Malibu City Council
September 23, 2026

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724

SCOPE OF SERVICES
This geotechnical engineering study included:
a. Research of available data from the City of Malibu online public records system.

Copies of available data are presented in Appendix D.
b. Research of published geologic and seismic hazard reports. c. Excavating, sampling, and logging of two hand dug test pits. The test pit locations are shown on the enclosed Plate 1, Geologic Map. The test pit logs (Plates TP-1 and TP-2) are provided in Appendix A along with a general description of the field operations.
d. Laboratory testing of selected samples to determine the engineering properties of the on-site soils. The results of laboratory testing are presented in Appendix B e. Engineering analyses of the data and information obtained from our field study and laboratory testing.
f. Preparation of this report summarizing our findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

SITE DESCRIPTION
The subject site is located at the south end of the Vantage Point Terrace cul de sac (Figure 1). The existing site conditions are shown on the Geologic Map, Plate 1. The property consists of a generally level artificial fill building pad that descends down to John Tyler Drive. A descending fill slope is located to the east of the existing residence and descends down to the lower street grade. The descending slope is approximately 20 feet high at angles of approximately 2H:1V.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
Figure 1: Site Location Map

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
The proposed development consists of a manufactured ADU that is located in the flat area along the toe of the slope and John Tyler Drive. Foundation plans are included as SPA-24- 3F, Drawings 1 to 3. A perimeter footing will be provided around the structure and pier footings will be supported on concrete pads.

CITY RESEARCH
The City of Malibu files were researched via the OnBase Portal online public records system. For the subject site, soil reports were on file for the recently constructed pool and spa. The report and subsequent addendum were prepared circa late 2016. Per the report prepared by Schick Geotechnical, Inc. dated September 21, 2016, the lot was graded as part of Tract 30134 in the early 1970s and the home was constructed circa 1987. The original reports prepared by James E. Slosson & Associates for the graded tract were not available from the City of Malibu online public records system. However, portions of the reports were referenced in the addendum report by Schick Geotechnical, Inc. dated November 5, 2016.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724

GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS
Geologic conditions of the site were determined through research, field mapping, and subsurface exploration, and the results were superimposed on the Geologic Map, Plate 1.

During construction, a representative from GSC should be present to confirm the geologic conditions encountered on the site are consistent with those presented herein. The following sections present our findings concerning subsurface soil conditions, groundwater conditions, and expansion potential.

Regional Geologic Setting
The subject property is located within the southwestern portion of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic province of California. The Transverse Ranges consist of generally east-west trending mountains and valleys, which contrast with the north-northwest regional trend elsewhere in the state. The structure of the Transverse Ranges is controlled by the effects of north-south compressive deformation (crustal shortening), which is attributed to convergence between the big bend of the San Andreas fault north of the San Gabriel Mountains and the motion of the Pacific Plate. The valleys and mountains of the Transverse Ranges are typically bounded by a series of east-west trending, generally north dipping reverse faults with left-lateral oblique movement.

Local Regional Setting
The subject site is located within the Malibu Beach USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle. The site is underlain by approximately 20-feet of certified compacted fill and bedrock of the Sespe Formation. A Local Regional Setting Map is presented in Figure 2.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
Figure 2: Local Geologic Setting

SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The following sections present our findings concerning subsurface soil conditions and expansion potential of surficial site soils.

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.

Site Location
GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
Bedrock, Sespe Formation (Tsp): Bedrock was observed in TP-2. The bedrock consists of claystone and sandstone. The bedrock was observed via the hand auger and sampler at 20-feet and was grey, moist, moderately hard, and dense. The bedrock is suitable for structural support.

The enclosed test pits, which are included in Appendix A, provide a detailed description of the soil strata encountered in our subsurface exploration.

Expansion Potential and Chemical Content of Surficial Site Soils For preliminary foundation design purposes, the certified fill should be considered to have a low expansion potential with an expansion index of 34.

Chemical series was performed for the onsite soils. The results are presented in Appendix B.

The material has a moderate sulfate content and is severely corrosive to ferrous metals.

WATER
Surface Water
Surface water consists of sheet flow from precipitation falling directly on the site and landscape watering.

Groundwater
No groundwater was encountered in our test pits excavated on the site to a maximum depth of 20 feet. However, perched groundwater levels typically fluctuate and may vary in response to season, precipitation patterns, on or off-site construction activities, site utilization, and other factors. Groundwater is not anticipated to pose a problem during development of this site.

FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
The project site is not within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or FER-229. A portion of the Malibu Coast Fault is mapped across the southern portion of the property. As stated in the response letter by Schick Geotechnical, Inc. dated November 5, 2016, the fault was GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
determined to be inactive by Leighton and Associates. As a result, fault trench is not required on the site. However, this site has experienced earthquake-induced ground shaking in the past and can be expected to experience further shaking in the future.

Therefore, earthquake resistant design is recommended.

The site is not located within a zone of potential liquefaction; however, the fill slope on-site is located within a zone of potential seismic instability (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Seismic Hazard Zones of Required Investigation Seismic Design Criteria
The 2019 CBC (California Building Code) seismic coefficient criteria are provided here for structural design consideration (Table 1).

Under the Earthquake Design Regulations of Chapter 16, Section 1613 of the CBC 2019, and based on the mapped values, the following coefficients and factors apply to the lateralforce design for the proposed structure at the site. The site is underlain by compacted fill and Class D is recommended.

Site Location
GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
TABLE 1
2019 CBC SECTION 1613, EARTHQUAKE LOADS
Site Class Definition D
Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, Ss (Table 1613.3.1 for 0.2 second) 1.684 Mapped Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, S1 (Table 1613.3.1 for 1.0 second) 0.593 Site Coefficient, Fa (Table 1613.3.3(1) short period) 1.2 Site Coefficient, Fv (Table 1613.3.3(2) 1-second period) null Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter SMS (Eq. 16-37) 2.021 Adjusted Maximum Considered Earthquake Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter SM1 (Eq. 16-38) null Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SDS (Eq. 16-39) 1.347 Design Spectral Response Acceleration Parameter, SD1 (Eq. 16-40) null Notes: Location: Longitude: -118.7093, Latitude: 34.0367

1. Site Class Designation: Class D is recommended based on subsurface condition.

2. Ss, SMs, and SDs are spectral response accelerations for the period of 0.2 second.

3. S1, SM1, and SD1 are spectral response accelerations for the period of 1.0 second.

Conformance to the above criteria for seismic excitation does not constitute any kind of guarantee or assurance that significant structural damage or ground failure will not occur if a maximum level earthquake occurs. The primary goal of seismic design is to protect life and not to avoid all damage, since such design may be economically prohibitive. Following a major earthquake, a building may be damaged beyond repair, yet not collapse.

