiies with all requirements ()fSIale and local /aw.

The City is entirely within the coastal zone and has a certified LCP that governs new development, including ADUs, JADUs, and Second Units. ADUs in the City must comply with state law and the LCP, as applied to implement the Coastal Act in the City. As proposed, the project does not represent the least environmentally damaging alternative as required by CDP Finding A.l or comply with objective standards in the MCE Overlay (LIP Section 3.4.1(D)).

10. A variance shall na/ be gran/ed Iliai would allaw reduc/ion 0r elimination of'public parkingfor access to the beach, public trails or park/ands.

The proposed project is located within a residential community and not located in an area that provides public parking for access to the beach, public trails. or parklands. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record. the Planning Commission hereby denies CDP No. 21—045 and VAR No. 26—003.

SECTION 5. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption ofthis Resolution.

PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this I“ day ofJune 2026.
§/;/// /3 14
SKYIAR PEAK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

REBECCA
WW
EVANS, Recording Secretary
Resolution N0. 26—02

Page 8 ends

LOCAL APPEAL — Pursuant t0 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 IO days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified 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.

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 of the 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—02 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the regular meeting thereof held on the 15‘ day ofJune 2026, by the following vote:
@Mm
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
AYES: .3 Commissioners: Mazza. Kamins, Peak NOES: 2 Commissioners: Leonard, Riddick ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
Exhibit 3

Page 1 of 5 ends

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Peak and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Magda Gonzalez, Contract Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Joseph Smith, AICP, Contract Principal Planner Approved by: Yolanda Bundy, MS, PE, CBO, CFCO, Community Development Director and Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director Date prepared: May 21, 2026 Meeting date: June 1, 2026
Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045 and Variance 26-003 – An application to construct a detached accessory dwelling unit/second unit and associated development on a second building pad (Continued from April 20, 2026)
Location: 24507 Vantage Point Terrace, partially within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4458-033-006
Owner: Meissner Family Trust
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either 1) adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Exhibit A) determining that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves, and denying Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 21-045 to grade and construct a new 594 square foot (sf.), approximately 11 foot (ft.) 2 inch (in.) tall, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)/Second Unit; including Variance (VAR) No. 26-003 for relief from Malibu Country Estates Overlay (MCE Overlay) District standards associated with a proposed second building pad, reduced rear yard setback, wall heights, and allowances for impermeable coverage, structure height, and grading outside the existing building pad on a parcel located in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) zoning district at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust); or 2) adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Exhibit B) determining that the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045 to grade and construct a new 594 sf., 11 ft, 2 in. tall, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit/Second Unit; including Variance No. 26-003 for relief from MCE Overlay District Standards associated with a proposed second building pad, reduced rear yard setback, Planning Commission
Meeting
06-01-26
Item

4.A.

Exhibit 4

Page 2 of 5 ends

wall heights, and allowances for impermeable coverage, structure height, and grading outside the existing building pad on a parcel located in the MCE Overlay and SFM zoning district at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust).

DISCUSSION: On April 20, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject application. The staff report and all attachments, including the project plans, department review sheets, and the applicant’s findings in support of the CDP and VAR are included as part of Exhibit C. At the meeting, the Commission continued the matter to a date certain of June 1, 2026 to continue discussion on the matter, obtain clarification of certain development standards from staff, and determine if findings in support of the CDP and VAR can be made to approve the project.

Staff have prepared a secondary resolution for the Commission’s consideration as the Commission requested to review findings to support the VAR. The secondary resolution is provided as Exhibit B. As the recommended action states, the Commission may consider the original staff recommendation for denial provided in Exhibit A based on not being able to make the findings to support the project due to the project’s various inconsistencies with the LCP. Alternately, the Commission may consider adoption of the resolution for approval (Exhibit B) in their deliberations or decide if other findings are necessary should they vote to approve.

Clarification of Total Development Square Footage (TDSF), Impermeable Coverage, and Fire Access
At the April 20, 2026 meeting, the Commission requested additional clarification regarding TDSF, impermeable coverage, and fire access. The MCE Overlay supersedes typical residential development standards in Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 3.6 and does not set a maximum TDSF or impermeable coverage limitation. Instead, the MCE Overlay limits development to one building pad per parcel and stipulates that impermeable coverage be limited to one building pad with no maximum.

The MCE Overlay also prescribes a minimum building size for development on one building pad with no maximum. As proposed, the ADU/second unit would be located on a second building pad in the MCE Overlay, which means that any additional increases in impermeable coverage or building size would be inconsistent with the allowances in the MCE Overlay pertaining to one building pad.

As shown on the fire access plans approved by the LACFD on February 23, 2022, the ADU/second unit would be accessed from Vantage Point Terrace along the northwest side yard where the 26 ft. water and sewer easement is located. Fire access from John Tyler Drive is not indicated as the approved or required fire access route per the LACFD.

Page 3 of 5 ends

Findings in Support
At the April 20, 2026 meeting, the Commission deliberated if findings could be made in support of the CDP and VAR to approve the project. The applicant had previously submitted findings in support of the requests. Staff has revised and incorporated these findings into a second resolution for the Commission’s consideration (Exhibit B).

Updated Zoning Conformance Table
Table 3 of the original Commission Agenda Report from April 20, 2026 meeting has been updated to include rows for TDSF, impermeable coverage, and parking.

Table 3 – LCP Zoning Conformance
Development
Requirement
Allowed/
Required
Proposed Comments

SITE OF

CONSTRUCTION
All development
limited to existing
building pad; one
building pad per
lot; no structures
downhill from
existing building
pad
Proposed
development
extended to
proposed
second
building pad;
proposed
second
building pad on
lot; proposed
structure
located
downhill from
existing
building pad
Does not comply
with the LIP
§3.4.1(D)(6)
REAR YARD SETBACK 15 ft. 4 ft. Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(2)(c)

IMPERMEABLE

Page 4 of 5 ends

Table 3 – LCP Zoning Conformance
Development
Requirement
Allowed/
Required
Proposed Comments
an existing
structure is
replaced
structure not
associated with
existing
structure
GRADING Grading for
swimming pools
and spas; no
grading for
purposes of
extending the
existing building
pad
Proposed
grading
associated for
use other than
swimming pool
or spa;
proposed
grading for
second
building pad
Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(8)

WALL HEIGHT WITHIN

SETBACK
No walls
exceeding 6 ft. in
height within
required rear yard
setback
Proposed walls
associated with
the structure
extend above 6
ft. within
required rear
yard setback
Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(4)(a)
TDSF
(MINIMUM BUILDING
SIZE)
Not less than
2,000 sf.
4,195 sf. (SFR
& ADU/Second
Unit)
Complies

IMPERMEABLE

COVERAGE
No maximum. All
impermeable
surfaces shall be
on the existing
building pad.

ADU/Second
Unit on
secondary pad
Does not comply
with the LIP.

PARKING
Enclosed 2 (residence)
1 (second unit)
3 existing (no
new proposed)
Complies
Unenclosed In front of garage,
not exceeding
garage width and
not extending
more than 20 ft.
3 existing on
driveway (no
new proposed)
Complies
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Community Development Director has analyzed the proposed project and finds that,

Page 5 of 5 ends

pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves (Exhibit A). However, should the Commission adopt Resolution No. 26-02 (Exhibit B) to approve the project, the Commission would need to make the findings that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Draft findings are included in the resolution.

CORRESPONDENCE: After the April 20, 2026 agenda was published, two video correspondence items were received and provided to the Commission. As of the publication of this report, no written correspondence has been received by the Planning Division.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On March 26, 2026 staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu. On March 27, 2026 staff mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-ft. radius of the subject property (Exhibit D). At the April 20, 2026 Commission meeting, the item was continued date certain to the June 1, 2026 Commission meeting.

SUMMARY: Staff has prepared two resolutions for the Commission’s consideration based on the April 20, 2026 deliberations. Staff recommends the Commission adopt Resolution No. 26-02 (Exhibit A) denying the project on the basis that it is inconsistent with the LCP and MMC, and the required findings cannot be made in support of the CDP and VAR.

However, should the Commission determine that the findings can be made in support of the CDP and VAR, the Commission should review the findings in Resolution No. 26-02 (Exhibit B), amend as relevant, and adopt the resolution approving the project.

EXHIBITS:

A. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Denial)
B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Approval)
C. Original Commission Agenda Report, dated April 20, 2026 D. Public Hearing Notice, mailed March 27, 2026

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 26-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU DETERMINING THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC

AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES, AND DENYING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21-045 TO GRADE AND CONSTRUCT A
NEW 594 SQUARE FOOT, 11 FOOT, 2 INCH TALL, DETACHED
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT/SECOND UNIT; INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 26-003 FOR RELIEF FROM MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY

DISTRICT STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED SECOND

BUILDING PAD, REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK, WALL HEIGHTS,

AND ALLOWANCES FOR IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE, STRUCTURE

HEIGHT, AND GRADING OUTSIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING PAD ON

A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY
AND SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM ZONING DISTRICT AT 24507 VANTAGE

POINT TERRACE (MEISSNER FAMILY TRUST)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On September 23, 2021, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 21-045 with Minor Modification (MM) No. 21-028 was submitted to the Planning Division by the applicant Keystone Strategic Planning, on behalf of property owner, the Meissner Family Trust. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) for review. The proposed development is located in the Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Overlay District, included within the City’s certified Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) as LIP Section 3.4.1(D).

B. On October 9, 2025, the applicant requested the subject application be agendized for the Planning Commission. The applicant was informed that the application was not deemed incomplete.

C. On October 30, 2025, the applicant posted a Notice of CDP Application sign at the subject property.

D. On November 20, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

E. On December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 2, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

F. On February 2, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item date uncertain at the applicant’s request.

G. On February 5, 2026, the applicant submitted a request for Variance (VAR) No. 26-003 for DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 2 of 8 ends

______________________
relief from certain MCE Overlay District standards. MM No. 21-028 was no longer considered applicable to the project as the requested rear yard setback exceeded the allowance under a MM.

H. On March 5, 2026, the applicant requested the Planning Commission hearing be continued to a date certain of April 20, 2026.

I. On March 26, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and on March 27, 2026 was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

J. On April 20, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. This item was continued to the June 1, 2026 Commission meeting for further discussion, to obtain clarification of certain development standards from staff, and to determine if findings in support of the CDP and VAR can be made to approve the project.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

SECTION 3. Findings for Denial.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearings on April 20, 2026 and June 1, 2026, and pursuant to LIP Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and denies CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26- 003 to construct a 594 square foot (sf.) Accessory Dwelling Unit/Second Unit (ADU/Second Unit) on a proposed second building pad on a parcel in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) Zoning District located at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust).

The required findings of LIP Chapter 13 cannot be made by the City as enumerated below, and therefore the project does not comply with the California Coastal Act by extension of the City's LCP.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

Page 3 of 8 ends

______________________
does not meet the requirements for LIP Chapter 3 (Zoning). Furthermore, the proposed location does not comply with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading) and compliance with LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological/Cultural Resources) cannot be determined based on the information submitted.

The proposed project fails to meet various requirements outlined in LIP Chapter 3 including: LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(2)(c) which requires rear yard setback to be at least 15 feet (ft.) (4 ft. proposed); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(4)(a) which stipulates that “no walls…in excess of 6 ft. shall be allowed within the required rear…yard setback areas” (wall heights associated with the proposed structure extend above 6 feet in the rear yard setback); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(5) which limits structure height to additions/remodels of an existing structure, a new structure on a vacant parcel, or where an existing structure is replaced (no modifications to the existing structure are proposed, the site is not vacant, and the proposed structure is not associated with the replacement of the existing residence); LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(6), which stipulates that the site of construction for all development is limited to one single building pad and that no structures shall be sited downhill from the existing building pad (the project proposes a second building pad and has located the proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(7) which strictly limits impermeable surfaces on the existing building pad (the proposed structure is located on a proposed second building pad); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) which states grading shall only be permitted for the construction of swimming pools and spas and that no grading occur for purposes of extending the existing building pad (proposed grading associated for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and proposed for an additional building pad); and LIP Section 3.6(N)(c)(i) that requires a second residential unit be located within the required development area for the project site and clustered with the primary dwelling unit (the proposed second unit is located downhill from the existing residence, is not within the required development area as stipulated in the MCE Overlay standards, and is not clustered with the existing residence).

The proposed development is inconsistent with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading). The MCE Overlay standards provide more strict regulations for grading of property within the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(8)) by prohibiting grading on existing building pads except for export of 500 cubic yards (c.y.) associated with the construction of a swimming pool and spa, with additional provisions for cut and fill grading and remedial grading subject to the approval of a site plan review. Based on the applicant’s submitted materials, the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and re-compaction grading for the upper 3 feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of a 3 ft. beyond the proposed footprint. The proposed grading is for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and, therefore, does not comply with LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) or LIP Chapter 8 pursuant to the provision in LIP Section 8.2. Additionally, LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission is unable to determine if the proposed project complies with LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological/Cultural Resources). Although the project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archeological resources and it has been determined that due to the previous grading activities to create the existing building pad and MCE community, the project has very low probability of disturbing archaeological resources for construction DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 4 of 8 ends

______________________
proposed on the existing building pad. It is not clear if the location of the proposed second building pad would have potential impacts given that it is proposed downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area and has not been evaluated for potential impacts during construction. The applicant has not provided information demonstrating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for impacts to archeological resources.

1.3.1, the LCP governs. Consequently, the development may not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision.

The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

Page 5 of 8 ends

______________________
designated ESHA or ESHA buffer and, therefore, Environmental Review Board review was not required. This finding does not apply.

B. Variance No. 26-003 from LIP Section 3.4.1(D) for Development on a Proposed Second Building Pad in the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section 13.27)

There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances/characteristics that require the proposed structure be located on a secondary building pad in the MCE Overlay District. The proposed second building pad is situated approximately 25 ft. downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area. There are alternatives that grant the property owner the opportunity for an ADU/Second Unit within the existing building pad in compliance with MCE Overlay standards. The applicant represented that the proposed location is the only suitable location on the parcel due to sewer and storm drain easement and steep slopes; however, the alternative locations deemed unfeasible by the applicant are not the only locations available, there are other locations within the existing building pad that may accommodate an ADU/Second Unit. Based on the Planning Commission’s review of the parcel, existing development, and thorough analysis of the variance justifications provided it appears the applicant has design options adjacent to the existing residence on the side and/or front yards that could accommodate an ADU/Second Unit and/or Junior ADU (JADU). These could be in the form of an attached structure to the residence and/or converted space associated with the residence or a portion of the garage. An alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other accessory uses including a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck. All feasible options described would not require special consideration and would fall within the allowable uses of the MCE Overlay, particularly development within the existing building pad.

3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

Page 6 of 8 ends

______________________
consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8 and 11.

The alternate locations are outside of the 26 ft. wide easement area and do not appear to necessitate the extent of proposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. As described in Finding A.3, the applicant did not justify the need for a second building pad and did not explore feasible alternatives within the existing building pad.

4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.

The granting of the variance request would not meet the general purpose and intent because alternate locations appear feasible within the existing building pad that would allow for an ADU/Second to be developed on the subject parcel consistent with the objective standards of the MCE Overlay.

5. For variances to environmentally sensitive habitat area buffer standards or other environmentally sensitive habitat area protection standards, that there is no other feasible alternative for siting the structure and that the development does not exceed the limits on allowable development area set forth in Section 4.7 of the Malibu LIP.

The variance request is not for an ESHA buffer nor is the project located within an ESHA. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

6. For variances to stringline standards, the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 12 of the Malibu LIP.

Stringline standards are not part of the variance request, and the subject parcel is not beachfront.

Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

Page 7 of 8 ends

______________________
compaction grading for the upper 3 ft. of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 ft. beyond the proposed footprint. LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.

The City is entirely within the coastal zone and has a certified LCP that governs new development, including ADUs, JADUs, and Second Units. ADUs in the City must comply with state law and the LCP, as applied to implement the Coastal Act in the City. As proposed, the project does not represent the least environmentally damaging alternative as required by CDP Finding A.1 or comply with objective standards in the MCE Overlay (LIP Section 3.4.1(D)).

10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby denies CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26-003.

SECTION 5. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of June 2026.
____________________________________________
SKYLAR PEAK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 8 of 8 ends

______________________
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section

13.20.1 (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 specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 246.