Secondary Earthquake Effects
Ground shaking produced during an earthquake can result in a number of potentially damaging phenomena classified as secondary earthquake effects. These secondary effects include ground rupture, landslides, lurching, seiches and tsunamis, seismicallyinduced settlement, and liquefaction. Descriptions of each of these phenomenons and how it could potentially affect the site are described below:

Ground Rupture
Ground surface rupture results when the movement along a fault is sufficient to cause a surface gap or rupture along the upper edge of the fault zone. Since there are no known active faults on the site, the potential for ground rupture is considered remote.

Landsliding
Landslides are slope failures that occur where the horizontal seismic forces act to induce soil and/or bedrock failures. The most common failure occurs by the reactivation or movement of a pre-existing landslide. Typically, existing slides that GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
are stable under static conditions (i.e., factor-of-safety at or greater than one) become unstable and move during strong ground shaking. The subject site is located in an earthquake induced landslide area as per the seismic hazard map of the Malibu Beach Quadrangle. However, the slope consists of a graded fill slope and slope stability analysis was not deemed necessary and has not been performed.

Seiches and Tsunamis
Seiches are generally caused by seismic excitation of a body of water, which causes surface oscillations that vary in period from a few minutes to several hours.

Tsunamis are large sea waves produced by submarine earthquakes or volcanic eruptions. Due to the proximity of the site relative to the ocean, seiches and tsunamis are not considered a hazard to the site.

Liquefaction – General
Liquefaction describes a phenomenon where cyclic stresses, which are produced by earthquake-induced ground motion creates excess pore pressures in cohesionless soils. These soils may thereby acquire a high degree of mobility, which can lead to lateral sliding, consolidation and settlement of loose sediments, sand boils, and other damaging deformation. This phenomenon occurs only below the water table, but after liquefaction has developed, it can propagate upward into overlying, nonsaturated soils as excess pore water escapes.

Liquefaction susceptibility is related to numerous factors and the following conditions must exist for liquefaction to occur: 1) sediments must be relatively young in age and must not have developed large amounts of cementation, 2) sediments must consist mainly of cohesionless sands and silts, 3) the sediments must not have a high relative density, 4) free groundwater must exist in the sediment, and 5) the site must be exposed to seismic events of a magnitude large enough to induce straining of soil particles.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
This site is outside of the designated area of liquefaction potential presented on the State of California Seismic Hazard Zone map. In addition, the site is underlain by compacted fill and bedrock. Therefore, it is our opinion that liquefaction is not considered a potential hazard on this site.

Seismic Settlement Analysis
Seismically-induced settlement in unsaturated (dry) and saturated soils generally occur due to the dissipation of pore pressure.

The potential for seismically-induced settlement is greatest in loose granular soils (i.e., sands, silty sands, sandy silts), whereas cohesive soils (i.e., clays and silts) are generally not prone to settlement. It should be realized that granular soils are susceptible to settlement during a seismic event whether the soils liquefy or not.

As discussed above, compacted fill and bedrock underlies the site and will be used to support the planned improvements. Therefore, seismic settlement is not considered to be a hazard to the site provided the recommendations contained in this report are followed during design and construction.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed development is feasible from a geologic and geotechnical engineering perspective, provided the recommendations contained herein are incorporated into the final design and construction phase of the proposed site improvements. All structures should satisfy current slope setback requirements.

GSC anticipates that the proposed site improvements consisting of the residence will be founded into compacted fill.

The recommendations provided in this report are applicable for improvements on the lot provided yard areas have positive drainage that is maintained away from the structures.

Therefore, it is important that information regarding drainage and site maintenance be passed on to future homeowners.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
As in most of Southern California, the site lies within a seismically-active area, therefore earthquake resistant structural design is recommended.

Site Preparation Recommendations
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. At this time, a grading plan is not available and should be forwarded to this office when complete. Grading guidelines are presented in Appendix C.

The following geologic and geotechnical recommendations for utility trench backfill, foundation design, and drainage should be incorporated into final design and construction.

All such work and design shall be in conformance with local governmental regulations or the recommendations contained herein, whichever is more restrictive.

FOUNDATION DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
We offer the following site-specific recommendations and comments for purposes of footing design and construction. All structures must satisfy current slope setback requirements per the 2019 CBC Section 1808.7. The proposed improvements should be founded into compacted fill.

All footing subgrades should consist of compacted fill. Under no circumstances should footings be cast atop loose, soft, or slough, debris, existing artificial fill, topsoil, or surfaces covered by standing water. We recommend that a representative of GSC verify the condition of all subgrades before any concrete is placed. The following recommendations are suitable for the proposed manufactured ADU.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
Foundation Criteria

1. An allowable soil bearing of 1,500 pounds per square foot may be used in the design of the perimeter footings founded into competent material. Perimeter footings should be continuous and should have a minimum width of 18 inches and a minimum embedment depth of 12 inches below lowest adjacent grade.

2. A coefficient of friction for concrete on competent soil of 0.3 and a lateral bearing value of 200 pounds per square foot per foot of depth may be employed to resist lateral loads. When combining passive pressure and frictional resistance, the passive pressure should be reduced by one third.

3. Seismic piers that support the raised floor should consist of adjustable jacks and be supported on a minimum 12 by 12 inch concrete pad, founded 6 inches into competent material and placed per manufacturer’s guidelines.

Utility Trenching and Backfill
Utility Trenching
Open excavations and excavations that are shored shall conform to all applicable Federal, State and local regulations.

Backfill Placement
Approved on-site or imported fill material shall be evenly placed, watered, processed, and compacted in controlled horizontal layers not exceeding eight inches in loose thickness, and each layer should be thoroughly compacted with approved equipment. All fill material should be moisture conditioned, as required to obtain at least optimum moisture, but not greater than 120 percent of optimum moisture content. The fill should be placed and compacted on a horizontal plane, unless otherwise recommended by the Geotechnical Engineer.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
Backfill Compaction Criteria
Each layer of utility trench backfill shall be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum laboratory density determined by ASTM D-1557-12. The field density shall be determined by the ASTM D-1556-07 method or equivalent. Where moisture content of the fill or density testing yields compaction results less than 90 percent, additional compaction effort and/or moisture conditioning, as necessary, shall be performed until the compaction criteria is reached.