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 26-02 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of June 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT

EXHIBIT B

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 26-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU DETERMINING THAT THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY

EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT,
AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21-045 TO
GRADE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 594 SQUARE FOOT, 11 FOOT, 2 INCH TALL, DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT/SECOND UNIT;
INCLUDING VARIANCE NO. 26-003 FOR RELIEF FROM MALIBU

COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS ASSOCIATED

WITH A PROPOSED SECOND BUILDING PAD, REDUCED REAR YARD

SETBACK, WALL HEIGHTS, AND ALLOWANCES FOR IMPERMEABLE

COVERAGE, STRUCTURE HEIGHT, AND GRADING OUTSIDE THE

EXISTING BUILDING PAD ON A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE MALIBU

COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY AND SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM
ZONING DISTRICT AT 24507 VANTAGE POINT TERRACE (MEISSNER

FAMILY TRUST)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

B. On October 9, 2025, the applicant requested the subject application be agendized for the Planning Commission. The applicant was informed that the application was not deemed incomplete.

C. On October 30, 2025, the applicant posted a Notice of CDP Application sign at the subject property.

D. On November 20, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

E. On December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 2, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

F. On February 2, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item date uncertain at the applicant’s request.

G. On February 5, 2026, the applicant submitted a request for Variance (VAR) No. 26-003 for DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 2 of 20 ends

H. On March 5, 2026, the applicant requested the Planning Commission hearing be continued to a date certain of April 20, 2026.

I. On March 26, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and on March 27, 2026 was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500 foot (ft.) radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

J. On April 20, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record. This item was continued date certain to the June 1, 2026 Commission meeting for further discussion, to obtain clarification of certain development standards from staff, and to determine if findings in support of the CDP and VAR can be made to approve the project.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission 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 – and Section 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission 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).

SECTION 3. Findings for Approval.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearings on April 20, 2026 and June 1, 2026, and pursuant to LIP Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26-003 to construct a 594 square foot (sf.) Accessory Dwelling Unit/Second Unit (ADU/Second Unit) on a proposed second building pad on a parcel in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) Zoning District located at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace.

The project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning (LIP Chapter 3), grading (LIP Chapter 8), cultural resources (LIP Chapter 11), water quality (LIP Chapter 17), and wastewater treatment requirements (LIP Chapter 18). With the inclusion of the VAR, the project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 3 of 20 ends

______________________
made herein. The project complies with the following five LIP chapters that do not require findings to be made. The remaining chapters of the LIP are analyzed in this resolution.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3): The subject parcel is located in Area A of the MCE Overlay and is subject to the development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.4, 3.5, and 3.6. Inclusive of the requested VAR, the project meets the development and design standards of the LIP.

Grading (LIP Chapter 8): LIP Sections 3.4 and 8.3 ensure that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of grading to no more than 500 c.y. for the construction of swimming pools and spaces and 100 c.y. total cut and fill within the MCE Overlay. Moreover, the existing building pad elevation, as documented in Ordinance No. 122 which established the MCE Overlay, must not be changed with proposed grading and the project does not propose any changes. The project conforms to the grading requirements as set forth under LIP Section 8.3, which ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading to 1,000 c.y. for a residential parcel. The only grading proposed is the removal/recompaction for the foundation per the recommendations in the Geotechnical Report, which is explicitly exempted per LIP Section 8.3 “Exception. Excavation for foundations and other understructure excavation and incremental excavation for basements and safety purposes shall be excluded from grading limitations.” The proposed grading will not result in a change to the existing building pad elevation. The proposed project complies with grading requirements set forth under LIP Sections 3.4 and 8.3.

Archaeological/Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11): LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. The subject parcel has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological resources per the adopted City of Malibu Cultural Resources Map and it has been determined to have a very low probability of containing cultural resources due to the grading previously completed on the subject parcel as part of Tract No. 30134 in 1971, which established the existing building pads and the led to the development that is there today.

The MCE neighborhood is almost completely disturbed being one of the only major planned subdivisions in Malibu. Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Community Development Director can review this information.

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17): The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection.

Standard conditions of approval are added to the project, such as implementation of approved storm water management plans during construction activities and management of runoff from the development, including recordation of a water quality mitigation plan, and best management practices.

With the implementation of these conditions, the project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.

Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18): LIP Chapter 18 addresses onsite wastewater treatment systems (OWTS). The subject parcel is located in a subdivision that is served by DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 4 of 20 ends

______________________
the Malibu Mesa Wastewater Treatment Plant. Therefore, this chapter does not apply.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The proposed project is located in the MCE Overlay and SFM residential zoning district, an area designated for residential uses. The proposed project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP by the City Biologist, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable residential development standards with the inclusion of the VAR.

The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The proposed location appears to be the only feasible location for the proposed ADU/Second Unit. The ADU/Second Unit does not intrude into neighboring properties, does not cantilever over the slope nor does it require any non-exempt landform alteration/grading. The proposed location involves the least visible portion of the parcel and satisfies Coastal Act policies and applicable local standards while minimizing environmental, visual, and neighborhood impacts.

Various alternatives to site development were considered but ultimately rejected by the applicant due to the potential impacts to the parcel. One alternative proposed the ADU/Second Unit over the existing pool and over the rear descending slope. This would require the existing pool to be removed. However, there is insufficient area to support the proposed ADU/Second Unit, given that there must be a 6 ft. building setback per the LIP Section 3.6(R)(b) The east-facing living room features a prominent bay window that provides primary light, air, and view to the existing residence. Light, air, and views would all be blocked by the presence of the ADU/Second Unit, even if it were to fit. This placement, however, results in roughly half of the area of proposed structure extending beyond and cantilevered over the downhill slope, which would result in a height greater than 18 ft. and/or new site grading/landform alteration on the existing slope. Therefore, this alternative is not feasible practically, would result in greater visual impacts, and does not achieve any greater consistency with relevant policies/regulations than the proposed location.

A second alternative could be along the southeastern side, behind the garage and adjacent to the primary bathroom, there is a right triangle of area where it might be assumed that the ADU/Second Unit could be sited. This second alternate shows clearly how after accounting for the bathroom’s bay window and DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 5 of 20 ends

______________________
the required 6 ft. building setback, there is not nearly enough space to squeeze the ADU/Second Unit between the residence and the property line, even with the benefit of a side yard setback reduction. The other half would spill into the setback and over the property line. Therefore, the second alternative was rejected by the applicant at this location as not being feasible.

The proposed location and type of development is consistent with the SFM land use and zoning designation within the MCE Overlay. Adjacent parcels to the north, east, south, and west are developed with similar residential structures. The proposed project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for compliance with the LCP by the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and the LACFD. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable requirements of state and local law. As designed, the project complies with the requirements of the LCP inclusive of the VAR and represents the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative as no alternative provides a superior project to the one proposed.

The project is sited on the least visible portion of the parcel, does not impact public views, proposes no non-exempt grading/landform alteration, maintains existing required on-site covered parking to avoid adverse impacts to neighbors, and inclusive of the VAR, conforms to applicable Coastal Act and LIP standards for coastal resource protection. Additionally, the project has no impacts to public access or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). For these reasons, the proposed location for the ADU/Second Unit is considered the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The LCP ESHA Overlay Map does not identify any ESHA on or adjacent to the subject parcel. The subject parcel is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer. Therefore, Environmental Review Board review is not required and this finding is not applicable.

B. Variance No. 26-003 from LIP Section 3.4.1(D) for Development on a Proposed Second Building Pad in the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section 13.27) VAR No. 26-003 is requested to allow a second building pad, reduced rear yard setback, wall heights, and allowances for impermeable coverage, structure height, and grading outside of the existing building pad on a parcel located in the MCE Overlay.

Regarding the second building pad, the subject parcel is uniquely constrained by two recorded utility easements (one sanitary sewer and one storm drain easement) that run the length of the northernmost portion of the parcel, occupying approximately twenty-five percent of the total lot area, including the upper building pad that contains the existing single-family residence. These unusually significant DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 6 of 20 ends

______________________
easement encumbrances substantially reduce the buildable area in a manner not shared by surrounding parcels. Were it not for these easements, the ADU/Second Unit could likely be sited on the same building pad as the primary residence, thus not requiring utilization of the lower building pad. The property further contains two historically graded building pads, documented in aerial photography dating back to 1980.

Regarding the rear yard setback, strict application of LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(2)(c) “Rear yard setbacks shall be at least 15 feet” would require siting the ADU/Second Unit not on the lower building pad, but up and/or into the slope. This would require non-exempt grading/landform alteration and the extension of the existing building pad, in conflict with LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8)(b). As proposed, no grading or landform alteration is required, and earth movement is limited to exempt removal and recompaction for the foundation, consistent with the requirements of the LCP and the MCE Overlay requirements for no extension of existing pads. Since strict application would require non-exempt grading, the LCP encourages such setback modifications prescribed by the VAR process. The proposed siting for the ADU/Second Unit, within the identified 15 ft. rear yard setback, allows for no new landform alteration consistent with the purpose and goals of the LCP. This would also fulfill the purpose of LIP Chapter

8. 2. The granting of such variance will not be detrimental to the public interest, safety, health or welfare, and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the same vicinity and zone(s) in which the property is located.

The project has been reviewed by multiple City departments, all of which have determined that the proposed development is safe and compliant with applicable health and safety standards. The project has been reviewed and approved by the City Public Works Department for conformance with LIP Chapter 17 water quality requirements, including stormwater management and runoff control measures. The City Biologist has reviewed and approved the project, finding it consistent with the City’s goals and policies for biological resource protection. The proposed development has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical reviewing consultants confirming that the site is geologically suitable for development, meeting the threshold set in LIP Section 9.3. Based on these departmental reviews, the granting of the variance would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, or welfare, nor injurious to nearby properties or improvements.

3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

Second Units are Permitted Uses in the SF Zone per LIP Chapter 3 and Table B. The parcel is subject to unusual physical and legal constraints not shared by surrounding properties, including large utility easements occupying the northern quarter of the lot. A VAR would provide reasonable relief from these unique constraints and does not confer a special privilege not enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under the same zoning classification. The proposed ADU/Second Unit, due to its placement on the existing lower building pad and its low profile, will not obstruct scenic views or visual resources and will remain largely invisible from neighboring properties.

4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 7 of 20 ends

______________________
The proposed development clusters construction on previously disturbed land, avoids slope disturbance, minimizes grading, reduces visual impacts and has no impact to sensitive environmental coastal resources. The project is located away from ESHA, marine resources, and sensitive visual resources. Based upon the foregoing, the proposed siting protects and maintains public access to coastal resources while balancing private property rights, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the LCP with the inclusion of the VAR.

The subject parcel is located inland of Pacific Coast Highway in a fully developed residential neighborhood. No ESHA is located on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. No ESHA standards or buffers are implicated by the proposed development.

6. For variances to stringline standards, the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 12 of the Malibu LIP.

The subject parcel is a non-beachfront lot and is not subject to stringline standards applicable to beachfront parcels under Chapter 12 of the Malibu LIP. The proposed development does not limit or interfere with public access to coastal resources.

The subject parcel is zoned Single-Family Medium residential (SFM). Pursuant to LCP Table B, second units (ADUs) are a permitted accessory use in the SFM zone. The existing single-family residence establishes the primary use and therefore, the ADU/Second Unit may be permitted as an accessory use.

The surrounding neighborhood is developed with single-family residences, and the proposed ADU/Second Unit is consistent with the existing land use pattern and the intent of the SF zone to maintain medium-density residential development that respects surrounding properties and the natural environment.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

The proposed ADU/Second Unit site is located on a flat, historically graded pad at the toe of the slope in the rear portion of the parcel that requires no site grading to establish a new or extended pad. The site has been reviewed and approved by the project geologist and City geotechnical consultant reviewers. The requested VAR results in reduced landform alteration, avoidance of slope disturbance, and minimized environmental impacts.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 8 of 20 ends

______________________

9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.

The proposed ADU/Second Unit complies with the LCP and MMC including provisions related to the required findings for the VAR. Additionally, the proposed ADU meets state ADU law and provides additional housing units in concurrence with the Malibu certified Housing Element.

10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.

The subject parcel is located in a residential cul-de-sac and contains no public parking facilities. No public parking spaces are proposed to be removed or altered by the project. Accordingly, the granting of the VAR would not reduce or eliminate public parking for access to beaches, public trails, or parkland. All necessary parking can be accommodated on the subject parcel.

C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) As described in Finding A.4, the LCP ESHA Overlay Map does not identify any ESHA on or adjacent to the subject parcel. The subject parcel is not in a designated ESHA or ESHA buffer. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 4 are not applicable.

D. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)
There are no native trees on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 5 are not applicable.

E. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those CDP applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. The subject parcel is located inland of PCH and within an existing developed area adjacent to Pepperdine University. The project site is located downslope of an existing residence in the MCE Overlay and near John Tyler Drive, which is not designated as a scenic road in the LCP. No existing or planned trails or recreational areas are on or in vicinity of the project site as shown on the LCP Park Lands Map, such that the proposed ADU/Second Unit would be visible from identified public viewing areas or scenic roads. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 6 are not applicable.

F. Transfer of Development Credit (LIP Chapter 7)
The proposed project does not include a land division or multi-family development. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 7 are not applicable.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 9 of 20 ends

______________________
G. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity or other potential hazards listed in LIP Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site or in an area where it is determined that the proposed project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon site stability or structural integrity.

The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Division, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, WD29, and LACFD. The required findings are made as follows.

1. The project, as proposed will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

The applicant submitted a geologic and geotechnical engineering report prepared on October 12, 2020, by GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. (GSC). This report is on file at City Hall. The report evaluates the geologic and geotechnical engineering conditions on the site and their impact on the proposed development (a new manufactured ADU/Second Unit located at the toe of the slope) and provides recommendations to address any pertinent issues. Potential hazards analyzed include regional and local geologic setting, subsurface conditions, surface water, groundwater, as well as faulting and seismicity (seismic and fault rupture, seiches and tsunamis, liquefaction, landslide). It was determined that the proposed development is feasible from a geologic and geotechnical engineering perspective, provided the recommendations contained in the report are incorporated into the final design and construction phase of the proposed site improvements. The subject parcel, as with all parcels located within the City limits, is located within an extreme fire hazard area. Based on review of the project plans and associated geotechnical reports by the City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and LACFD, these specialists determined that adverse impacts to the project site related to the proposed development are not expected. The proposed project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. In summary, the proposed development is suitable for the intended use provided that the certified engineering geologist and/or geotechnical engineer’s recommendations and governing agency’s building codes are followed.

The project, as conditioned, will incorporate all recommendations contained in the above cited geotechnical report and conditions required by the City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and the LACFD, including foundations, and drainage. As such, the proposed project will not increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.

Fire Hazard
The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), a zone defined by a more destructive behavior of fire and a greater probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. The subject parcel is currently subject to wildfire hazards. The proposed DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 10 of 20 ends

______________________
development is not expected to increase the subject parcel’s susceptibility to wildfire or have an adverse impact on wildfire hazards. The proposed development may actually decrease the project site’s susceptibility to wildfire through compliance with fuel modification requirements and the use of appropriate building materials will be utilized during construction.

The City is served by the LACFD, as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the State so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. Conditions of approval have been included in the resolution to require compliance with all LACFD development standards. As such, the proposed project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.

2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

As stated in Finding G.1, the proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As described in Finding A.1, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. There are no alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on site stability or structural integrity.

The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the City Biologist, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and LACFD. It has been determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. As previously discussed in Findings A.3 and G.3, there are no feasible alternatives to development and due to site constraints, any other project alternative considered would have resulted in more grading, land disturbance, and construction on steep slopes.

5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified Malibu LCP.

As discussed in Findings A.3 and A.4, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 11 of 20 ends

______________________
H. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
The subject parcel is not located on a beach or coastal bluff. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 10 are not applicable.

I. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
In accordance with LIP Section 12.6.B.2, the project is exempt from providing public lateral, vertical, blufftop, trail, or recreational access for the following reasons:

A. Lateral and Vertical Access – The subject parcel is located inland from PCH and is not located on or adjacent to a shoreline.

B. Blufftop Access – The subject parcel is located inland from PCH and is not located on a coastal blufftop nor connected to an existing or planned public blufftop public accessway.

C. Trail Access – No trails are on or adjacent to the subject parcel as indicated on the LCP Park Lands Map. No condition for trail access is warranted.

D. Recreational Access – The subject parcel does not include nor is adjacent to any existing or planned public recreational areas. No condition for recreational access is warranted.

No potential project-related or cumulative impacts on public access and/or recreation are anticipated to result from the proposed project. The proposed project conforms to the public access and recreational policies in Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Therefore, the requirement for public access of LIP Section

12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.

J. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)
This project does not include a land division. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 15 are not applicable.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26-003, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval
Standard Conditions

1. The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this project.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 12 of 20 ends

______________________

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:

Construction
a. Construction of a new 594 sf., 11 ft., 2 in. tall, detached ADU/Second Unit; b. Path of travel from Vantage Point Terrace along 26 ft. sewer and storm drain easement to existing wood steps on the northwest side of the parcel; c. In the area of proposed development, the upper 3 ft. of compacted fill shall be removed and recompacted; and
d. All footing subgrades should consist of compacted fill.

Discretionary Request
a. VAR No. 26-003 to allow a second building pad, reduced rear yard setback of 4 ft. (15 ft. required), wall heights of 11’-2” in setbacks (no walls … in excess of six feet in height shall be allowed within the required rear and side yard setback areas), and allowances for impermeable coverage (only allowed on the existing building pad), structure height (structure height limited to existing structure height), and removal/recompaction grading (for the upper 3 feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the proposed footprint) for foundation outside of the existing building pad on a parcel located in the MCE Overlay.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Division date stamped April 9, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Division prior to issuance of any development permits.

5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Division for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. The CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit, unless a time extension has been granted. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request. In the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the project has not DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 13 of 20 ends

______________________
commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

7. Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Community Development Director upon written request of such interpretation.

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City Community Development Department, City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, WD29, and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

9. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Community Development Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the LCP and MMC. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals have been exhausted.

11. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit.

Cultural Resources

12. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Community Development Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

13. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 14 of 20 ends

______________________
Lighting

14. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60-watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens;
d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

15. Night lighting for sports courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.

16. No permanently installed lighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot-candle.

17. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. High intensity lighting of the shore is prohibited.

18. String lights are allowed in occupied dining and entertainment areas only and must not exceed 3,000 Kelvin.

19. Motion sensor lights shall be programmed to extinguish ten minutes after activation.

20. Three violations of the conditions by the same property owner will result in a requirement to permanently remove the outdoor light fixture(s) from the site.

21. No lighting can exceed 18 feet in height except as required by the California building code.

22. Up-lighting of landscaping is prohibited.

Fencing/Walls/Screening

23. The height of fence and walls shall comply with LIP Section 3.5.3(A). No retaining wall shall exceed six feet in height or 12 feet in height for a combination of two or more walls.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 15 of 20 ends

______________________

24. If applicable, for the portions of front fencing and gates above 42 inches, the members shall be a minimum of six inches apart and no more than one inch in diameter Construction/Framing

25. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall submit a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way.

26. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director prior to plan check submittal.

27. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

28. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

29. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

30. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the highest roof member elevation and lowest finish floor elevation. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Planning Division for review and sign off on framing.

31. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 16 of 20 ends

______________________
Biology/Landscaping

32. No new landscaping is proposed with this project. Therefore, none is approved. Should the applicant intend to plant any new vegetation with a potential to exceed six feet in height, or change 500/2,500 sf. or more (new residence/existing residence) of the existing landscaping area, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any planting.

33. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP policies 3.18 and 3.20, throughout the City of Malibu, development that involves the use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any other similar toxic chemical substances, shall be prohibited in cases where the application of such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife. Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

34. Grading shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 - October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 – March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.

35. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site preparation activities.

Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 ft. (300 ft. for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

36. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited.

37. The use of wood chips and shredded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark, pine needles, and artificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of flammable mulch (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 30 feet from the eave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 17 of 20 ends

______________________
Fire Department/Fuel Modification

38. The project is subject to a Fire Department Plan Review and Developer fee prior to final approval by LACFD.

39. The project shall receive LACFD approval of a Final Fuel Modification Plan prior to the issuance of final building permits.

40. The project is required to have an interior automatic sprinkler system.

Public Works

41. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:

Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls
Silt Fence
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management Water Conservation Practices Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance with the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) BMP Handbook. Designated areas for the storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

42. The developer’s consulting engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of permits.

Geology

43. All recommendations of the consulting certified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer and/or the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be incorporated into all final design and construction including foundations, grading, sewage disposal, and drainage. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers prior to the issuance of a grading permit.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 18 of 20 ends

______________________

44. Final plans approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading, sewage disposal and drainage. Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP.

Water Service

45. 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.

Prior to Occupancy

46. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Community Development 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.

47. The applicant shall request a final Planning Division inspection prior to final inspection by the Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Division has determined that the project complies with this CDP. 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.

48. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Chapter

17.53). The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 17.53.

49. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all Planning Division conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

50. 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.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 19 of 20 ends

______________________
Site-Specific Conditions

51. The project shall incorporate colors and exterior materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape.
a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no white or light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and clearly indicated on the building plans. b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.

Deed Restrictions

52. 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 of the 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 Division staff prior to final Planning Division approval.

Fixed Conditions

53. This CDP shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.

54. 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.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of June 2026. ____________________________________________
SKYLAR PEAK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 20 of 20 ends

______________________
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT

Page 1 of 16 ends

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Riddick and Members of the Planning Commission Prepared by: Magda Gonzalez, Contract Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Joseph Smith, AICP, Contract Principal Planner Approved by: Yolanda Bundy, MS, PE, CBO, CFCO, Community Development Director and Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director Date prepared: April 9, 2026 Meeting date: April 20, 2026 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045 and Variance 26-003 – An application to grade and construct a new 594 square-foot, approximately 11 foot 2-inch tall, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit/Second Unit, including a variance for relief from Malibu Country Estates Overlay District standards associated with a proposed second building pad, reduced rear yard setback, wall heights, and allowances for impermeable coverage, structure height, and grading outside the existing building pad
Location: 24507 Vantage Point Terrace, partially within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4458-033-006
Owner: Meissner Family Trust
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Attachment 1) determining that the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves, and denying Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 21-045 and Variance (VAR) No. 26-003 to grade and construct a new 594 square-foot, approximately 11 foot 2-inch tall, detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)/Second Unit; including a variance for relief from Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Overlay District standards associated with a proposed second building pad, reduced rear yard setback, wall heights, and allowances for impermeable coverage, structure height, and grading outside the existing building pad on a parcel located in the Malibu Country Estates Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) zoning district at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust).

Planning Commission
Meeting
04-20-26
Item

5.C.

EXHIBIT C

Page 2 of 16 ends

DISCUSSION: This agenda report provides a background and project overview, project setting and surrounding land uses, description of the proposed project, and an analysis of the project’s inconsistency with applicable provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP). The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the project is not consistent with the LCP.

Background and Project Overview
As shown in Figure 1, the subject parcel is a developed, rectangular-shaped lot located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) adjacent to John Tyler Drive. The parcel is situated within the MCE Overlay which includes specific development standards in LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 3.4.1(D). The parcel is currently developed with a 3,572 square-foot single-family residence that was constructed in 1988 on one building pad located on the flatter portion of the parcel accessible from Vantage Point Terrace. The existing building pad is also occupied by a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck located immediately to the rear of the existing residence. Similar to adjacent parcels in the MCE Overlay, the rest of the subject parcel slopes downward to John Tyler Drive. The parcel is served by a centralized wastewater treatment system, which serves the entire MCE. With exception to a vacant parcel immediately north, the subject parcel is in a neighborhood that is similarly developed with each parcel having one building pad developed in compliance with the MCE Overlay standards.

Figure 1 – Project Site
Source: Google Earth

Page 3 of 16 ends

The original application proposed a 623 square-foot, prefabricated ADU/Second Unit with height of 11 feet, 8 inches on a proposed second building pad located downhill of the existing residence near John Tyler Drive. On April 9, 2024, the applicant provided updated plans with a reduced size of 594 square feet and a height of 11 feet, 2 inches (Attachment 2). In both versions, the applicant has sited the prefabricated ADU/Second Unit on a proposed second building pad. Remedial and re-compaction grading is proposed for the upper 3 feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the proposed footprint. Despite having been informed by the Planning Division that the MCE Overlay standards limit all development to one building pad per parcel, the applicant had requested the Planning Division continue to process the project.

The Planning Division had explained to the applicant that the proposed second building pad does not meet various MCE Overlay standards and requested additional details on the proposed structure which have not been provided. The applicant is seeking relief from the MCE Overlay standards and was told by staff that they would need to provide written findings justifying the request for consideration by the Planning Commission. This would be more commonly done under a variance request pursuant to LIP Section 13.26. On August 26, 2024, the applicant notified the Planning Division that relief through a variance would not be requested and that the City should continue to process the application as revised on April 9, 2024.

Among the items addressed in the rebuttal package were roofing materials, which have been updated from architectural shingles to Mediterranean Brava tile for consistency with the MCE Overlay standards. Additionally, the rebuttal package clarified that four trees in the proposed development area, previously unidentified, are comprised of three cedar trees and one orange tree, all of which are non-native trees not subject to the LCP’s Native Tree protection policies.

The rebuttal package included a historic aerial image from 1980 shown in Figure 2. The applicant representative asserted that the 1980 image proves there are two building pads on the subject parcel – one near Vantage Point Terrace and a second downslope near John Tyler Drive. Based on the Planning Division’s review, the purported second building pad referenced on the 1980 image is not typical of graded building pads within the MCE Overlay and appeared to be typical vegetation clearing along a roadway and/or vehicle shoulder/turnout along the west side of John Tyler Drive. The same type of cleared area extends onto other MCE Overlay parcels along John Tyler Drive. Additional research

Page 4 of 16 ends

conducted by the Planning Division demonstrated that there is no evidence of a second building pad having been graded as part of the MCE Overlay development. This was confirmed in an aerial image obtained by the Planning Division dated 1976, as shown in Figure 3, dated four years prior to the 1980 image. The 1976 image more clearly depicts one building pad for the subject parcel adjacent to Vantage Point Terrance, similar to other parcels in the MCE Overlay. Even if there was a legally authorized second building pad, which the evidence does not suggest there is, the MCE Overlay district requires that development be limited to one building pad. This requirement is codified in both the LCP and MMC.

The applicant states that location is not feasible because it does not accommodate a modular building. A modular building would be difficult to place in that location but a different type of ADU can be constructed in these alternate areas. Other alternatives not considered by the applicant, but appear feasible, include converting part of the existing structure and/or adding square footage to the residence within other available areas on the existing building pad. The Planning Division encouraged the applicant to select one of these alternatives so that the proposed ADU met all of the LCP required development standards, but that was declined by the applicant. An ADU is feasible on this subject site, and the staff is in support of a compliant ADU location, but the applicant wants to place the ADU in an area prohibited by the LCP and MMC.

On February 2, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item at the applicant’s request. On February 5, 2026, the applicant representative submitted a variance request and confirmed that the January 19, 2026 rebuttal package sufficed for justification of the variance. However, on February 6, 2026 the applicant representative submitted an amended variance request which included two options for locating the ADU/Second Unit on the proposed second building pad (Attachment 4). One option included a 4-foot rear yard setback consistent with the proposed design, while the other option proposed a 15- foot rear yard setback, consistent with the MCE Overlay, but required the structure to be located higher on the slope.

As proposed, the ADU/Second Unit does not comply with the following LIP sections:

1. One building pad allowed (LIP 3.4.1(D)(6)(a)&(b));

2. No structures allowed downslope of existing pad (LIP 3.4.1(D)(6)(c));

3. Rear yard setbacks shall be 15 feet (LIP §3.4.1(D)(2)(c));

Page 5 of 16 ends

4. All impermeable coverage surfaces shall be on the existing building pad (LIP §3.4.1(D)(7));

5. Structure height is limited to additions/remodels of existing structure (LIP §3.4.1(D)(5)(d)(i-ii));

6. No grading for purposes of extending the existing building pad (LIP §3.4.1(D)(8));

7. No walls exceeding 6 ft in height within required rear yard (LIP 3.4.1(D)(4)(a));

9. LIP Chapter 11 Archaeological/Cultural Resources: It is not clear if the proposed second building pad would have potential impacts given that it is proposed downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area and has not been evaluated for potential impacts during construction.

Figure 2 – Applicant 1980 Aerial Image
Source: Provided by Applicant Representative (UCSB Historical Aerials)

Page 6 of 16 ends

Figure 3 – Planning Division 1976 Aerial Image
Source: Obtained by the Planning Division (UCSB Historical Aerials) As described in Table 3, the proposed project is inconsistent with several objective development standards in the MCE Overlay including the location of new structures, impermeable coverage, structure height, setback wall heights, grading, and an approximate 73% reduction in the required rear yard setback (from 15 feet to 4 feet). The proposed second building pad is also inconsistent with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading as otherwise limited pursuant to LIP Section 8.2) and LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological Resources).

As previously mentioned, the parcel is located within the MCE Overlay which restricts development for all properties to one building pad per parcel and prohibits the creation of a secondary building pad pursuant to LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(a), (b), and (c):
a. All development, excluding walls and fences, shall be limited to the existing building pad.
b. There shall be no more than one building pad per lot. c. No structure, excluding walls and fences, shall extend beyond, or be cantilevered over, any downhill slope extending from the existing building pad.

LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(d) provides the following definition of a building pad in the MCE Overlay District:

Page 7 of 16 ends

d. For the purposes of this Overlay District, a building pad shall be defined as a single, continuous, graded area, not exceeding 3 percent in slope, designed to accommodate development.

As currently designed, the Planning Division is unable to recommend that the required findings per LIP 13.9 can be made in support of the requested CDP, including CDP Finding 1 that the project as described in the application and accompanying materials conforms with the certified LCP, and CDP Finding 3 that the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. Additionally, the Planning Division is unable to recommend that the required variance findings in LIP 13.36 can be made as the applicant has not demonstrated that extraordinary circumstances exist. As mentioned, an alternative location on this site can support an ADU, which the Planning Division could support; however, the applicant has refused to select an alternate location compliant with the LCP and MMC.

Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
Table 1 provides a summary of the dimensions and area of the subject parcel.

Table 1 – Property Data
Lot Depth 160 feet
Lot Width 95 feet
Gross Lot Area 16,862 square feet (0.38 acres)
Area of Public Street Easements 1,600 square feet
Area of 1:1 Slopes 628 square feet
Net Lot Area * 14,634 square feet (0.33 acres)
*Net Lot Area = Gross Lot Area minus the area of 1 to 1 slopes and public street easements.

Pursuant to the City’s Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map, a downhill portion of the subject property is located within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC). However, pursuant to LIP 2.1 General Definitions for Appealable Coastal Development Permit, the proposed development is not located in an area appealable to the CCC.

The subject parcel is zoned SFM and within the MCE Overlay as are the surrounding parcels to the north, south, and west of the subject parcel. John Tyler Drive and Pepperdine University are located east of the subject parcel.

Page 8 of 16 ends

Table 2 provides a summary of the surrounding land uses:

Table 2 – Surrounding Land Uses
Direction APN Lot Size Zoning Land Use
North 4458-033-005 16,849 SF SFM/
MCE Vacant
East 4458-030-042 1,234,912 SF No Zone John Tyler Drive / Pepperdine University
South 4458-033-031 42,495 SF SFM/
MCE Single-Family Residential
West 4458-033-010
13,416 SF SFM/ MCE Single-Family Residential
Source: Malibu CityGIS and LA County Tax Assessor
In Figure 4, the existing building pad is located at the top of the slope accessed from Vantage Point Terrace. The existing building pad includes a residence, garage, driveway, front and side yards, walkways, swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck. The proposed

14.83-foot by 40-foot prefabricated ADU/Second Unit is shown on the rear portion of the parcel downhill from the existing building pad. The ADU/Second Unit is proposed with a 4-foot rear yard setback and a 6-foot 7-inch interior yard setback.

Figure 4 – Site Plan
Source: Project Plans (Attachment 2)

Page 9 of 16 ends

Figure 5 – Illustrative & Project Elevations

Page 10 of 16 ends

Source: Project Plans (2024)
Alternative Locations for the ADU
Feasible alternatives for relocation are evident on the existing building pad, including an ADU/Second Unit attached to and/or integrated into the existing residence. The applicant stated that the proposed second building pad location is the only suitable location on the parcel due to sewer and water line easements north of the residence and steep slopes east of the residence; however, the applicant had not sufficiently provided an alternate design depicting infeasibility of all potential locations on the existing building pad.

Based on the Planning Division’s review of the parcel, existing development, and thorough analysis of the variance justifications provided, it appears the applicant has design options adjacent to the existing residence on the side and/or front yards that could accommodate some form of an ADU/Second Unit and/or Junior ADU (JADU). As shown in Figure 6, potential locations are in the form of an attached structure to the residence and/or converted space associated with the residence or portion of the garage. An alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other accessory uses including a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck.

Page 11 of 16 ends

Figure 6 – Potential Alternate Locations for an ADU/Second Unit

Page 12 of 16 ends

LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the LIP. The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP contains specific policies and regulations to which every project requiring a CDP must adhere. There are 14 LIP chapters that potentially apply depending on the nature and location of the proposed project. Of these, five are for conformance review only and contain no findings: 1) Zoning, 2) Grading, 3) Archaeological/Cultural Resources, 4) Water Quality, and 5) Onsite Wastewater Treatment Systems. These chapters are discussed under the LIP Conformance Analysis section.

The nine remaining LIP chapters contain required findings: 1) CDP; 2) Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area; 3) Native Tree Protection; 4) Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection; 5) Transfer of Development Credits; 6) Hazards; 7) Shoreline and Bluff Development; 8) Public Access; and 9) Land Division. For the reasons described in this report, including the project site, the scope of work and substantial evidence in the record, only the following chapters and associated findings are applicable to the project: CDP including findings for the VAR. These chapters are discussed in the LIP Findings section of this report.

LIP Conformance Analysis
The project has been reviewed by the Planning Division, City Biologist, City Public Works Division, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (Attachment 5 – Department Review Sheets).

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The proposed project is subject to non-beachfront residential development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.4.1(D) (MCE Overlay District). Table 3 provides a project conformance summary with the relevant standards of the LIP. As summarized below, the proposed project does not comply with LIP Chapter 3.

Table 3 – LCP Zoning Conformance
Development
Requirement
Allowed/
Required
Proposed Comments
SITE OF CONSTRUCTION All development
limited to existing
building pad; one
building pad per
lot; no structures
downhill from
Proposed
development
extended to
proposed
second building
pad; proposed
second building
Does not comply
with the LIP
§3.4.1(D)(6)

Page 13 of 16 ends

Table 3 – LCP Zoning Conformance
Development
Requirement
Allowed/
Required
Proposed Comments
existing building
pad
pad on lot;
proposed
structure located
downhill from
existing building
pad
REAR YARD SETBACK 15 ft. 4 ft. Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(2)(c)

IMPERMEABLE

COVERAGE
No maximum; all
impermeable
surfaces shall be
on the existing
building pad
Proposed
structure on
proposed
second building
pad
Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(7)
STRUCTURE HEIGHT Limits structure
height to
additions/remodels
of existing
structure, vacant
parcels or where
an existing
structure is
replaced
No modifications
to existing
structure;
proposed
second structure
not associated
with existing
structure
Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(5)(d)(iii)
GRADING Grading for
swimming pools
and spas; no
grading for
purposes of
extending the
existing building
pad
Proposed
grading
associated for
use other than
swimming pool
or spa; proposed
grading for
second building
pad
Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(8)

WALL HEIGHT WITHIN

SETBACK
No walls
exceeding 6 ft in
height within
required rear yard
setback
Proposed walls
associated with
the structure
extend above 6
ft within required
rear yard
setback
Does not comply
with LIP
§3.4.1(D)(4)(a)

Page 14 of 16 ends

Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
Unless otherwise limited in the LIP pursuant to LIP Section 8.2, LIP Section 8.3 ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading to a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards per lot of single-family development. The MCE Overlay standards provide more strict regulations for grading of property within the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(8)) by prohibiting grading on existing building pads except for export of 500 cubic yards associated with the construction of a swimming pool and spa, with additional provisions for cut and fill grading and remedial grading subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review. Based on the applicant’s submitted materials, the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and re-compaction grading for the upper 3 feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the proposed footprint. As noted in Table 3, the proposed grading is for a use other than a swimming pool or spa. The proposed project does not comply with LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) and, therefore, does not comply with LIP Chapter 8 pursuant to the provision in LIP Section

8.2. Additionally, the LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures to be followed to determine potential impacts on archeological resources. Generally, the subject parcel has been evaluated for potential impacts to archeological resources per the adopted City of Malibu Cultural Resources Map and it has been determined that due to the previous grading activities to create the existing building pad and MCE community, the project has very low probability of disturbing archaeological resources for construction proposed on the existing building pad. However, given that the location of the proposed second building pad is downhill from the existing building pad, the proposed project location has not been evaluated for potential impacts to important cultural resources that may be found in the course of construction. The applicant has not provided information that demonstrates the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological resources. The Planning Division is unable to determine if the proposed project complies with LIP Chapter 11.

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection. In the event the project was to comply with the relevant standards of the LCP for issuing CDPs, standard conditions of

Page 15 of 16 ends

approval were provided to the Planning Division. These include the implementation of storm water management plans during construction activities and management of runoff from the proposed development.

LIP Findings
Several LIP findings cannot be made including, but not limited to, the general CDP findings listed in LIP Section 13.9 and variance findings in LIP Section 13.26.5 and MMC Section

17.72.060. As stated above, the project proposed is not consistent with the LCP or MMC.

The draft resolution for denial of this application includes findings for why the permit can be denied. The draft resolution is attached for the Commission’s consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Community Development Director has analyzed the proposed project and finds that, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves.

CORRESPONDENCE: After the December 1, 2025 and the February 2, 2026 agendas were published, all correspondence received to-date, including correspondence submitted after the December 1, 2025 and February 2, 2026 Planning Commission agendas, is included at Attachment 6. No additional correspondence was received.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On March 18, 2026 staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Attachment 7).

SUMMARY: The required findings cannot be made that the project complies with the LCP and MMC. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, the Planning Division recommends denial of this project by the adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02.

Should the Planning Commission determine that the findings can be made in support of the application, the Planning Commission will need to make findings for the following: 1) that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA; 2) that the CDP findings in LIP Sections 13.9(A through D) can be made; and 3) that the variance findings in LIP Section

13.26.5 can be made. The Planning Commission would need to direct the Planning Division to return with an approval resolution at a future public hearing.

Page 16 of 16 ends

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02

2. Project Plans

3. Applicant Rebuttal Package

4. Applicant Variance Request

5. Department Review Sheets

6. Correspondence

7. Public Hearing Notice
ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 26-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU DETERMINING THAT THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO PROJECTS THAT A PUBLIC

AGENCY REJECTS OR DISAPPROVES, AND DENYING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21-045 AND VARIANCE NO. 26-003 TO GRADE AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 594 SQUARE-FOOT,
APPROXIMATELY 11 FOOT 2-INCH TALL, DETACHED ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNIT/SECOND UNIT; INCLUDING A VARIANCE FOR

RELIEF FROM MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY DISTRICT

STANDARDS ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED SECOND BUILDING

PAD, REDUCED REAR YARD SETBACK, WALL HEIGHTS, AND

ALLOWANCES FOR IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE, STRUCTURE

HEIGHT, AND GRADING OUTSIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING PAD ON

A PARCEL LOCATED IN THE MALIBU COUNTRY ESTATES OVERLAY
AND SINGLE FAMILY MEDIUM ZONING DISTRICT AT 24507 VANTAGE

POINT TERRACE (MEISSNER FAMILY TRUST)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

B. On October 9, 2025, the applicant requested the subject application be agendized for the Planning Commission. The applicant was informed that the application was not deemed incomplete.

C. On October 30, 2025, the applicant posted a Notice of CDP Application sign at the subject property.

D. On November 20, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

E. On December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the February 2, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

F. On February 2, 2026, the Planning Commission continued the item date uncertain at the applicant’s request.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 2 of 8 ends

______________________
G. On February 5, 2026, the applicant submitted a request for Variance (VAR) No. 26-003. MM No. 21-028 was no longer considered applicable to the project as the requested rear yard setback exceeded the allowance under a MM.

H. On March 5, 2026, the applicant requested the Planning Commission hearing be continued to a date certain of April 20, 2026.

I. On March 26, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and on March 27, 2026 was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the project site and to all interested parties.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

SECTION 3. Findings for Denial.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on April 20, 2026, and pursuant to LIP Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and denies CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26-003 to construct a 594 square-foot Accessory Dwelling Unit/Second Unit (ADU/Second Unit) on a proposed second building pad on a parcel in the MCE Overlay and Single Family Medium (SFM) Zoning District located at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace (Meissner Family Trust).

The required findings of LIP Chapter 13 cannot be made by the City as enumerated below, and therefore the project does not comply with the California Coastal Act by extension of the City's LCP.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

The proposed project fails to meet various requirements outlined in LIP Chapter 3 including:

LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(2)(c) which requires rear yard setback to be at least 15 feet (4 feet proposed); LIP DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 3 of 8 ends

______________________
Section 3.4.1(D)(4)(a) which stipulates that “no walls…in excess of 6 feet shall be allowed within the required rear…yard setback areas” (wall heights associated with the proposed structure extend above 6 feet in the rear yard setback); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(5) which limits structure height to additions/remodels of an existing structure, a new structure on a vacant parcel, or where an existing structure is replaced (no modifications to the existing structure are proposed, the site is not vacant, and the proposed structure is not associated with the replacement of the existing residence); LIP Section

3.4.1(D)(6), which stipulates that the site of construction for all development is limited to one single building pad and that no structures shall be sited downhill from the existing building pad (the project proposes a second building pad and has located the proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(7) which strictly limits impermeable surfaces on the existing building pad (the proposed structure is located on a proposed second building pad); LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) which states grading shall only be permitted for the construction of swimming pools and spas and that no grading occur for purposes of extending the existing building pad (proposed grading associated for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and proposed for an additional building pad); and LIP Section 3.6(N)(c)(i) that requires a second residential unit be located within the required development area for the project site and clustered with the primary dwelling unit (the proposed second unit is located downhill from the existing residence, is not within the required development area as stipulated in the MCE Overlay standards, and is not clustered with the existing residence).

The proposed development is inconsistent with LIP Chapter 8 (Grading). The MCE Overlay standards provide more strict regulations for grading of property within the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8)) by prohibiting grading on existing building pads except for export of 500 cubic yards associated with the construction of a swimming pool and spa, with additional provisions for cut and fill grading and remedial grading subject to the approval of a Site Plan Review. Based on the applicant’s submitted materials, the proposed second building pad proposes remedial and recompaction grading for the upper 3 feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of a 3 feet beyond the proposed footprint. The proposed grading is for a use other than a swimming pool or spa and, therefore, does not comply with LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(8) or LIP Chapter 8 pursuant to the provision in LIP Section 8.2. Additionally, LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

Based on the information submitted by the applicant, the Planning Commission is unable to determine if the proposed project complies with LIP Chapter 11 (Archaeological/Cultural Resources).

Although the project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archeological resources and it has been determined that due to the previous grading activities to create the existing building pad and MCE community, the project has very low probability of disturbing archaeological resources for construction proposed on the existing building pad. It is not clear if the location of the proposed second building pad would have potential impacts given that it is proposed downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area and has not been evaluated for potential impacts during construction. The applicant has not provided information demonstrating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for impacts to archeological resources.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 4 of 8 ends

______________________
In the event there is a conflict between a provision of the LCP and a provision of the General Plan or of any other City-adopted plan, resolution, or ordinance not included in the LCP, and it is not possible for the development to comply with both the LCP and the other provision, pursuant to LIP Section 1.3.1, the LCP governs. Consequently, the development may not be approved unless it complies with the LCP provision.

The subject parcel is not located between the first public road and the sea. The project site is located inland and not located along the shoreline. Therefore, this finding does not apply.

3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As discussed in Finding 1, the applicant represented that the proposed location on a proposed second building pad downhill of the existing building pad is the only suitable location due to the site’s sewer and water line easements and steep slopes. However, the applicant did not adequately justify why the ADU/Second Unit could not be developed within the existing building pad in compliance with the MCE Overlay standards. Furthermore, the applicant did not demonstrate that an alternate location within the residence as part of a conversion or adjacent to the residence on a flat portion of the existing building pad was infeasible. Additionally, the applicant did not provide information indicating that the proposed second building pad has been evaluated for potential impacts to archaeological/cultural resources.

DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 5 of 8 ends

______________________
B. Variance No. 26-003 from LIP Section 3.4.1(D) for Development on a Proposed Second Building Pad in the MCE Overlay District (LIP Section 13.27)

There are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances/characteristics that require the proposed structure be located on a secondary building pad in the MCE Overlay District. The proposed second building pad is situated approximately 25 feet downhill from the existing building pad in an undeveloped area. There are alternatives that grant the property owner the opportunity for an ADU/Second Unit within the existing building pad in compliance with MCE Overlay standards. The applicant represented that the proposed location is the only suitable location on the parcel due to sewer and storm drain easement and steep slopes; however, the alternative locations deemed unfeasible by the applicant are not the only locations available, there are other locations within the existing building pad that may accommodate an ADU/Second Unit. Based on the Planning Commission’s review of the parcel, existing development, and thorough analysis of the variance justifications provided it appears the applicant has design options adjacent to the existing residence on the side and/or front yards that could accommodate an ADU/Second Unit and/or Junior ADU (JADU). These could be in the form of an attached structure to the residence and/or converted space associated with the residence or a portion of the garage. An alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other accessory uses including a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck. All feasible options described would not require special consideration and would fall within the allowable uses of the MCE Overlay, particularly development within the existing building pad.

3. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.

Granting the variance would constitute a special privilege to the property owner because no special circumstances or exceptional characteristics exist on the subject parcel, different from other parcels in the MCE Overlay, that would require the proposed structure to be located on a second building pad downslope of the existing building pad and in conflict with objective standards in the MCE Overlay. While a 26-foot wide sewer and storm drain easement extends across the northwest side yard, alternate locations for development of some form of an ADU/Second Unit appear feasible and would maintain consistency with the MCE Overlay standards, as well as consistency with LIP Chapters 3, 8 and 11. The alternate locations are outside of the 26-foot wide easement area and do not appear to necessitate the extent of proposed grading to accommodate the second building pad or result in the DRAFT
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 6 of 8 ends

______________________
need for relief from the MCE Overlay standards. As described in Finding A.3, the applicant did not justify the need for a second building pad and did not explore feasible alternatives within the existing building pad.

4. The granting of such variance will not be contrary to or in conflict with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter, nor to the goals, objectives and policies of the LCP.

The granting of the variance request would not meet the general purpose and intent because alternate locations appear feasible within the existing building pad that would allow for an ADU/Second to be developed on the subject parcel consistent with the objective standards of the MCE Overlay.

The variance request is not for an ESHA buffer nor is the project located within an ESHA.

Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

6. For variances to stringline standards, the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 12 of the Malibu LIP.

Stringline standards are not part of the variance request, and the subject parcel is not beachfront.

Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

8. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance.

Page 7 of 8 ends

______________________
to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the proposed footprint. LIP Section 8.3(G) defines remedial grading as “grading necessary to mitigate an environmental hazard as recommended by a geotechnical report approved by the City Geotechnical staff. No such remedial grading will be allowed when it could be avoided by changing the position or location of the proposed development.” Remedial grading appears to be avoidable by changing the location of the proposed development to an area within the existing building pad.

9. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law.

The City is entirely within the coastal zone and has a certified LCP that governs new development, including ADUs, JADUs, and Second Units. ADUs in the City must comply with state law and the LCP, as applied to implement the Coastal Act in the City. As proposed, the project does not represent the least environmentally damaging alternative as required by CDP Finding 1 or comply with objective standards in the MCE Overlay (LIP Section 3.4.1(D)).

10. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby denies CDP No. 21-045 and VAR No. 26-003.

SECTION 5. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, DENIED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of April 2026. ____________________________________________
ELIZABETH RIDDICK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
______________________________________________

REBECCA EVANS
DRAFT
, Recording Secretary
Resolution No. 26-02

Page 8 of 8 ends

______________________
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 26-02 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of April 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
_______________________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 2
Helmut Meissner April 9, 2024
24507 Vantage Point Ter
Malibu, CA 90265
By email to [email protected]
City of Malibu – Planning Department
AIn: K aneca Pompey
Re: ACDP 21-045 for proposed ADU at 24507 Vantage Point Ter Kaneca,
I request that the ADU we seek to build be placed on the Planning Commission hearing calendar as soon as possible.

We refer to your last message dated 2/16/24, with which you sent us the following list Tyler had emailed to Erik Yesayan (Keystone Strategic Planning, in the following “KSP”) back in July 2022.

The answers to each of the issues raised are set forth below, along with your ques]ons:

Plans Revisions

1. You will have to move the ADU to the building pad, where the exis>ng single-family residence is located. If moved, please demonstrate that the site will allow for two unenclosed and three enclosed parking spaces.