Exterior Trenches Adjacent to Footings
Exterior trenches, paralleling a footing and extending below a 1H: 1V plane projected from the outside bottom edge of the footing should be compacted to 90 percent of the laboratory standard. Sand backfill, unless it is similar to the in-place fill, should not be allowed in these trench backfill areas. Density testing, along with probing, should be accomplished to verify the desired results.

Pipe Bedding
We recommend that a minimum of six inches of bedding material should be placed in the bottom of the utility trench. All bedding materials shall extend at least four inches above the top of utilities which require protection during subsequent trench backfilling. All trenches shall be wide enough to allow for compaction around the haunches of the pipe or materials, such as pea gravel, or controlled density fill (CDF) shall be used below the spring line of the pipes to eliminate the need for mechanical compaction in this portion of the trenches.

Construction Considerations
Erosion Control
Erosion control measures, when necessary, should be provided by the Contractor during grading and prior to the completion and construction of permanent drainage controls.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
Compaction Equipment
It is also the Contractor's responsibility to have suitable and sufficient compaction equipment on the project site to handle the amount of fill being placed and the type of fill material to be compacted. If necessary, excavation equipment should be shut down to permit completion of compaction in accordance with the recommendations contained herein. Sufficient watering devices/equipment should also be provided by the Contractor to achieve optimum moisture content in the fill material.

Final Grading Considerations
Care should be taken by the Contractor during final grading to preserve any berms, drainage terraces, interceptor swales, or other devices of a permanent nature on or adjacent to the property.

On-Site Drainage
Seasonal precipitation and/or landscape water should not be allowed to pond within the site, especially next to foundations of any structures. Surface runoff should be collected and disposed of in such a manner as to prevent concentrated erosion. Roof gutters, downspouts, and yard drains should be provided in accordance with the City of Malibu requirements. We recommend that all planters proposed adjacent to structures be selfcontained, provided with a subdrain system, and/or allowed to have positive drainage away from structure to drain excess landscape water.

LIMITATIONS
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional geotechnical engineering principles and practice for the City of Malibu at this time. We make no other warranty, either express or implied.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508
MDN 21724
The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions disclosed in our subsurface investigation. However, soil conditions can vary significantly between test pits; therefore, further refinements of our recommendations contained herein may be necessary due to changes in the building plans or what is encountered during site grading.

The recommendations provided in this report are applicable for preliminary development planning for the referenced lot provided that surface water will be kept from infiltrating into the subgrade adjacent to the house foundation system. This may include, but not be limited to rainwater, roof water, landscape water and/or leaky plumbing. We caution against constructing open draining planters adjacent to the houses or obstructing the yard drainage in any way.

Since our investigation was based on the site conditions observed, selective laboratory testing, and engineering analysis, the conclusions and recommendations contained herein are professional opinions. Further, these opinions have been derived in accordance with standard engineering practices, and no warranty is expressed or implied.

If the conditions encountered during grading are not consistent with the findings presented in this report, or if proposed construction is moved from the location investigated, this office shall be notified immediately so that the condition or change can be evaluated and appropriate action taken.
“111” STATEMENT
Provided that the recommendations in this report are implemented, it is GSC’s opinion that the proposed development will be safe from the hazards of landslide, settlement or slippage. Furthermore, the development will not adversely affect the stability of the adjacent properties nor be adversely affected by adjacent properties.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

MDN 21724
October 12, 2020
W.O. 7508

REFERENCES

1. Campbell, B.A., et al, undated, “Preliminary Geologic Map of the Point Dume Quadrangle, Los Angeles County, California, 70-53”

2. California Division of Mines and Geology, October 3, 1994, “Fault Evaluation Report FER 229, Malibu Coast Fault, Los Angeles County, California”

3. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 2001, “Seismic Hazard Report for the 7.5 Minute Malibu Beach Quadrangle, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California”

4. Dibblee, T.W., 1993, “Geologic Map of the Malibu Beach Quadrangle, Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, California”
GeoSoils Consultants Inc.

Attachment E
Two Pads

Attachment F
Building Permit Application
r
r
DocuSign Envelope ID: A33E91C9-90FD-453A-9C40-5AC6F7B3FBFE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER·BUII.Ol:R DECLARATION , hereby> illff'rrm under pe,nahy du11 I •rn c,_~fllPt ftom lhe Contr.tc;t0f'1 Ua,me ~ for U1t1 lollowt~ 1ahan tScai0t1 703L5 8ualtiP.D itnd t'rvfeukmi- Code: Anv cl.tv or coomv 'INhlch rrqulrH • pff'fnl\ to corntrlJC't, ;tlt'1', tn,pr0\1'11', dernl)!l,h. ot rrp1ir 1HtY >11\laure. pril)r 10 us 1u.u.1:mi;:t. i;ilso ,,:,qultn lhtt i~Uaru for t:.uch permit 10 (llt, fl 5lgncid 1ll1U!manl t.h1n ~ or the 1, lkctmiL'd pursu.1111"'11 lO provf1ion1 of 1t1e C(lf'luac:tot's Uc'--'"~ Lliw tQ\apll!r 9 lcommen.df'li whh Stttlan 7000) uf DhH~oo J cit 1he 8u,mcH and Pn>fou.1001 Code-) ot th111 he or >~ h 1:.-omo& lhet'Ufrom 10d the ~lb, tor 1hei •llrted :itt-mpllnn A11y vlolitlon of .)el.."liun 1031-$ try •H'f 4'f'Pfk4nl fot • pCH'mlt r.ubjea.l the- llpplicMit to • dYU PM,.ltyol not mote than Uwe hund~ dott.1rs lSSOO~.