2. Show the proposed setbacks on the site plan.

3. Clearly show on the site plan, which parts of the ADU will be enclosed and which parts will be deck.

4. Provide the type of material used on the exterior of the ADU.

5. Provide a roof plan indica>ng the slope of the ADU’s roof.

6. Provide addi>onal informa>on on the cover sheet:
a. Gross and Net lot area (see separate handout for descrip>on); b. Required and proposed setbacks (LIP Sec>on 3.4(D)(2)); c. Proposed and exis>ng Total Development Square Footage (TDSF); d. Proposed and exis>ng unenclosed covered areas (e.g., terraces, balconies and loggias that project more than 6 feet from the building face);
e. List of discre>onary requests.

Here are the responses to the above items:

1. The ADU cannot be moved to the exis]ng building pad because the en]r e northwest side of the property is subject to various easements and the southeast side is too small for an (aI ached) 600 sq. a. ADU.

The flat area at the boI om of the slope proposed in our ini]al applic a]on is the only area suitable for an ADU. Please see below for a more detailed discussion of the Overlay District (“OD”) rules prohibi]ng a sec ond building pad. The discussion of the other revisions requested above (#2-6) is based on the ADU being built on the area as applied for (in the following “original ADU loca]on”). Please not e the ADU will be a pre-fabricated unit that comes with all necessary permits.

2. The setback issues for the original ADU loca]on have been resolved in the discussions between Tyler and KSP.

3. The site plan for the original ADU loca]on has been submiIed by KSP . There will be no deck. Hence, the en]re area will be enclosed. The dimensions are actually smaller than the original 15’x42’. The width is 14’10” and the length is only 40’.

4. The exterior walls are WUI compliant cement hardie board. The roof will be Class “A” fire-rated architectural shingles.

5. According to the supplier, the roof line is a 4 to 12 slope. Please see the aIached package of drawings and renderings.

6. Reference is made to the informa]on supplied by KSP and their discussions with T aylor.

Single Building Pad Requirement (“SBPR”)
In the absence of a City ADU ordinance approved by the relevant authori]es, the State ADU laws apply. The SBPR is invalid for mul]p le reasons:

The SBPR is part of the Malibu Country Estates (“MCE”) OD rules and not used in any area within the jurisdic]on of the City of Malibu other than in said MCE OD .

In its leI er of 9/10/93, the City informed the MCE HOA that they can apply to the City Council for considera]on of cus tom development criteria which would allow for development in the MCE neighborhood to be consistent with exis]ng CC&Rs in-lieu of the City’s Interim Zoning Ordinance.

Subsequently, the then Board of the MCE HOA filed such applica]on. This means tha t whatever ul]ma tely became the MCE OD rules which, in turn, ended up in the LCP, was solely based on input from the MCE HOA.

Sec. 4751 of the Civil Code deals with governing documents of HOAs and says that any HOA provision … that … effec]v ely prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construc]on … of an ADU on a single-family residen]al lot, is void and unenforceable – as long as the requirements of the state ADU law are met. Which means the SBPR is not enforceable under State ADU law.

In addi]on t o that, the SBPR is actually not part and has never been part of the CC&Rs since they were declared by the developer Century Malibu, Inc. on 8/17/72. All other provisions of the MCE OD are taken from the CC&Rs, except for the SBPR. The CC&Rs always required a unanimous consent of all members for any amendment, including the introduc]on of r estric]ons lik e the SBPR. While the 71 members who approved the pe]]on t o the City might have been sufficient for the City to accept the HOA’s OD request, it s]ll r enders to OD restric]on v oid for the members of the HOA. While it never was the City’s responsibility to verify the HOA’s representa- ]ons, this does not change the fact that the SBPR has never been a valid neighborhood standard – regardless of its ul]ma te inclusion in the City’s LCP.

The City’s a, orneys, ci2ng Government Code Sec. 65852.2(l), keep claiming that the State ADU law is not applicable to provisions included in the LCP because the LCP is shielded by the Coastal Act. However, they ignore that this law is meant to protect, first and foremost, coastal resources, not the City’s desire to prevent ADUs from being built. The proposed ADU has no impact at all on coastal resources because it is located on the land side of PCH, just 100 R. from a Pepperdine parking lot.

The focus on coastal resources is clearly expressed in the Coastal Commission’s memorandum of 1/21/22 when it states that “provisions on coastal resource protec2on must be incorporated into the planning and development process, and into updated LCP J/ADU requirements, when considering J/ADUs in the coastal zone.” The Coastal Commission explicitly encourages “coastal jurisdic2ons … to update their LCPs to comply with the State’s new laws”.

The SBPR has absolutely nothing to do with the protec2on of coastal resources, except for poten2al ocean view obstruc2on. However, the subject ADU is proposed to be built at the flat bottom of a slope lying 20 feet under the exis2ng building pad. With an overall height of 11’2”, the highest point of the roof will s2ll be about 9 R. under the exis2ng building pad and cannot possibly obstruct anybody’s view. The ADU will be barely visible due to exis2ng landscaping, even from the immediate neighbors’ perspec2ve. They don’t object to the ADU. Instead, they support it.

The only poten2al valid concern about allowing ADUs in the MCE outside the exis2ng building pad is if and when the proposed separate building pad poses a risk to the stability of a slope.

This was the subject of the engineer Joseph Reichenberger’s tes2mony in front of the Planning Commission and City Council 1995/96 when the OD was discussed. He stated:
“Enlargement of homes will also bring about a tempta5on to ‘expand the pad’. There will be a tendency to add a small, sliver fill over an exis5ng fill slope. Placement of these thin fill slopes is very difficult to control and cannot be adequately keyed or anchored into exis5ng slopes and cannot be effec5vely compacted. These fills are subject to seHlement, movement and ul5mate failure.”
However, this risk is fully mi2gated by
(a) The MCE OD rule that “No structure, excluding walls and fences, shall extend beyond, or be can2levered over, any downhill slope extending from the exis2ng building pad.” (MMC 17.42.020(D)(6)(c));
(b) The Tract Map’s designa2on of certain areas close to slopes as “Restricted Use Area”; and
(c) The City’s geologist. During the 2/20/96 hearing, Planning Director Parker-Bozylinksi assured the HOA that the City geologist would apply stricter rules than those noted in the Tract Map.

The proposed ADU is not sited in a loca2on designated as Restricted Use Area and has passed the scru2ny of the geologists in charge.

Sincerely,
Helmut Meissner
The Home Gallery
The Home Gallery
The Home Gallery
The Home Gallery
The Home Gallery
The Home Gallery
From: Andrew Tuck [email protected]
Subject: Rebuttal to Staff Report - 24507 Vantage Point Terrace - Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045 Date: January 19, 2026 at 8:28PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Cc: Matt Jewett [email protected], Whitney Wetherill [email protected] Dear Malibu Planning Staff,
Our office was retained by the applicant of the above-referenced application to assist with addressing various questions and concerns raised leading up to the upcoming hearing. Please see attached an analysis of the questions/concerns raised in the Staff Report for Coastal Development Permit No. 21-045.

Also attached are the accompanying alternatives analysis and two updated exhibits: an updated Floor Plan and Elevations plan that reflect the use of updated roofing materials, from shingles to tiles, and a site plan identifying four previously unidentified trees. These materials are provided to ensure the record accurately reflects the project’s constraints, the applicable standards, feasible options available, and responses to outstanding questions/concerns that the Staff Report indicates may not have been sufficiently addressed previously.

Thank you for your time and attention to these items, and if you need any additional information or would like clarification on any portion of the submittal, we would be happy to assist and/or discuss further at your convenience.

Sincerely,
Andrew Tuck
Keystone Strategic Planning
4859 West Slauson Avenue #753 Los Angeles, CA 90056
C: 310.912.2758 O: 310.361.9033 [email protected] www.keystonestrategicplanning.com Vantage Point Rebuttal with
Bookmarks_Final.pdf

20.8 MB
\
I
\
\
\
\
GRATE
CURB
INLET
T.H. EL=
340.15'
T.H. EL=
341.37'
T.H. EL=
341.42'
24507 VANTAGE POINT TERRACE

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
ROOF PEAK EL. = 357.38'
LEGEND:

PROPERTY LINE

WOOD FENCE

CHAINLINK FENCE

MAJOR CONTOUR

BUILDING
WALL
_: _____ ] CONCRETE
' ' ' L
I '
I
I _J '
I
- __J
l -1-,~ ·'b

PAVEMENT
BRICK

SLATE/ STONE
GRASS

SPOT ELEVATION

TREE TRUNK, APPROXIMATE
/-'~DIAMETER IN INCHES
\__,, .___TREE DRJPLINE
N
\
\
I
3 •. r:f.J
I
I
I
I
I
CURB
INLET
3 z.ZZ
GRATE
I
I
O A3 3 •
--
--- ____ -322.00- _,,,
::,
"' ::,
<(
"' Iz
0 a.
w
'-' < Iz
< >
I'- ... 0 ... ... ,t)
0 ::, ... __,_
- 0 ::, N CXl .J 0 I
- a. .J CXl II a. ...__ w I'-
0 • (j w I "' <( (j 0 CXl "' <(
...__ w "' I .J :i' :i' < "' <( "' "' '-' 0 '-' (/)
" w '-' w '!I :::, z "' <( <( 0 ;. a. 0: z < w a. w <( 0: "' a. .J a. < 0::
-.J
< 00
< u ....l -
< ts z
0 µ,
00 :i ~o< z .Ju
- i:.. ~Oo
z F" < ;:J < F" 0 F"
u 00
>
I:'-
0 11)
9 N
ATTACHMENT 3
City of Malibu
Planning Department
ATTN: Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director 23825 Stuart Ranch Rd
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: CDP Application 21-045 – 24507 Vantage Point Terrace Staff Report Comments and Additional Information
Dear Mr. Eaton,
We are in receipt of the Staff Report prepared for the above-referenced application, dated November 20, 2025. The below analysis and supporting documentation are intended to correct/clarify and provide additional information pertaining to the statements/findings made within the staff report to assist in moving the application forward, consistent with applicable State and Local laws that govern the proposed development. In particular, this correspondence is intended to address and clarify unique circumstances that pertain to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and their treatment under State law, the role of the California Coastal Act, the historical record for development of the subject property/neighborhood with respect to building pad establishment, and the history, purpose and appropriate application of the local Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Overlay District to the subject application.

It appears that Staff’s conclusions rest on a series of assumptions that may be inaccurate or incomplete—most notably that the MCE Overlay categorically limits all parcels within the Overlay District to a single building pad, and that such a limitation derives from or is mandated by the Coastal Act. As discussed further below, certain critical assumptions and conclusions made by Staff appear to be inconsistent with the history and facts surrounding original tract map and CC&Rs, the evolution of local regulatory controls, the physical conditions of what was then Lot 85 (now 24507 Vantage Point Terrace), and the statutory framework governing ADUs.

Based upon our evaluation of the property’s history and relevant governing regulations, it appears that the subject parcel contains two approved and existing building pads that predate the Coastal Act and the LCP, that the proposed ADU is sited entirely on an existing, compliant pad, and that neither the Coastal Act nor the LIP provides a lawful basis to deny the proposed project.

One Building Pad per Parcel
The principal issue raised by staff is the assertion that the Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Overlay District limits all development to one building pad per parcel. Staff relies on LIP Section 2 One Building Pad per Parcel
The principal issue raised by staff is the assertion that the Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Overlay District limits all development to one building pad per parcel. Staff relies on LIP Section 3.4.1(D), which provides the following standards for building pads within the MCE Overlay District:
a. All development, excluding walls and fences, shall be limited to the existing building pad. b. There shall be no more than one building pad per lot. c. No structure, excluding walls and fences, shall extend beyond, or be cantilevered over, any downhill slope extending from the existing building pad. d. A building pad is defined as a single, continuous, graded area, not exceeding three percent slope, designed to accommodate development.

As demonstrated below, staff’s interpretation is inconsistent with the historical record, the legal framework governing ADUs, and the physical conditions of the subject parcel.

Historical Background of Malibu Country Estates
Staff claims the “MCE Overlay District was established approximately 50 years ago.” While the Overlay District technically was not established until the mid-nineties, the Malibu Country Estates neighborhood was originally developed in the 1970s. The original CC&Rs, recorded in 1972, expressly state their purpose was “to protect the owner of each Lot against such improper development and use of the surrounding Lots as will depreciate the value of his Lot.” [Attachment A]
3 These original community standards restrictions were understandably intended to protect private property interests and value at the time. However, there is no intent to protect public coastal resources, as that is not the purpose of CC&Rs, and the MCE CC&Rs predate the California Coastal Act and the Malibu Local Coastal Program. 4 The CC&Rs specifically restricted development within areas designated as “Restricted Use Areas” on portions of lots 12, 13, 30, 31, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, and 107, as shown on Tract No. 30134 [Attachment B]. Lot 85 (now 24507 Vantage Point Terrace) was not among the parcels subject to Restricted Use Areas.

An aerial photograph from 1980 clearly shows that Lot 85 contained two distinct graded pads at that time—prior to the City’s incorporation and adoption of local zoning ordinances, the MCE Overlay District, and the Malibu LCP.

Upper Pad Lower Pad
5 Evolution of Regulatory Controls
In the mid-1990s, the Malibu Country Estates HOA and the City collaborated to adopt Custom Subdivision Development Criteria, which effectively codified HOA-based development standards derived from the above-referenced 1972 CC&Rs. On September 10, 1993, then Planning Director Robert Bernard reached out to the Malibu Country Estates HOA to initiate the process of applying for Custom Development Criteria [Attachment C].

The Malibu City Council passed an ordinance (#122) in March 1995, thereby establishing the Malibu Country Estates Overlay District.
6 The Local Coastal Program (LCP/LIP) was later certified in 2002, incorporating many existing development standards and criteria derived from Malibu’s existing local Zoning laws, including portions of the MCE Overlay District, which was derived from the HOA CC&Rs.

It appears that the originally limited, parcel-specific restrictions broadened to limit all development to a single building pad on every MCE parcel, regardless of the existing site conditions or the site-specific restricted use areas called out on the original tract map and CC&Rs. Given the history of the MCE Overlay District/CC&Rs, Staff’s analysis appears to grant undue weight as it pertains to the primacy of this Overlay District through reference to the Coastal Act—despite originating as private view-protection measures, not public resource protections.

LCP vs. State ADU Law
The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The LUP establishes policies to implement the Coastal Act, while the LIP contains the regulatory provisions applicable to individual projects.

California Civil Code §4751 provides that “Any covenant, restriction, or condition contained in any deed, contract, security instrument, or other instrument affecting the transfer or sale of any interest in a planned development, and any provision of a governing document, that either effectively prohibits or unreasonably restricts the construction or use of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit on a lot zoned for single-family residential use that meets the requirements of Article 2 (commencing with Section 66314) or Article 3 (commencing with Section 66333) of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, is void and unenforceable.”
Several conclusions in the Staff Report stem from the mistaken assumption that all elements included in the LCP automatically prevail over State ADU law. While Government Code § 66329 states that ADU law does not supersede the Coastal Act: “Except as provided in subdivision (b), nothing in this article shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code)”, the 1972 CC&Rs and the MCE Overlay District standards are not referenced or alluded to in any way in the Coastal Act and do not acquire Coastal Act authority simply because certain private property restrictions for the benefit of private property owners were added to the LCP, amidst the public resource protection policies of the Coastal Act that the LCP is required to implement.
7 If local jurisdictions could insulate ADU-prohibitive policies merely by incorporating them into an LCP, State ADU law would be rendered toothless within the coastal zone—an outcome clearly inconsistent with the legislative intent of State ADU law to enhance housing affordability.

The MCE Overlay District is also part of the local zoning ordinance (MMC 17.42.020(D)), which predates the adoption of the LCP and contains the same requirements. State ADU law supersedes local zoning ordinances. Subdivisions (a) and (b) of § 66325 state:
“(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), this article shall supersede a conflicting local ordinance.
(b) This article does not limit the authority of local agencies to adopt less restrictive requirements for the creation of an accessory dwelling unit.” The Coastal Act’s central purpose is protection of public coastal resources, including public views—not the preservation of private views between neighboring parcels nor to maintain high property values, as stated in the CC&Rs.

Correction to Staff Project Description of Project Site The Staff report describes the parcel as containing a single flat pad with the remainder of the site sloping downward to John Tyler Drive. Based upon the foregoing, this description appears to be inaccurate. The site clearly consists of a flat pad, a slope, and a second flat pad. The omission of the existing lower pad materially affects staff’s analysis and conclusions regarding building pad limitations and slope development. Ultimately, it leads to the erroneous conclusion that findings cannot be made to recommend approval of the proposed ADU.