D 1, n OWtll!f ol lht' p1opc!rt1'~ or n,v orupl~~ 'l'lnth Wil£.fl i:a, 1holr j(l(a comfH!tuoliiOO wdl do tho worL llillK'i Ille Utuctu1c ,,. pot in111ndod OI' l1ff11tr-nd fo, H1e f!iic«.1hm 704!,..~ Du~llOS.J lkld r,ofl!IL10ltiCodi,; The C:ontr1c1e,r'1 ~•,e Lilw doe1 nol iJfl~V lo an wmtlf ot PfOf)t!fl'( who bojld~ or lm~ 1hcnton, •nd who don Juth war .. hlm,eU or htttnU or 1hrou~ hh, ar ht:r own ernpb;t!e-s,. pn,vtdod 1hat ,uc:h lmp,~tn~lt.l a~ rlQt U'ltaud~ 0t o(fettd lor ultT d howtN«~ ll\t OOlfdlna o, ~n-J'1fCMtftU!nt Ii ~d within oni, 'ft'"' af comJMntJoo, thv owne,-bulldtH will n.ovc tt}c bu<den of pro11in11t1a1 ha ordut dill~ taulld" Qi lmprow for the f"ltJM)U'ot ul~j I. H ownC"r cl lht prop91y, m VMl1.1>1vv/y cootr.1cun11 whh Iii llccmad mn1rm,.a,- 10 tDfJHl\la th.t proJm, ISe:ctlun 7~4.. lluJims" and ,ro1nukvn Cod•: The Cbf11r·~atM", Ucon~ t..wiw d-'lft not 1p11l',I 10 an owntt d fl'Ol)Ct1V who buUt:b: Of Wnpr11'111• 1h1rt-eon. -od who contract.I fdf ,vd1 prot«h whh .t lk:en"'d con,~no,1,1 Jtur-want to the Contr1ctor 11 Uc.ns~ Liaw. □ 1 •rn CJ1ct.m.p1 l.uw:htr SotUMI _________ a.&.P C. for th,, r~ilOI'• Slsnotu.-. of Appllcont or Aflont Date
UCENSl:D CONTRACTOR DECLARATION I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that t am llcensed under provlson of Chapter 9 {commending wtth Section 7000) al OMsk>n 3 of ffle Business and Profnlk>ns COdt, and mv license Is In full fo,ce and effect.
--Doclull(lntd 11¥:
~N \,At::: 10/13/2022
ta:w7E4FM1!14'11ture of Appflcant or Agent Date

WORKERS' COMPENSATION DECLARATION
go~brl:~~4~~dc~t":~~:.'11~nnl}~r, ~"r:1t~: .. ·::D ':llow~:1';!,1-: 1 1o~~~~nuwa, for WOTi:ert' COfflpt!M,llfOn .,
p,av;,ted for by 1ei:t,on 3700 or the ubo< Code, foe th• .. r1""""''"' ol th• W<lf'I< for which thl, £.rrn:J1 r. .. ~;"'~-·1d wur ,nalntain WC)(i(er( comp.enudOf' lnwrance, ll'S raquired by wictk>o 3700 of 1he Ubof Code, fQf' thfl pm'formancc of lh& wtt,k fOf WhlCh 1hh- pe-rmh I, iuUt!d, MV WQl!kc,r( Wfflf141'1l.Ulkln lmunutte aml.l!.t 11'd rw,lff:V number re_ O,rrlef STATE COMPENSATION ISURANCE FUND
Policy NO, 9149029 Exp. 01/01/2023
cm1Jfy t'h,n 1n Hie rtfffolin11ncr of thl!' worl ol which thb permit I• iuued; I ioh111II nl'.>l ampfo,; 111y pt!non tn 1ny m~nne:r a,0 a co ~c ,ubj«1 10 1ht workl"fl. wrnPflls1111on li.ws ot OdilOtl"llt, and tiff'"® lh-il 11 t should b«On1ti ,ubJctcl to 1h.r: wurken,' com~iatr~• JlfCWl'Sik,,J Qt uiah .1111 3700 ol thr labol CuJ1!. 1 &h.<1_11 ionhwlth eampl', w11li thmc- pnwi11,0t1&. ~51gnod .. ,
10/13/2022
-7E•F'!flllfRt\Jro 0! Appllc-ont or A&&hl D•ll!
WARNlNG; FAILURF. 1'0 SECURE WORl(l"R§' COMPEN5Al'ION COVERAGE I< UN•LAWIU~ ANO SHALL SIJWECT AN l'.MPW1[~ TO CRIMINA.l PENALTIES ,\ND ClVll FINES IJP ro OtlE ltUNDI\ED TIIOUSAND OOUARS {$100,000) , IN ADOlllON TO Tll( COST or COMP£Nl-llTION QAMAGE$ 1\$ PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 3106 OF TMF LABOR CODE, lNltRUI, ~NO ATTO~NEY'S F[U, I or1t1flt lhlM I ha~IICI read 1hl1 appllt.tltM}fl .and ,1.1110 \h.at 1he 1tbove lnformaitlon l1 COl'n."CI-. I ;ivtt lo ,ompl1 wilh >II city nd county otdln neet ond mlc I.ow< rej11lng to IMJlldi"II conru,xll"ll ,nd hereby authof'b:ei t•p,-cs-entatlve"I of tho city to entt1 upon lhl .iibcwt me-nlJooe,d propc:nr for ln,-,~a.iun purpow1-
DocuSlo11tG bY:
~ 10/13/2022
FSlotT~•FMlllltjlli1un, of Applicant orAaenl Date
SIT£ADDRES5

CITY OF MALIBU
23825 STUART RANCH ROAD
MALIBU, CA 90265-4861

INSPECTION REQUEST
(310) 456-2489 X 312
www.mallbuclty.org/lnspectlon
24507 VANTAGE POINT TER

ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER
BOOK 4458 PAGE 033 PA.RCEl 006 - -- ADDJTIONAl INFORMATION/ IEGAL DESCRIPTION

PROPERTY OWNER
Helmut and Patricia Meissner
M,_IUNG ADDRESS
24507 Vantage Point Terreace
CITY
I

STATE I ZIP
Malibu CA 90265

PHONE NUMBER
1786) 208-5245
DESIGNER I LICENSE NO.

MAIUNG ADDRE5S

CITY I STATE I ZIP
PIIONl NUMBER

APPLICANT /CONT ACT
Coastal Inc., Coastal Roofing Co.

PHONE NUM.BER
!
EMAIL
(310) 455-2827 [email protected]

CONTRACTOR
Coastal Inc., Coastal Roofing Co.