Building Pads and Development Area
The proposed ADU is not located on a “proposed building pad” as staff asserts, but on an existing building pad. As evidenced above, aerial photographs demonstrate that this pad has been in existence since at least 1980. The proposed structure is sited on a pad of less than 3 percent grade, not a slope, and does not extend beyond or cantilever over any downhill slope in accordance with the development standards of the MCE Overlay District.

The parcel contains two existing, legally established building pads. As documented in the attached geotechnical report, the manufactured slope and flat base are comprised of “well graded”, compacted, artificial fill, which demonstrates that the existing lower pad was the result of intentional grading. The submitted Geology Report states as follows:
8 We offer the following general description of materials encountered during our subsurface explorations.

Artificial fill (af): Approximately 20-feet of certified compacted fill blankets the site. The fill can be described as silty gravelly sand with clay binder. The fill is light grey brown to brown, slightly moist to moist at depth, well compacted, dense with abundant cobble and well graded. The lab work revealed that the upper 2 to 3 feet of material has been disturbed. All undisturbed fill materials are unsuitable for structural support. The fill materials below 3 feet are suitable for use as a base for the placement of compacted fill. (Geotechnical Report

Page 5 ends

And later:

In areas of proposed development, the upper 3 feet of compacted fill shall be removed and recompacted. Following grading, the building pad area shall be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill. The limits of fill shall extend a minimum of three feet beyond the building footprint. Grading within areas of proposed hardscape shall consist of removing previous fill to expose firm compacted fill and the placement of new fill to design grades. (Geotechnical Report Page 11, Attachment D)
LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(d) states, “For the purposes of this Overlay District, a building pad shall be defined as a single, continuous, graded area, not exceeding 3 percent in slope, designed to accommodate development.” The conditions present in the lower building pad meet all objective criteria for the definition of a building pad. It is a uniformly graded whole (per page 5 of the geotechnical report cited above) that does not exceed 3 percent in slope (shown on the slope map below). In summary, contrary to the assessment provided in the Staff Report, the proposed building site is an existing, legally established, graded pad. No new pad is proposed, no grading to extend a pad is proposed, and no grading to create a new pad is proposed.
9 Other parcels within Malibu Country Estates were subject to Restricted Use Areas under the original tract map; Lot 85 was not. Accordingly, Lot 85 cannot now be artificially limited to one pad when two pads have long existed.

Views – Public vs. Private
The MCE Overlay’s building pad provisions were designed to preserve private views as demonstrated in the previously cited 1972 MCE CCRs, not public coastal views. No public views are impacted by the proposed ADU. Moreover, no private views are impacted, given an 11-foot 2-inch height for the proposed structure and an approximately 20-foot slope, which shields it from view from uphill neighbors.
10 (Attachment E)
Public Resources Code section 30251 states,
The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas.

The proposed ADU siting will not impact public views, in accordance with the Coastal Act.

Additionally, the proposed ADU is sited on an existing graded and manufactured pad.

Therefore, no alteration of natural landforms is proposed.

Similarly, chapter 6 of the LIP directs new development to minimize adverse visual impact.

6.5. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Development Siting 1. New development shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on scenic areas from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum feasible extent. If there is no feasible building site location on the proposed project site where development would not be visible, then the development shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts on scenic areas from scenic highways or public 11 viewing areas, through measures including, but not limited to, siting development in the least visible portion of the site”
Siting the ADU on the existing lower building pad conforms with the LIP in that it is the least visible portion of the site.

Single Building Pad
In discussing LIP Chapter 6, staff asserts that each parcel was designated a single building pad at that time. This does not appear to be supported by the record. The tract map (Attachment B) recorded August 25, 1972, identifies Restricted Use Areas on specific parcels only, and Lot 85 was not among them.
12 13
The 1980 aerial photograph further confirms the presence of a second lower pad on Lot 85.
(Attachment E)
MCE Overlay District Intent
Staff asserts that “the standards of the MCE Overlay District are intended to maximize the protection of scenically impressive views from public viewing areas, including scenic roads.” This is inconsistent with the express intent of the CC&Rs. Nowhere in the CC&Rs is there mention of protecting public views. Quite the opposite. They exist to protect the 14 owner of each lot. As stated in the CC&Rs, “The purpose of these restrictions is to insure proper development and use of the Premises, to protect the owner of each Lot.” Alternative Design Analysis
The Staff Report states that, “the applicant has notprovided an alternate design depicting existing constraints to development on the existing building pad or project feasibility/infeasibility at an alternate location.” To clarify, the applicant submitted a constraints map to City staff on September 7, 2022, which demonstrated significant constraints for development of an ADU on the upper portion of the lot. In order to further clarify the implications of these constraints, our office has included an expanded alternatives analysis, submitted with this response, that clearly depicts the impracticality and infeasibility of siting the ADU in alternative locations.

The Staff report suggests that conversion of the existing garage to an ADU might be a feasible alternative. However, this option would eliminate required on-site covered parking and require property owner vehicles to be parked on a cul-de-sac with limited street parking. This would be in opposition to one of the stated purposes of the LCP: “1.2.

PURPOSE (H.) To lessen congestion on the streets and provide for adequate off-street parking.”
It appears that converting the garage to an ADU and ignoring the on-site parking requirements would be less consistent with the requirements of the LCP than the provisions of the MCE Overlay District that are cited by Staff as a basis for denial. Unlike the siting of the proposed ADU on the lower pad, garage conversion and off-site parking would have meaningful adverse impacts to neighbors’ use and enjoyment of their property, parking for guests, etc.

Staff asserts an “alternate design also appears feasible given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other existing uses including a pool, spa, and wooden deck.” However, the presence of recreational amenities does not demonstrate capacity for an ADU. The presence of a chimney or a bay window would not demonstrate the capacity for an ADU on a building pad any more than the presence of a pool. Capacity for one type of use is not inherently interchangeable with another. It is unclear whether Staff is proposing that the applicant remove the existing pool or deck in order to construct the ADU. However, that is not proposed, and it is not the applicant’s desire to remove/trade existing development for the ADU, when the proposed development meets the requirements of State ADU law. Additionally, there are other considerations/constraints that make trading out the pool or deck for an ADU infeasible.
15 Even if the applicant were to remove the pool, the existing area would not support the proposed ADU. The alternatives analysis 1st Alternate Location clearly shows the infeasibility of this location for siting the ADU as it would extend over the slope beyond the building pad. Additionally, LCP Section 3.6(R)(b) requires “A minimum distance of six feet…between any main residential building and an accessory building established on the same lot or parcel of land.” Finally, with or without the 6 ft. separation requirement, locating the ADU in the area of the pool/deck would block light/air to the living room, dining room, and primary (master) bedroom, significantly diminishing the use, enjoyment, and habitability of the existing residence.

Alternatives Analysis – 1st Alternate Location
16 The alternatives analysis’ 2nd Alternate Location clearly shows the infeasibility of siting the ADU on the side yard, as there is not enough space between the main residence and the property line, even when utilizing the reduced setbacks afforded by State ADU Law. The proposed location is the only alternative that sufficiently meets the requirements/allowances for an ADU under State Law, the Coastal Act, and relevant local ordinances.

Alternatives Analysis – 2nd Alternate Location
Dimensional Standards: Setbacks
Staff asserts that, “the proposed project is inconsistent with several requirements in the MCE Overlay District including an approximate 73% reduction in the required rear yard setback (from 15 feet to 4 feet).” However, the proposed 4-foot rear yard setback and 6-foot 7-inch interior yard setback comply with State ADU law, which permits “four-foot side and rear setbacks [Gov. Code, § 66321, subd. (b)(3)].” Setbacks from property lines (i.e. yard setbacks) are a function of local zoning regulations, which State ADU law explicitly supersedes. The yard setbacks contained within the LCP are the same as those contained 17 within the City’s local zoning ordinance and therefore do not fall under ADU law provisions to adhere to Coastal Resource protection policies of the Coastal Act.

Dimensional Standards: Walls
The staff report asserts: “The proposed project fails to meet various requirements outlined in LIP Chapter 3 including…LIP §3.4.1(D)(4)(a) which stipulates that, “no walls…in excess of 6 feet shall be allowed within the required rear…yard setback areas,” (wall heights associated with the proposed structure extend above 6 feet in the rear yard setback).” Walls are defined in the LCP §2.1 as “artificially constructed barriers…erected to enclose or screen an area of land.” This definition does not apply to the wall of a residential structure.

Clearly, the exclusions listed in LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(a) “All development, excluding walls and fences, shall be limited to the existing building pad” and (c) “No structure, excluding walls and fences, shall extend beyond, or be cantilevered over, any downhill slope extending from the existing building pad.” would make no sense if it were referring to the walls of a structure. In this case, the term “wall” is being used in the technical sense defined in the LCP rather than the more commonly used vernacular.

Regardless, Government Code §66314 (d)(7) allows “a setback of no more than four feet from the side and rear lot lines shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing structure or a new structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure”, and the project complies.

Dimensional Standards: Structure Height
The Staff Report asserts that the proposed ADU does “notcomply with LIP” as it pertains to height and cites §3.4.1(D)(5)(d)(i-ii) (highlighted below and shown in context). §3.4.1(D)

5. Structure Height:
a. No building or structure shall exceed one story and 18 feet in height to the highest point on the roof, except for chimneys, for those parcels located in Area “A” of this Overlay District as designated on the Zoning Map. b. No building or structure shall exceed two stories and 28 feet in height to the highest point on the roof, except for chimneys, for those parcels located in Area “B” of this Overlay District as designated on the Zoning Map. c. No building or structure shall exceed 18 feet in height to the highest point on the roof, except for chimneys, for the portion of the structure within 34 feet of the front property line and shall not exceed two stories and 28 feet in height to the highest point on the roof for the remaining portions of the building for those parcels located in Area “C” of this Overlay District as designated on the Zoning Map. 18 d. The reference point for structure height measurements described in subsections a, b and c above shall be as follows:
i. For an addition or remodel of an existing structure, the height shall be measured from the finished first floor except that the new structure height shall not exceed that of the existing structure at its highest point on the roof, excluding chimneys.
ii. For the case where no structure exists or when an existing structure is removed to rebuild or replace, the height shall be measured from the control point set forth in the chart below.
iii. The finished first floor level of any part of any building shall not be more than 3 feet above the control point shown in the chart below.

The Staff Report erroneously concludes thatthe above code “Limits structure height to additions/remodels of existing structure, vacant parcels or where an existing structureis replaced.” This analysis does not appear to construe and apply the code correctly; the code appears instead to indicate the proper height and relative control point elevation for all construction cases. For addition or remodel of an existing structure “i” is in effect. For cases where no structure exists or when an existing structure is removed to rebuild or replace “ii” is in effect. The ADU is proposed to be constructed on the lower building pad where no structure exists, thus per the code “the height shall be measured from the control point set forth in the chart below.”
Additionally, the “chart below” referenced in LIP Section 3.4.1(D)(5)(d)(ii and iii) does, in fact, not exist anywhere in the LIP. It appears in the local zoning ordinance (MMC

17.42.020(D)) from which the MCE Overlay standards were derived, but it was never adopted into the LCP. This omission, where the reference was copied but the referent was not, further demonstrates how MCE Overlay standards contained in the LCP derive from local zoning (in an incomplete manner), not the Coastal Act, and are superseded by State ADU law. The Staff Report conclusions and even the code itself are both incomplete and convoluted, when the proposed project’s consistency with regards to height is abundantly clear and simple. The proposed ADU is consistent with the lowest maximum allowable height within the MCE Overlay District at less than 18 ft. in height, as the proposed ADU is only 11 ft. 2 inches in height.

Roofing Materials
Although enhanced requirements for certain roof aesthetics do not fall under the purview of the Coastal Act and could be construed as an undue cost imposed on an ADU under State ADU law, the applicant has agreed to revise the roofing materials from the previously proposed architectural shingles to Mediterranean Brava tile. This tile matches exactly the tiles approved for the primary residence in 2022 and is fully consistent with LIP Section

3.4.1(D) “Roof materials shall be limited to clay tile, concrete tile or similar material.” This 19 modification addresses concerns with regards to LCP consistency as it pertains to roofing materials.
(Attachment F)
Archaeological Resources
The Staff Report discusses archaeological resources and seems to imply that there are potentially some questions in this regard. However, Staff did not request any information or documentation prior to issuance of the Staff Report, as confirmed by the submitted checklist pictured below wherein Staff checked the box that an Archaeology Survey would not be required. The original determination is understandable, given that the Staff Report notes the “project site has been evaluated for potential impacts to archeological resources perthe adoptedCity of Malibu Cultural Resources Map and it has been determined that due to the previous grading activities to create the existing building pad and MCE community, the project has very low probability of disturbing archaeological resources for construction proposed on the existing building pad.” Based upon the foregoing, it appears that appropriate Staff level review has been completed under the requirements of LIP Chapter 11 and findings should be made that the project is consistent with the LCP as 20 it pertains to Archaeological Resources.
(Attachment G)
21 Trees
The Staff Report references four trees that were not explicitly identified on the site survey and allude to uncertainties about whether the project is in compliance with Native Tree protection policies of the LCP. To clarify, the identified trees consist of three cedar trees and one orange tree. These are non-native species and are not among the protected trees listed in LCP Chapter 5 (oak, walnut, sycamore, alder, and toyon). 22 (Attachment H)
Impermeable Coverage
The Staff Report states that LIP §3.4.1(D)(7) “strictly limits impermeable surfaces on the existing building pad (the proposed structure is located on a proposed second building pad).” As discussed previously, the ADU is proposed to be sited on the existing lower building pad as defined in LCP Section 3.4.1(D)(6)(d). Thus, per LIP §3.4.1(D)(7) “Impermeable Coverage: There shall be no maximum impermeable coverage limitation. However, including any structures, impermeable surfaces shall only be permitted on the existing building pad…” Contrary to the Staff Report’s assertion that there are strict limits on impermeable surfaces, the Code explicitly states that there is “no maximum impermeable coverage limitation” in the MCE Overlay, provided construction takes place on an existing building pad, which is what the applicant is proposing, as outlined above. Therefore, it is our understanding that the project complies with LCP impermeable coverage allowances/requirements.

Grading
Per the Staff Report, the “building pad proposes remedial and re-compaction grading for the upper 3 feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the proposed footprint.” The City’s Grading Verification Form 23 that Staff utilizes to verify compliance with the LCP has separate columns for “Remedial” and “R&R” (further defined as “Removal and Recompaction”). It is unclear which was intended in Staff’s reference to “remedial and re-compaction grading”.

To clarify, the only grading proposed is the removal/recompaction for the foundation per the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report, which states that:

In areas of proposed development, the upper 3 feet of compacted fill shall be removed and recompacted. Following grading, the building pad area shall be underlain by a minimum of 3 feet of compacted fill. The limits of fill shall extend a minimum of three feet beyond the building footprint. Grading within areas of proposed hardscape shall consist of removing previous fill to expose firm compacted fill and the placement of new fill to design grades. (Geotechnical Report Page 11, Attachment D)
This type of grading is explicitly exempted per the LCP 8.3. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I. “Exceptions. Excavation for foundations and other understructure excavation and 24 incremental excavation for basements and safety purposes shall be excluded from grading limitations.” This is further verified by the City’s Total Grading Yardage Verification Certificate, which notes that R&R grading is exempt. Therefore, contrary to the Staff Report analysis, the proposed project complies with the LCP as it pertains to grading, as the proposed R&R grading for the foundation is excluded from LCP grading limitations.

Conclusion
In summary, the Staff Report’s recommendation is premised on a misunderstanding and/or mischaracterization of the site, an overextension of the MCE Overlay District’s intent and authority under ADU law, and a conflation of private, HOA-derived view protections with the Coastal Act’s mandate to protect public coastal resources. The historical record confirms that Lot 85 was not originally subject to a single-pad restriction, that two graded pads have existed on the parcel for decades, and that the proposed ADU fully complies with the objective definition of a building pad under the LIP. The project is sited on the least visible portion of the site, does not impact public views, proposes no non-exempt grading/landform alteration or new pad, maintains existing required on-site covered parking to avoid adverse impacts to neighbors, conforms to applicable Coastal Act and LIP standards for Coastal resource protection, and is entitled to the protections afforded by State ADU law, which supersedes conflicting local zoning provisions. Additionally, the project has no impacts to public access or Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas and is compliant with all provisions/allowances/requirements of State ADU law. For these reasons, we believe that the proposed ADU should be found consistent with the LCP as applied under relevant State Law/requirements and approved accordingly.

Thank you for your time, attention, and consideration of this additional information. If there are any questions, please let us know.

Sincerely,
Keystone Strategic Planning
Matt Jewett
Principal
Attachment A
1972 Malibu Country Estates CC&Rs
F§:¥ffiiff:�-.:;�o•:��}�J��: .. ��g;;��!".;:�i,; ��tlf�i,�� B �- .: CENTV,e"y cny INC, IIECORD£0 IN CITT"ICIAL R�CORDS - !j ,; io/00 ::i#Nl;P /11(;1',f/CFl 6LVO, 5',tTE l5oo OF LOS ANGELES COUNJV, CAUF. • ,; � t-05 ,<JN6EL.£.:,, CPL- 9'eJ£i& 7 3553 FOR TllU: INSUP.ANCE & TRUST CO. i 1 { #77.N,' &BE.er .B'uR,CO.eP Nin. -i 21Put 2 PM.AUG 28 1972 , : , I
' 7 / // ';l 7 y: Registrar-Recorder I
t
' -
_
;
, DECIARATION OF RESTRICTIONS i "W �
, FEE$ 2¥0 l
l A THIS DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, made this /7P.- day of f • ; Clfffe/.J$--f;l£z;I by Century Malibu,.

Inc., a Delaware cm:poration, hereinafter � � cad OWNER or GRANTOR, having its principal office in California at 10100 � I Santa Monica Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, OWner in fee simple of all I _.
·
.
, that real property situated in the County of Les Angeles, State of California, descrilied as follows:

All Lots contained in Tract No. 30134, 3s per map
thereof recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Los Angeles, on B·l5·7Z in Book ito , Pa<;Jes _I_S __ to ZZ. , inclusive,
of Maps, in the records of said county of Los Angeles, which property has been subdivided into lots as shown on said map for the purpose of sales and
conveyance thereof�
NOW, THEREFORE, this Declaration of Restrictions WITNESSETH:

That for the purpose of designating and creating certain c0nditions and restrictions upon all of said lots for the benefit of all other lots in said Tract, the following covenants, conditions and restrictions shall apply to said land as well before the execution and delivery to any buyer thereof, c,f a deed conveying said realty to said buyer, as aft•)r said deed shall have been executed and delivered, and shall operate as co.-enants running with the land, being hereby created as mutual equitable servitudes in favor of each and every lot and portion of said land as against each and every other lot and portion thereofr
Further, the purpose of these restrictions is to insure pr,>per development and use of the Premises, to protect the owner of each Lo:. against such improper development and use of the surrounding Lots a� will depreciate the value of his Lot, to prevent the erection on the Prf.!r1:.ses of structures built of improper design or materials, to encourage the i, �ection of attractive improvements at appropriate locations, to prevent hapl.azard and inharmonious improvements, to secure and maint::in proper setbaclts from streets �nd adequate free spaces between structurea, and in general to provide adequa.tely for a high type and quality of improvement of the 1'1:emises in acc�rdance with a general plan.

Any and all lots, or portions of lots, conveyed by or for aforesaid owner, or Grantor, and any conveyance thereof accepted by any 0Furchaser or Grantee, shall be and is expressly made subject to the terms, conditions, covenants, and restrictions following, which shall apply to and be oinding upon tne parties to such conveyance, their heirs, devisees, legate,:a, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, to-wit: �

1. Said premises shall be used only for the purpose of one-single� family p�ivate residence per lot, including appurtenant private garage, servants' quarters and other appurtenant outbuildings and improvements and no s-tructurea shall be moved from any other place onto said premises. No temporary dwelling, garage, servants' quarters or outbuildings shall be eire-cted on said premises, nor sb<"tll any structure be erected or allowed on .:: ..
said premises which is not designed, built. maintained and used exclusively for private residential purposes or for making said premises more convenient £er residence thereon. When the construction 0£ any residence or structure is once begun, work thereon shall be proSecuted diligently and must be completed with.L~ a reasonable time. No shack, tent or trailer shall at any time be used on said premises as a residence, either temporarily or permanently, except that during the construction of a residence and upon ¼Titten approval of the trailer to be used, and its-proposed location, a trailer may be used on said premises for the pt1rpose of construction efficiency for a period not to exceed eight months, provided the trailer and its use conform to all r~quirements of the County of Los Angeles.

2. All oil and mineral rights have been reserved by a former owner but with no right of surface entry. No well for the production of, or from which there is produced oil, gas or water, shall be drilled, dug or operated on said premises; nor shall any e~cavation be made on said premises. unless such excavation is necessary in connection with the erection of an approved structure thereon. No rubbish or debris of any kind or cbaracter shall ever be placed or permitted to accumulate upon said premises so as to render said premises unsanitary, unsightly, offensive, or detrimental to any other lot or lots in said Tract, or to the occupants thereof.

3. No buildir.g or other structure of any nature whatsoever, nor any addition to any building or other structure, shall be erected, rnaintaineo or permitted on said premises or the erection or construction thereof begun thereon, until complete Plans and Specifications prepared under the supervision of a registered architect or registered builcling designer shall have first been approved in writing by the Committee hereinafter provided for. Preliminary Plans must be submitted for approval prior to cor.tpletior. of the Final Plans and it is suggested that in order to avoid unnecessary planning and revision costs, schematic plans may be submitted befo-e Prelim'inary Plans. Three sets of Final Plans and Specifications for any and ali buildings, structures, ~-alls, fences. and any alterations thereof or additions thereto, together with proposed exterior colors to be approved, shall be submitted to said Committee for approval, and all such Final Plans and Specifications shall show in detail the nature, kind, shape, ~eight, material, color scheme and elevation 0£ any such structure, anr;l sl-~.-.:11 likewise show in detail the lot or building site plan indicating the location of such building or structure. and all outbuildings on any buildin~, site, and, when specifically reqaested, the grading plan of the buildim: .. i site to be built upon; said Plans and Specifications shall in every case J:,; complete and· detailed, and 116 structure of any kind shall be erected, maintained or permitted on said premises if the plans, elevati~ns and specifications of such structure have not received the written approval of said committee or which does not fully comply with such approved Plans, Specific?.':.ions and Elevations, or which is not located on the building site upon which the ~ same is- to be erected according to said Plans and Specifications. One set 9J of any such Plans and Specifications shall be retained by said cc.•mnittee. ~ Final Plans submitted for approval, in addition to showi.i:g setbacks and other details, shall show the relation of the finished 'first floor level or floor 1.evels of the house, to the highest point of the .' ·:ont street curb of such lot and shall include a f·1ot Plan showing contour li1Jes of the ex:isting pad and· any proposed chau.~es therein. such plans shall also show:
ar The total. nuniber of square feet in such house as determined in accordance with Paragraph 8 hereof.
b. The. relation in terms of feet of the maximum roof height of the house. to the highest point of the front street curb of such lot, in accordance with paragraph 10 hereof.
c~ The relation in terms of feet of the garage floor to the finished floor level or levels of the house in accordance with paragraph 10 hereof.
rn the event that said Committee fails to approve or disapprove such plans within thirty (301 days after submission of the plans to it, then such approval will be deemed to have been given; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that all other restrictions and conditions contained in this Declaration of Restrictions, including any Amendments thereto made with the concurrence of all the lot owners, shall remain applicable to such plans and all structures to be erected on the lot or building site to which the plans refer.

If the plans as submitted are approved by the Committee, such approval shall. be limited solely to approval of the exterior architectural design of the bu.ildings, walls, fences and other structures to be erected on the premises to which the plans refer. Approval for use on any lot of any plans or specifications shall not be deemed a waiver of the Committee's right, in its discretion, to disapprove such plans, features or elements, which are subsequently submitted for approval for use on any other lot or lots.

The owner of each respective lot in said Tract No. 30134 has the sole respcnsihi~it/ at all times of determining that all plans and specifications for the structures to be erected on such lot and the erection of all buildi.ngsc walls, fences and other structures on such lot conform and coiTIJ)ly in all respects wi.th this Declaration of Restrictions and all amendments heretoc with the covenants and recitals in the deed to such lot and with all building codes, rules, orders and regulations of the proper governmental authority, and that the exterior architectural design and cc,lor of all structuresc when completed, conform with the exterior architectural design and color as approved by the Committee.

The committee shall have the authority and right to inspect premises under construction for the purpose of determining that all construction complies with the plans, elevations and specifications nil approved by i-t,. but shall have no responsibility to take such action. Grant,)r may from time to time at any reasonable hour, enter and inspect any 1-:,t, structure or other· property subject to these restrictions for the purpqse of dete:rmininc; compliance herewith.
4w The Committee hereinabove referred i:O shall cons_ist of not less than thre~ {3) members. Any action by said Committee may be,taken by a majority thereofr and the members of said Committee may act withOut a meeting. CENTUltY MALIBU, INC.,, Grantor, shall have the right, and it shall be the duty of said company to appoint the initial three members of such Committee: one of which may be replaced by a member to be appoint~d Dy a majority of the lot purehi!isers within the Tract after the first SU lots have been sold.. CENTURY MALIBU, INC., 1 Granter, shall have th_e rj,tj"ht at any time- to reriove any of the three {3) members of said Committee so appointed by it, anO to fill any vacancies caused by such removal or by tht death, res-±gna-tion·, or other inabil.ity to act, of said Committee members. Jn the event and whenever said CENTURY MALIBU, INC_, Granter, desires to be relieved of the- responsibility of maintaining such committee, it may do so by filing, in the o£fice of the COtL>1.ty Recorder 0£ the county of Los Angeles, a notice to that effect. and tbereafter the right of appointing and re."Il.Oving members _of said Committee shall be vested in the persons owning lots in said Tract, who may act by a majority of such lot owners, either at a meeting of such lot owners or in writing without a meeting. In no event, however, shall CENTURY MALIBU, INC. be liable for the consequences of action or inaction by said Committee or any member or members t.l-iereof whether appointed by CENTURY MALIBU. INC .• Grantor, or otherwise.

5. Roofs shall be covered with wood shingle, wood shake, clay tile·,. concrete tile, or such other material and color as may be approved by the COmmittee, provi.ded, however, that no flat roof shall exceed 20'.¾, of the total roof area, and provided further that no composition shingle. asphalt shingle, composition sheet, rock or gravel roof shall be used on any of the roof area except the above-mentioned flat area which shall not exceed 20% of· the total roof area. No simulated mansard roof shall be used and any true mansard design shall be covered with metal sheeting or wood shingles, the design, material and treatment of which shall be approved by the Committee:~. F·or the purpose of these restrictions. any roof or portion thereof havinq a pitch flatter than 8 feet horizontally to 1 foot vertically shall be construed to be a flat roof.

No air conditioning unit nor air conditioning vents shall be exposed above the roof of any structure, and air CODditioning units and vents, pmnp equipment and motors for swimming pools, etc., if any, shall be enclosed in a manner in keeping with the architecture of the home structure and shall be soundproofed so as not to be a nuisance to adjacent or nearby homeowners.

Patio walls and roofs shall be of the sa:me design and material as the main part of the house, and the roof thereof shall be subject to the same provisions as above- Roll-back or sliding canvas covers or awnLngs may be used over patios provided the design and colors are approved by the committee.,

6. All exterior stucco shall be painted.

7. No lot may be subdivided for any reason whatsoever, ex,,ept that three or more adjacent lots may be combined and the resulting b,tal area divided into a small.er number of lots, with the approval of the coun,;y of LOS Angeles-, provided each resulting lot is larger than any one of i 1e original lots so combined.

8., No residence building shall ever be ~rected, maintained or permitted on gaid premises which building contains less than 2,000 ~quare of floor area_
fe~
CJl
In determining the number of square feet contained withi .1 any resi~ dence building erected or to be erected on said premises, the spac,! contained W'ithin co-vered or uncovered porches, covered or uncoverec' e,'ltries, _ balconies, qarage {whetber or not it is an integral part of the residence), c9vered or ut1coversd patios, basement or cellar, shall not be considered in c,:'mputing the square footage- contain<".!d in any such building. For the purpose vf computing the "nfinimum required floor area", it shall be deemed to include the total floor area of the residence building, measurements to be taken for this porptise from the outer faces of exterior walls_
9_ All buildings on lots 1, 2, 5 to 14, inclusive, 16 to 30 inclus-ive, 35 to 38 inclusive, 41, 45 to 49 inclusive# 57 to 75 inclusive, 79 to 98 inclusive, and 107 shall not exceed one story in height above the finished first floor level.

Buildings on lots 3, 4, 15, 31 to 34 inclusive, 39, 40, 50 to 56 inclusive and 76 to 78 inclusive, shall not exceed two stories in height above the finished first floor level.

Buildings on lots 42 to 44 inclusive, and 99 to 106 inclusive, may have the rear portion of the building two stories in height, provided no portion of the building within the first 34 feet back from the front property iine exceeds one story in height above the finished first floor level.

10. T"ne highest point of the roof (chimneys excepted) of buildings on lots 1, 2, 5 to 14 inclusive, 16 to 30 inclusive,. 35 to 38 inclusive, 41, 4S to 49 inclusive, 57 to 75 inclusive, 79 to 98 inclusive, and 107 shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet above the control point designated for each respective lot on the schedule hereinafter shown as Schedule l0A.

The highest point of the roof (chimneys excepted) for all buildings on lots 3, 4, 15, 31 to 34 inclusive6 39, 40, 50 to 56 inclusive and 76 to 78 in,~lusive-, shall not exceed twenty eight (28) feet above the ,::oontrol point designated for each respective lot on Schedule l0A.

The highest point of the roof (chimneys excepted) of all portions of buildings limited to one story in height as per Paragraph 9 above on lots 42 to 44 inclusive and 99 to 106 inclusive, shall not exceed eighteen (l.Bl feet above the control point designated for each respective lot on Schedule 10A. That portion of buildings limited to two stories in height on the above lots shall not exceed twenty eight (28) feet above the control point designated for each respective lot on Schedule l0A.

The finished first floor level of any part of any builUing shall not be more than 3 feet above the control point shown in Schedule 10A.

The finished floor level of any garage shall not be roo":'c;, than eight (8) Teet below the height control point for each respectiv~ lot as shown in ScheduJ.e l0A, and no retaining wall adjacent to and par:a1lle1 with either side 0£ a driveway shall exceed three (3) feet in height \t:t thin the front setback area of any lot.

11. No residence or any part of any .~esidence, garage or any other building or structure,. exclusive of walls -and fences, shall be ,:ilacea on any lot nearer than 26 feet from the front of the front curb vi said lot; and front, side and rear building setback lines on each lot shall conform in all respects to requirements of the County of Los Angeles, provided that no structure, including a porch, balcony, patio or terrace, but .excluding walls c:ffld fences, s11:all extend down or be cantilevered or otherwlse con~· structed over or on any downbill slope beyond the front, side oi rear lines or· the mannfactu:red pad: and provided further that in the case o~ corner lots, any driveway entering said lot from the secondary street 1 _1a.ll have at least 26 fl!at of' drivMray between the curb on said secondary street and the entrance- doors to the garage.