MAILING ADDRESS
POBOX2531

CITY I STATE
I
ZIP
MALIBU CA 90265

PHONE NUMBER
1310) 455-2827

LICENSE CLASS
I
LICENSE NUMBER I EXPIRATION DAT£
C39 467886 10/31/2023
PLAN CHECK EXPIRES:

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
Rcroof ESFR, Main hous~ w/att,ichod garage.
47 squares, 4N 8;,oa,rlu nropos,te Wws 5'R a,,,
ASTM El08. GAF Vcrsashelld ES'R-205:3
.. 'g'2..M'A Hlt-h.l'~ t>~t.~ \\ii;
- ~U.. i>,.bof Vt.NW l\l'A\,\, ufol\t"" 'N\~
c..\\ ~~'L 1-~ \.~c.(!,0 nt
PLANNING FILE NO./ CDP NO.

I NO. OF STORl~S OCC. GROUP I lYPE(S) OF CONSTRUCTION
R-3 VB

SQUARE FOOTAGE FIRE SPRINKURS
No
STATISTICAL CLASSIFICATION UNIT(SI I cooe 1N EFFECT
NO. 439 1 IACO 2020

SPECIAL CONDITIONS
$ 132,360.00 $

INITIAL VALUATION REVISED VALUATION
PIAN CHECK FEE s
ADDITIONAL PLAN CHECK FEE $
PLAN CHECK NO. INITIALS DATE
CK#
ADD'L PLAN CHECK NO. INITIAIS DIITE
C:K#
Building Permit Fee $563.75
Document Retention Fee $8.00
Admln Fee $51.25
B.S.S. $6.00
B.S.S.M.I $17.21
Tech Fee $39.46
TOTAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE $685.67

PERMIT NUMBER INITIALS JG DATE
22-1702 CK# 10/13/2022
FINAlEDBY DATE
PERMIT IS A PUBLIC RECORD IF NO WORK IS COMMENCE.D, PERMIT EXPIRES: 10/13/2023 a,
C
;::
52 2
C,
.,,
m
::11:1
3::
~
> .,,
.,,
,-
s
i5
2 -
Attachment G
Development Checklist
City ofMalibu
Coastal Development Permit
Submittal Checklist
NOTE To submit a new application with the City of Malibu Planning Department, all required items as specified by City Staff on the Submittal Checklist, including application fees and those materials required by City Departments, must be provided at the time of submittal. Incomplete application submittals WILL NOT be accepted. An appointment is required for submittals. For an appointment, call 310-456-2489, ext. 485, or email mplanning~matibucity.org. See the New Application Submittal Guide for more information. For more information, visit the Planning Department website.

A complete submittal shall consist of the following City I County Department reviews, submittal Date
Address / Location:

Project Description:
~.~~:~‘- ~~ ~
-. — ~ Staff~On1y~-’GeneraI~Project Information ~. -
Fees: • CDP LeveL:__L $ ‘~ • SPR $___________ MM $___________ . VAR $ • Other $_____________ • Other $_____________
*The City wiLl charge a service fee for credit card transactions.

Woolsey Fire Fee Waiver: Project Eligible
Requires the foLLowing discretionary requests:,
Project IneLigibLe (aLl fees apply)
documents, and fees:

PLanning
Archaeological Survey
if needed, submit as separate application.

Guide
City Biologist
City EnvironmentaL HeaLth
City Public Works Department
City GeotechnicaL Staff Review
City CoastaL Engineer Review
Code Enforcement Review
~Los AngeLes County Water District
C Users rcarr Desktop PLN COP Submittal Checklist 3102020 docx Version 1.0 Standard Requirements
~
-• ~ .~ ~ ~~
~Pe~cnptio ~ ~ Re.quired. ~ .S~ibrnitted
1 SubmittaL CheckList V
2 Uniform AppLication V
3 Proof of Ownership V
4 Letter of Authorization V
5 DecLaration Regarding PreviousLy Issued CoastaL DeveLopment Permits & Deed Restrictions 6 Grading Yardage Verification Certificate OR Letter stating none proposed 7 AppLication Fees V
8 CD or Thumbdrive of ALL Documents V
9 Hardcopy Sets of PLans V
See Project Plan Requlrem ents
Digital Submittal

8. A CD or thumbdrive, which will not be returned, of all submittal materials is required with the exception of the Uniform Application and Submittal Checklist. All documents should be saved as an Adobe PDF. -Each document shall be saved as a separate PDF. All documents should be numbered in the corresponding order of the submittal checklist, preferably titled with the same subject matter. For example:

3. Proof of Ownership

4. Letter of Authorization

5. Declaration Regarding previously issued CDPS & Deed Restrictions 5a. Coastal Commission Permit_1992
5b. Coastal Commission Permit_i 996

6. Grading Yardage Verification
-Plans shall be grouped and named by discipline (e.g. architectural, grading, civil, etc.).

C Users rcarr Desktop PLN CDP Submittal Checklist 3102020 docx 2 Version 1.0 Discretionary Requests Requirements
‘ ~. ~. ~ ~.-~‘ ~ ~~
~Jtem#~’ ~Descnptidn ~ .3k.. ‘c ~-J~ ~R~quired ~ ~-Submitted ~ -~ ~ c .~ ‘~ ~ 10 Written Statement(s) Justifying EACH
~: Discretionary Request
~ D U
Biological I Landscape Requirements
~ ~~ ~‘~Z:~-~ ~. ~Y’ ~~-r ~-ltem #~ Descnption ~‘—~≥J ~ “~—~ - - — ~- Required ~Submitted ~ -~c~_ ~ , ~_~4- -‘ ~ ~~., - ~ -~ - .-
11 Landscape Plan, Hardscape, Fence Plan OR Letter stating none proposed U 12 Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance
Documentation Package 11
a. cover Sheet - u
b. Water Budget Calculation Worksheet . — Q
c. Landscape Design Plan — U
d. Soil Report —
e. Irrigation Design Plan —
Outdoor Lighting Submittal Requirements
~•~,;~~ .. —
~1tem # c. l~esci~iption ,.~ ~Re~ç~ired ‘ Submitted
. ~ ~ ~
13 Outdoor Lighting Plan OR Letter stating none proposed U 14 Outdoor Lighting PLan shaLL include: U
a. Site Plan depicting the location of existing (e) and proposed (n) outdoor light fixtures — U
b. Manufacturer Specifications! Fixture Exhibit
incLuding detaiLs regarding the lumen counts and Kelvin for — each fixture
d. A photometric plan —
Beachfront Lots Submittal Requirements
._J .~— —~ ‘~.. ~Zc~’ -.~ ‘ - .. ~ - -~ —
Jt~m # ~~çnp~tion ~ ~equj~d S4~nijt~
15 PubLic Beach Access Locations/Information ~ U U
CA State Lands Commission Determination Letter 16 U u
C Users\rc~rr DesLtop~PLN COP Submittal ChecLitat 3102020 docx 3 Version 1.0 Project
—
Plan Requirements
17 Project PLans
a. Cover Sheet
b. Site Survey
c. Site Plan
d. Architectural Plans
e. Demolition Plan
f. Preliminary Foundation Plan
18 Grading, Drainage, Erosion and Storm Water
Management PLan OR Letter Stating None Propose
19 CoLor-coded SLope AnaLysis Q C
20 Landscape PLan (see Item #11) NA NA
21 Irrigation PLans (see Item #12) NA NA
Plan Size and Quantities - In addition to a digital version, the following shall be submitted:
• Two (2) 24” x 36” size hardcopy sets dimensioned to %“ = 1’ or %“ = 1’ scale and collated stapled and folded
• One additional set of plans per review from each department • Coded Slope Analysis — One (1) original 24” x 36” color copy • Landscape plan — Three (3) 24” x 36” size hardcopy sets dimensioned to %“ 1’ or %“ = 1’ scale and collated stapled and folded. (2 for City Biologist / I for Planning Staff) • Irrigation Design Plan — Three (3) 24” x 36” size hardcopy sets dimensioned to %“ = 1’ or %“ = I’ scale and collated stapled and folded. (2 for City Biologist / I for Planning Staff) • Requirements for each type of plan is provided for in the Submittal Document Guide.