The right has been dedicated to the County of Los Angeles to restrict the erection of buildings or other structures within areas designated .. a:s "Restricted Ose ~reas" on portions of lots 12, 13, 30, 31, 88, 89, 90",- g-1r 92,- g-:3,. 94r 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 and 107 on the map of TrEfe"t No. 30134.-
i
SCHEDULE 10A
The following schedule has been estabLt - hed to set a control paint for each lot {which control point represents the height of the approximate center of each lot pad) from which the maximum roof height and the maximum finished first floor level shall. be measured. The control point for each lot pad is above or below the highest point of the curb of each respective lot, as follows:-
Number feet Number feet Number feet
above or above or above or below high below high below high point !)f point of point of curb curb curb
Lot No. l - 1.6 22 - 2.1 43 + 0.8
2 +14.2 23 0.3 44 + 0.7
3 +26.7 24 + 0.2 45 -14.9
4 +20.1 25 - 1.3 46 - 5.2
5 -12.9 26 - 1.5 47 - 2.4
6 - 3.2 27 - 9.7 48 - 0.6
7 - 5.0 28 - 5.7 49 + 0.4
8 - 5.1 29 + 1.5 so + 4.3
9 - 6.6 30 + 1.4 51 + 4.4
10 - 6.0 31 + 3.4 52 + 8.3
11 - 0.6 32 + 3.1 53 + 3.1
12 - 1.9 33 + 1.1 54 - 6.4
13 - 3.9 34 - 0.2 55 + 7.0
14 - 1.2 35 + 0.5 56 + 6.1
15 +15.2 36 + 1.8 57 + 0.5
16 +11.2 37 - 3.3 58 + 3.4
17 +12.4 38 + 3.1 59 + 2.2
18 + 4.7 39 +24.8 60 + 0.3
19 -14.4 40 +22.9 61 + LO
20 +15.7 41 -DA 62 + 1.2
21 + 1.5 42 + 2.6 63 + 0.8
i
~
i
• f
~ ~ CJ1 l
~t
L
SCHEDDLE 1.0A {CONT.)
Number feet Number feet Number feet
above or above or above or bel.ow high below high below high point: of point of point of curb curb curb
Lot No. 64 + 0.4 79 2.1 94 a.a
65 + 0.9 80 -13.1. 95 + 2.4
66 + 1.8 _81 3.3 96 - o. 7
67 + 2.2 82 - 4.4 97 0.5
68 + 1. 7 83 3.3 98 -14.5
69 + 1.3 84 0.7 99 3.2
70 + 1.4 85 + 0.4 100 4.4
71 -11.6 86 + 1.5 101 - 2.5
72 - 4.5 87 + 1.3 102 - 6.4
73 + 0.6 88 + 1.0 103 - 7.6
74 + 0.8 89 +- o. 7 104 - 2.9
75 +10.8 90 - 0.1 105 + 0.9
76 +15.1 91 3.9 106 + 4.1
77 +13.8 92 - 1.6 107 - 2.6
78 + 1.0 93 - 0.6
Note:

In the case of a corner lot, the highest point o;.:' the curb ( from which the above measurement has been made) may be lot -'I.tea on the primary or secondary street. In the case of Lot 56, the measurement has been made from the highest point of the carbon Malibu Cot:ntry Drive.

The above control points for ea~h lot are intend~a to represent the height of the approximate center of each lot pad as originally ~ graded. If a subsequent certified survey indicates that t}1e approximate ~ center of any of the above lots as originall.y graded is d:ff~rent from _ the control point so designated, said control point to be ·usea £or the rE!"spective lot shall be adjusted to the correct control pc;;int.

In addition to the above, no str,icture, wall or fence in excess of s-ix feet in height shall be constructed on any area of the following lots which area is locatea more than the number of feet designated below, as measured from the front of the curb of such lot:

Lots 62
Lots so -
Lots 94
64 incl.usive
93 inclusive
96 incl.usive
137 feet
137 feet
117 feet
IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD, however, that any eave or roof overhang extending beyond the wall of such structure or structures a distance of 48 inches or less shall not be considered a violation of these restrictions. Any garage structure not connected with the residence as an integral part thereof shall. be located not nearer than the required setback for the main structure from the FRO~"'T property line of said buil.ding site.

12. If driveway curb cut and apron are in place on a given lot, the driveway shall. remain at such location, unless a different location is approved by the Co!IIIYlittee and the existing curb cut is replaced with curb and sidewalk of design typical of Tract 30134 and using the typical concrete mixture specified below. On other lots, the drive~-ay curb cut and apron may be at such location as may be approved by the Committee and shall be of design typical of Tract 30134 and paved with concrete having a typical formula mixture of two pounds lamp black to each cubic yard of concrete mixture_ Driveways between street and garage may be of black top, concrete havi:iq typical lamp black mixture as above, or such other material as may be approved by the COillITlittee.

The following lots shall have reciprocal easements fo= driveway purposes~ lots 2 and 3, lots 4 and 5, lots 15 and 16, lots 39 ana 40, and lots 76 and 77. These double driveways shal~ be improved with paving 20 feet wide. Such driveways may be of blacktop or concrete proviCed that, if concrete, mixture shall be two pounds lamp black to each cubic yard of concrete mixture, or such other material as may be approved by the Comm.itt~e.

Single access strip-type driveways serving Lots 17 anc' 29 shall be improved with paving 15 feet wide and may be of blacktop or of the typical concrete mixture specified above, or such other material as may be appr?ved by the Committee.

The 15 foot driveway adjacent to
30134 and is not intended to serve Lot 52.
driqeway for a future lot to be created to
Lot 52 is not a part of Tract
This driveway will le the access
the north of Lot 52.

The fire access roadway between Marie Canyon Road anC Forest Gate circle (as shown on the Final Map for Tract 30134} is not ava:i.],·ble for pa~king and must be kept free of parked cars at all times. 13, All walls and fences shall be n1aintained in gooC condition and be painted or stained if of wood or iron. If standard plai.n cememt or slumpstone cernemt blocks are used, said walls shall be constructed of block not over four inches in height and pa£nted. If standard cement blocks are used which are more than four inches in height, the wall ehall be covered with stucco and sha.11 be painted. Pattern or custom cemtl~t blocks sbal1 not be used unless such blocks are of unusual custom design and unless the size of the blocks~ design and wall are specifically appr,.1,Jed by the committee. In front of the front setback line, no wall or fe• :::e shall exceed five (5) feet in height above the surface of the ground upon wid.ch it is located, nor shall a· wa-11 or fence exceed six (6) feet in height to the :?:ear of said front setback line unless said wall or fence is not within the s-ide: or rear setback areas. No hedge shall be planted or maintained in front of the front setback line at a greater height than five (5) feet from the grounds nor shall any hedge exceed six (6) feet in height to the rear of said: front setback line unless said hedge is not within the side or rear setback lines.

In cases where the side or rear property line of a lot is at the top of the slope adjacent tv the pad level of an upper lot, the Jwner of the I.ewer lot shall not build a wall or fence on the said side or r,~ar property line or on Lhe slope adjacent thereto which wall or fence extends more than three feet above the pad level of the adjacent upper lot unless a written agreement and approval to do so is obtained from the owner of the upper lot and duly recorded.

No tennis court shall be constructed on any lot or combination of lots without the owner thereof having first obtained and recorded the written approval of the owner of every lot in Tract 30134 which is adjac~nt to such lot or combination of lots.

14. Each owner of a lot in said tract shall not in any way interfere wi..th the established drainage in or over any lot in said Tract. I~ tbe event it is necessary to change the established drainage over any lot, adE!qµateprovisions for proper drainage shall be made therefor. For the purpose hereo·f "Establisbed Drainage" is defined as the drainage as the same a~isted at the time of the ov~rall grading of said Tract, including th~ 1andscaping of each lot in said Tract as completed by the undersigned.

Each lot owner shall provide continuous maintenance for all planted s-lopes within his lot and for all drai!1age benches, drainage channels and/ or slopes to prevent drainage from overflowing onto other property. 1'he owner of each lot shall keep said lot free and clear of weeds, debris and rubbish and keep the premises neat and in good order. Excepting homes not yet sold by Granter, upon completion of a residence building, ~he lot owner· sh.dl within ninety (90) days plant and maintain lawns or otherwise landscape the front yard, and in the case of corner lots also the side street yard. The Grantor, its successors or assigns, hereby reserves the right, in the event of default in the performance of this covenant, after notice in writing to said lot owner to cure said default and lot owner's failure to do so within thirty days thereafter, to enter upon said lot and remove alL weeds~ debris and rubbish in accordance with this covenant nnd the expense thereof shall become due and payable from said lot owne7 to the Granter within thirty (30) days after written demand therefor.

15. No aeria1 or antenna for T.V~, radio, ham radio~· or any other purpose shall be installed on any lot except as may be i.1.stalled under the roof and within the attic area of the home erected thereon. Spot or flood lights, if any, used for illumination or for accent lighl·,ing of landscaping, etc., shall be directed and/or controlled in such a manner as not to be an annoyance or nuisance to adjacent or nearby homeetrners. 16~ No sign shall be placed or maintained on any lUt prior to, during or after the erection of a residence thereon without tll.e1,prior written consent of' the Grarttor, its successors or assigns, or dul·t authorized agent other than one ordinary 18" x 24" "Open for Inspection" "For Rent", "For sale"' or •rsold...- sign of design approved by the committee; end in the event any sign o~ signg shall be placed or maintained upon saia premises in violation of these· restrictions, said Grantor, or it::. successors or assigns, or duly authorized agent, may and is hereby authorized to enter upon said premises and to remove any and all such unauthorized signs. -Notlrl::ng' contained in these restrictions and conditions shall operate to prohibit the Grantor:, i.ts successors, assigns, or its dul.y' authorized agent from. maintaining upon any lot or lots in said Tract a real estate Trac.t Office,. together: with suitable advertising signs for the purpose of conducting the proper development, sale and management of property in said Tract.

17. No trade, business or commercial activity of any sort shall be carried on upon said premises, nor shall anything be done thereon whichmay be or become an annoyance or ntiisance to adjacent homeowners or a detriment to the neighborhood. No auction or public sale of real or personal. property shall be conducted upon said premises, nor shall said premises or any part thereof be sold or offered for sale through an auction or public sale.

18. Any trailer, travel trailer, motor home, truck, boat, or other recreational or commercial vehicle shall not be used as additional living quarters, and shall be pBrked ~tall times within the garage of the respective home, except during reasonable loading, waiting, and/or unloading periods.

19. No livestock, dog, cat or other animal breeding, raising or care of a commercial nature shall be permitted. No hogs, sheep, bee hives-r- goats,.. cows or horses shall be permitted on said premises. No poultry shall be permitted or maintained on said property.

20. violation or breach of any restriction herein contained shall gi~e to Granter and every owner of property subject to these restrictions the right to enter upon the property upon or as to which said violation or breach exists and to summarily abate and remove, at the expense of the owner or lessee thereof, any structure, thing or condition that may be or exist thereon contrary to the __ intent and meaning of the provisions hereof, or to prosecute a proceeding at law or in equity against the person or persons who have violated or are attempting to violate any of these restrictions to enjoin or prevent tbem from doing so, to cause said violation to be remedied o~ to recover damages.

The result of every action or omission whereby any restrictions h~rein contained is violated in whole or in part is hereby declared to be and to constitute a nuisance, and every remedy allowed by law or eq"u.ity against an owner, either public or private, shall be applicable against every such result and may be exercised by Granter or by any ow-~er of property subject to these restrictions.

In any legal or equitable proceeding for the enforc~;r,ent or to restrain the violation of this Declaration or any provision hereof, the losir.g party or parties shall pay the attorney's fees and cour. costs of the prevailing party or parties, in such amount as may be fixed by the Court in such proceedings. All remedies provided herein or as:: law or in equity sball be cumulative and not exclusive.
f
i
!
!
J
' 1
striction
the right
tion~
~!
The failure of Grantor or any property o~er to enfOrce any re- CJl ! • herein contained shall in no event be deemed to be a: waiver of ~ .. ,. • .- to do so thereafter nor of the right to enforce any. other restric- i ;j}:
t
i ' - !· ., .
r

21. If at any time any of said Paragraphs L to 19, inclusive, or any part thereof ... shall be adjudged or held to be illegal, or invalid, such ill.egality or invalidity shall in no way affect or render illegal or invalid any of the other terms, conditions, covenants, and restrictions of said paragraph, or of any other paragraph or part thereof, but each and all of said other terms, conditions, covenants, and restrictions, notwithEtanding said illegality or i.~validity, shall be and remain in full force and effect.

Each and all of the conditions herein contained shall in all respects terminate and end and be of no further effect, either legal or equitable, either on said property or any part thereof, or on the parties thereto, their heirs, successors, devisees, executors, administrators or assigns, on or after January 1, of the year 2010 unless prior to said date and effective thereon, a written instrument shall be executed by the record owners of the majority of the lots in said property and duly recorded providing for an extension of these restrictions to a later date.

This Declaration, or any provision hereof, may also be modified or amended with the written consent of 100% of the Lots by recordation of the same in the Official Records of Los Angeles County.

Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrar-f, no breach of any of the foregoing conditions or any re-entry by reason of such breach shall defeat or render invalid the lien of any mortgage or deed of tr>..1St..made in good faith and for value as to said property or any part thereof; but said conditions shall be binding upon and effective against any owner of said property whose title thereto was acquired b1r foreclosure, trustee's sale, or otherwise.

The foregoing conditions and restrictions constitute the minimum conditions and restrictions applying to any lot or lots in said Tract 30134.

The right is reserved by the Granter, in the case of any unsold lot or lots, to add other conditions and restrictions, to increase the requirements thereof as to setback lines, square footage content of buildings and otherwise to increase and supplement but not to diminish, the restrictions on said property.
r
I
I
i
~
'
m WITNESS WHEREOF. said 6,e-/u'{t' afld/;(>,; I.,/(' has liereunto caused its corporate name and seal be affixed by its Officers t.~er:etm..to duly authorized, on the day and year first hereinbefore written. ( CORPORATE SEAL)

S'TATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
ss.
(SJ By/~
(SI
By;;lS~
ON THIS a.!±: day of 4k-,.usf: , before me, the undersigned, a Notary EbbLic in and for said £aunty and State, personally appeared ...:==::::=:_ f1..,C..J/4+fkl.d ~ known to me to be the President and L, Ll.}, /rs;;~..;j',of" , known to me to be the Secretary of/?,::;11h:¥¼/ t1fe/, 4,, 'I#C, . thec6rporation that executed the within instrument, knowh to me to be the persons who executed the within instrument on behalf of the Corporation herein named, and acknowledged to me that such Corporation executed the same WITNE'SS my hand and official seal the day and year in this Certificate first above written.
•
OFFICIAL Sf.AL
JUNE. L WALKUP NC•AAVP\J8LIC•CAl..2FOR1/1A
LOS ANG:"LES COUNTY MyC()mmJsslon E.rp,resOec. 2, 1S74
Recorded ---cc------------ as instrument No~
in Book at
Official Records of
california
Page
Los Angeles county,
SEAL
or said
My Commission Expires ~{7-J- 7 ~
Attachment B
Malibu Country Estates Tract Map

Attachment C
Custom Development Criteria
City of Malibu
23805 Stuart Ranch Road, Suite 245 Malibu, California 90265 (310) 456-2489 Fax (310) 456-3356 Planning Deparonent
September 10, 1993
Malibu Country Estates HOA
c/o Marilyn Santman
24633 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Custom Development Criteria
Dear Homeowner Association:

The Interim Zoning Ordinance of the City of Malibu provides for existing Homeowner's Associations and neighborhoods to apply to the City Council for consideration of custom development criteria. Such custom development criteria would allow for development in established neighborhoods to be consistent with existing Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (C, C & R's) or neighborhood standards in-lieu of the Property Design ana Development Criteria specified in the Interim Zoning Ordinance.

Attached is Chapter 9215 of the Interim Zoning Ordinance which authorizes the creation of Custom Subdivision Development Criteria. Additionally, an information and application submittal requirements sheet is included which provides directions as to how to apply for this review. Finally, a sample form is provided which can be used to verify that the required percentage of homeowners have accepted the proposed custom development criteria.

Please call if you have any questions regarding this matter.

Sincerely,
Robert Benard
Planning Director
Attachment D
Geotechnical Report
MDN 21724

GEOLOGIC AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING INVESTIGATION,

PROPOSED MANUFACTURED ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU),
24507 Vantage Point Terrace,
Malibu, California 90265
for

HELMUT MEISSNER
October 12, 2020 W.O. 7508
GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

MDN 21724
October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MR. HELMUT MEISSNER
24507 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, California 90265
Subject: Geologic and Geotechnical Engineering Investigation, Proposed Manufactured Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU),
24507 Vantage Point Terrace, Malibu, California 90265

INTRODUCTION
As requested, GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. (GSC) has performed a geologic and geotechnical engineering investigation for the subject site. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the geologic and geotechnical engineering conditions on the site and their impact on the proposed development. Proposed development will consist of a new manufactured accessory dwelling unit located at the toe of the slope.

This report has been prepared in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in the City of Malibu at the time it was prepared. The report presents a brief description of the site, the geotechnical engineering characteristics of the area, the seismicity of the area, an engineering analysis of the site characteristics, conclusions, and preliminary recommendations to development the site.

Opinions presented in this report are based on an inspection of the site, geologic mapping at the site, logging of test pit excavations, a review of the regional geologic maps and seismic hazard reports, review of available geotechnical reports for the surrounding area, and our general knowledge of the geologic and soils engineering conditions in the site area.

The opinions presented have been arrived at through the exercise of the generally understood standard of care for our profession and standard of engineering practice, as we understand it.
6634 Valjean Avenue, Van Nuys, California 91406 Phone: (818) 785-2158 Fax: (818) 785-1548

Page 2 ends

Malibu City CouncilSeptember 23, 2026

Malibu City Council
September 23, 2026