C Users~rcarr\Desktop PLN CDP Submittal Checklist 3(02020 docs 4 Version 1.0 • ~• ~ ~ ~‘~‘r a a a a a
t #‘cA ~, t~ Jz.~c~t 5t~ ~ ~ •~y’~ DO A! a o~D ~ ~ W
~ ~ S’-’ Y~ n ‘.
~Lt ~ - ,.*
•D~ A1 ——
I. — I
— I—Il
a — — I—I.
• - I • — II
• A
I •~ — I i.
• I • • I .1
I. — • —. I
I. I
~~ ~•::~:e• ~~$ ~ !j; ::s~~ ~~~c~.i~j;C-’ •C
•i~c •c,.V~-?*s~ -~..
ii I — I •
.

I I I •I~I •~ A
— S I . I — I
• A• .1
I P~•I
II S
I • .1 .
.

A11 • -
-‘ b~-::~t’. .~F ~~T~fY~q~ .4- trnfl.. ~ ~
•—• ••~ A •
4 I — I — S I a a
• a
•
• a
• •
• a
• a
• a
• a
a a
• a
a a
a a
a a
a a
• a
a a
a a
City Department Requirements
If a Department is marked as ‘Required” on page 1 of this form, please obtain fees and comments from each Department in the designated boxes below.

City Biologist Review
City Public Works Department Review
o Review required! No fee /Review required I Fee required oLevel_$
Comments:

Required Documents:

Biological Report Submittal Guide & Other Landscaping Requirements I
o Review required I No fee
o Public Works Review = $
o Traffic Review = $_______
Land Division = $________
Comments:

I
eview required I Fee required
Required Documents:

Public Works Proiect Plans and ReDort Reauirement
C Users rcarr Desktop PLN COP Subm,ttal Checkl,st 3102020 dec-s 7 Version 1.0 +City Department Requirements
If a Department is marked as “Required” on page 1 of this form, please obtain fees and comments from each Department in the designated boxes below.

City Environmental Health Administrator Review (for staff use only) Initials: Date:________ o Review required I No fee o Review required I Fee required o No Review Required o No Review required: Defer to Building Plan Check TOTAL:__________ o Non~OWTS* Review Simple $833 o OWTS* Review-Complex $2,187 o OWTS* Complex Commercial $7,080
o OWTS* Complex 3rd Party Review $4000 (710 Account) n Operating Permit Fee:_______ o Hourly fee = $_________ Document Retention Fees o $26 and/or o $6 *Onsite Wastewater Treatment System (OWTS)
Comments:

Environmental Health Submittal Requirements
Item # ... De~cnption Requir~d R~i~d~U~6ri Submitted
~ ~‘ 2. ~
Upon ‘ -Deeming ~ç “~ ~1 -~t ~ *~‘. 4
SubmittaL CompLete
EH ~ Project Plans (see Project Plans under Project Plan . - Requirements) LI LI LI Grading Plans (see Grading, Drainage, Erosion and
EH.2 Storm Water Management Plan under Project Plan LI LI Requirements)
LandscapelHardscapellrrigation Plans (see
EH 3 Landscape Plan and Landscape Water Conservation LI . Ordinance Document Package under Biological /
Landscape Requirements)
EH.4 Certified/Original Fixture Unit Worksheet LI LI LI EH.5 OWTS Plot Plan LI LI LI
EH.6 Prohibition Policy Acknowledgment Form C LI C
EH.7 OWTS Inspection Report LI LI LI
EH.8 Operating Permit Required El C LI
EH.9 Compliance Agreement LI C LI
EH.10 QWTS Design Report LI El C
EH.11 Soils Analysis / Percolation / Infiltration Report LI LI LI EH.12 OWTS Supporting Geology / Soils Report LI LI LI
EH 13 Architect/Engineer Certification for Reduction In . Setbacks to Buildings or Structures : LI LI LI
EH.14 Geotechnical Report C C C
EH.15 Hydrogeological Report (Water Wells) LI LI LI
EH 16 Coastal Engineer Report (Beachfront Property Only) LI LI LI C Users rc017 Desktop PLN CDP Submittal Checklist 3102020 dccx 8 Version 1.0 City Geotechnical Staff Review (for staff use only) Initials: Date:__________ ‘.5
GEO.1
Grading Plans (see items #17,#18 under GEO.2 Project Plan Requirements) El El El : Landscape/Hardscapellrrigation Plans
GEO.3 (items #19,#20 under Project Plan El El El
Requirement)
GEO.4 QWTS Plot Plan El El El
GEO.5 OWTS Design Report El El El
GEO.6 Soils Analysis / Percolation / Infiltration Report El El El GEO.7 OWTS Supporting Geology / Soils Report El El El
GEO. 8 Architect/Engineer Certification for Reduction In Setbacks to Buildings or Structures El El El GEO.9 Geotechniôal Report El El
GEO.10 Hydrogeological Report (Water Wells) El El El
GEQ.11 Otheritems: El El El
Review required I No tee
Fees
o Level:_ $_____________
Comments:
oReview required I Fee required
o Document Retention $26
TOTAL:

Required Documents:

Time & Materials + 30% = $_________
~
-‘0~_
- •-~zs’~ ~
-•
Project Plans (see item #16 under Project
Plan Reauirement) El
C Users~rcaee Desktop PLN CDP Submittal Checklist 3102020 docx 9 Version 1.0 City Coastal Engineer Review (Beachfront Properties) Initials: Date:__________ Item Description Required Upon
SubmittaL
Required Upon
Deeming
CompLete
Submitted
Version 1.0
ci Review required I No fee ci Review required I Fee required TOTAL:__________ ci Reports required (2 copies, wet-stamped with wet-signature by a registered coastal I civil engineer, and CD and Electronic Signature Page)
ci Complex $3,236 ci Standard $1,618 Minor $750 ci Hourly fee =$_____ ci Document Retention $26
Comments:

Required Documents:

Coastal Enaineerina Reoort Submittal Reauirements
Co.1 Project Plans (see item #16 under
Project Plan Reciuirement) C LI U
CO 2 Grading Plans (see items #17,#18
• under Project Plan Requirements) C - C LI
~ LandscapelHardscapellrrigation
CO.3 Plans (items #19,#20 under Project LI C C
Plan Requirement)
~ Coastal Engineer Report (Beachfront
• Property Only) C C C
CO.5 Geotechnical Report o C C
CO.6 OWTS Plot Plan C C LI
CO.7 OWTS Design Report C C LI
CO.8 SoHs Analysis / Percolation / Infiltration C C C
CO.9 OWTS Supporting Geology I Soils C C
Architect/Engineer Certification for
COb Reduction In Setbacks to Buildings or Q LI C
Structures
COIl Otheritems: C LI C
C Users rcarr Desktop PLN COP Submittal Checklist 3102020 docx 10 Code Enforcement Review
u Review required I No fee n Review required I Fee required D Hourly fee =$_____
Code Enforcement Officer Signature:_______________________________________________ Date _________ Comments:

STAFF USE ONLY
Complete Submittal Date: ___________________________________________________________________ By:
(Print Name, Title)
Note: A conformance review will begin after the time of submittal, and additional documentation may be requested.

C Users rcarr Desktop PLN CDP Submittal Checklist 3102020 docx 11 Version 1.0 Attachment H
Trees
Orange Tree
Cedar Trees
Cedar Trees
Alternate View
Date: Description: By: APN: 4468-033-006 Malibu, CA 90265 2025-12-29 FIRE DEPARTMENT NOTES:

General Cross Section Detail
Scale: Not to Scale
Roof: Class A Fortfiber Aqua Bar Roof Underlayment
and Mediterranean Brava Tiles

ROOF COVERINGS

FBU - VHFHSZ
All roof coverings shall be Class ""A"" as specified in Building Code 1505.1.1 (Residential Code R327.5.2 & R902)

ROOF VALLEYS

FBU - VHFHSZ
Roof valley flashings shall be not less than 0.019-inch (No. 26 galvanized sheet gage) corrosion-resistant metal installed over a minimum 36-inch wide underlayment consisting of one layer of No. 72 ASTM cap sheet meeting running the full length of the valley. (Residential Code R327.5.3 and Building Code 705A.3)

ROOF GUTTERS

FBU - VHFHSZ
Roof gutters shall be provided with a means to prevent the accumulation of leaves and debris in the gutter. (Residential Code R327.534 and building Code 705A.4)

BRUSH CLEARANCE

FBU - VHFHSZ
Clearance of brush and vegetative growth shall be maintained per Fire Code 325 ACTION
Allura Cement Board Siding
See Detail (Typical)
WUI Approved Kinro
Tempered Windows
(Typical)
WUI Approved Thermatru
Exterior Doors (Typical)
\
I
\
\

GRAPHIC SCALE
\
\
GRATE
CURB
INLET
I I" P/ Lt"
TR.EE
I
I
/
,~LI-JL-'11:-•:.• _j_'i 20 40
l __ ~I
( IN FEET )
1 inch = 10 ft.

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
LOT 85, AS SHOWN ON TRACT NO. 30314 AS RECORDED IN
MAPBOOK 820 OF MAPS PAGES I 5-22 OF LOS ANGELES
COUNTY RECORDS.

SURVEYOR'S NOTES
I. ELEVATIONS ARE ON ASSUMED DATUM.

2. ONLY TREES G" AND ABOVE WERE LOCATED ON THIS
SURVEY, SMALLER TREES AND SHRUBS ARE NOT SHOWN.

3. DISTANCES SHOWN HEREON AREA EXPRESSED IN FEET AND
DECIMALS THEREOF.

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'
\_WOOD
FENCES
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

3.B3'
\__HEDGE

CHAIN-LINK
FENCE
N
\
\
I
~
3 •. r:f.J
I
I
I
I
I
CURB
INLET
3 z.ZZ
GRATE
I
I
O A3 3 •
--
~rt
3~
--- ____ -322.00- _,,,
,----3\B-00---
'v

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE
I
I
I, KACIE A. PLOUFF, CERTIFY THAT I AM LICENSED AS A

PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYOR IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
(REF. NO. 90 13)

I FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT REPRESENTS THE RESULTS OF

A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY CONDUCTED UNDER MY SUPERVISION
AT THE REQUEST OF THE CLIENT.

LANO
~ KACIE A. i
o. PLOUff * * No, 9013 ~ N
KACIE A. PLOUFF, PLS 9013
::,
"'
::,
<(
"'
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
PROJECT NO.
'A-18-078
SHEET NO.
1 OF 1
Orange
Tree
11' Cedar Tree
16' Cedar Tree
9' Cedar Tree
City of Malibu
Planning Department
ATTN: Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director 23825 Stuart Ranch Rd
Malibu, CA 90265
January 19, 2026
Re: RPPL2023003558 – CDP Application 21-045 – 24507 Vantage Point Terrace Alternatives Analysis
Dear Malibu Planning Staff,
In response to questions, comments, and concerns raised in the Staff Report for the above-referenced project application, please see below/attached an updated and expanded Alternatives Analysis demonstrating the impracticality/infeasibility of constructing an ADU on the upper building pad.

Proposed Location: Existing Lower Building Pad
Here we have the applicant’s proposed location on the lower building pad at the toe of the slope, in the northeast corner of the property adjacent to John Tyler Drive. Each exhibit delineates the 26-foot front yard setback (shown in red), 4-foot rear and side reduced setbacks allowed pursuant to State ADU Law (shown in black), and the sanitary and storm drain easement that dominate the North side of the property (shown in gray). A slope separates the existing upper and lower building pads. This lower building pad that has been present since at least 1980 and therefore does not involve the creation of a new pad or alteration of natural landforms. Siting the ADU here places development in the least visible portion of the property, avoiding impacts to public coastal views and private views alike, and is more consistent with Coastal Act and LIP policies favoring reduced visual impacts than any alternative location. This location represents the only feasible and compliant site, and satisfies State ADU law, Coastal Act policies, and applicable local standards while avoiding environmental, visual, and neighborhood impacts.
1stAlternate Location: Over the pool, over the slope
As implied in the staff report, the pool could theoretically be removed and the ADU sited there, “given that the existing building pad is sufficient in size to support other existing uses including a pool, spa, and wooden deck.” However, there is insufficient area to support the proposed ADU. LCP (D)(6)(c) states, “No structure, excluding walls and fences, shall extend beyond, or be 2 cantilevered over, any downhill slope extending from the existing building pad.” Given that there must be a 6-foot building setback per the LCP 3.6(R)(b) “Distance Between Accessory and Main Buildings. A minimum distance of six feet shall be required between any main residential building and an accessory building established on the same lot or parcel of land.” The East-facing living room features a prominent bay window that provides primary light, air, and view to the residence. Light, air, and views would all be blocked by the presence of the ADU, even if it were to fit. This placement, however, results in roughly half of the area of proposed ADU 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.
2nd Alternate Location: Over the property line
Along the southeastern side, behind the garage and adjacent to the Primary (Master) Bathroom, there is a right triangle of area where it might be assumed that an ADU could be sited. This second alternate shows clearly how after accounting for the master bath’s bay window and the required 6-foot building setback, there is not nearly enough space to squeeze the ADU between the house and the property line, even with the benefit of State ADU law side yard setback reductions. The other half would spill into the setback and over the property line.

Therefore, this location is not feasible.

Conclusion
Based on the above analysis, the proposed location appears to be the only feasible location for the proposed ADU, consistent with State ADU law and relevant local ordinances. The proposed location is situated within the allowable front, rear, and side yard setbacks and easements, as required by State ADU law. It does not intrude into neighboring properties. It is not cantilevered over the slope and does not require any non-exempt landform alteration/grading. This location involves the least visible portion of the property, and satisfies State ADU law, Coastal Act policies, and applicable local standards while minimizing environmental, visual, and neighborhood impacts. Thank you for your time and attention to this application.

Sincerely,
Keystone Strategic Planning
Matt Jewett
Principal
3 Proposed Location: Lower Building Pad

4 1st Alternate Location: Over the pool, over the slope 5 2nd Alternate Location: Over the property line
February 6, 2026
City of Malibu
Planning Department
ATTN: Magda Gonzalez, Contract Senior Planner
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: CDP Application 21-045 – 24507 Vantage Point Terrace – Variance Application and Findings
Dear City Planning Staff,
As outlined in the Staff Report, the subject property is a rectangular-shaped lot located on the inland side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) adjacent to John Tyler Drive. The subject property is situated within the Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Overlay District. 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 a flatter portion of the site. The existing building pad is also occupied by a swimming pool, spa, and wooden deck located immediately to the rear of the existing residence.

The subject application proposes a 594 square-foot, 11-foot 2-inch high ADU/Second Unit on the existing second building pad located on the southeasterly portion of the property abutting John Tyler Drive. While it remains the applicant’s understanding that State ADU law would not require a Variance application to approve the proposed ADU, we believe that the necessary Variance findings can be made to approve the proposed development under the provisions of the LCP.

The MCE Overlay standards confine development to one building pad per parcel and require a 15-foot rear yard setback. This Variance application requests relief from the following two (2) MCE Overlay standards and includes written findings justifying these requests:

A. There shall be no more than one building pad per lot LIP 3.4.1 (D)(6)(b).

We seek relief to utilize an existing/legally established second building pad.

B. Rear yard setbacks shall be at least 15 feet LIP 3.4.1 (D)(2)(c).

In order to site the ADU on the existing second building pad, we seek relief from the MCE rear yard setback of 15 feet, in compliance with LCP Variance allowances and State ADU law, to provide a rear yard setback of no less than 4 feet.

ATTACHMENT 4
2 Variance Findings for Development on a Second Legally Established Building Pad and Reduced Rear Yard Setbacks:

The subject application proposes a new ADU on a second legally established building pad.

Siting for the ADU is constrained by an existing pair of easements located on the northern 25% of the property. Additionally, the property includes two existing flat areas that meet the MCE Overlay’s definition of “building pads”, which are separated by a manufactured slope. All natural slopes on the subject property were graded in conjunction with the establishment of the subdivision, which constitutes a single development area under the LCP’s definition of “Development Area”, which includes all graded slopes. Please see below the mandatory variance findings per LIP Section 13.26.5.

A. 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. a. Findings for Second Building Pad:
i. The subject property 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 easement encumbrances substantially reduce the buildable area in a manner not shared by surrounding parcels. Were it not for these easements, the ADU could likely be sited on the same building pad as the primary residence, thus not requiring utilization of the lower building pad.
ii. The property further contains two historically graded building pads, documented in aerial photography dating back to 1980. The lower building pad is separated from the primary pad by an existing manufactured slope and is physically suitable for development.
iii. The lower building pad meets the definition of LIP 3.4.1(D)(6)(d) “a building pad shall be defined as a single, continuous, graded area, not exceeding 3 percent in slope, designed to accommodate development.” b. Findings for Rear Yard Setback:
i. Strict application of LIP 3.4.1(D)(2)(c) “Rear yard setbacks shall be at least 15 feet” would require siting the ADU not on the lower building pad, but up 3 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

3.4.1(D)(8)(b) “No grading shall be permitted for the purpose of extending the existing building pad.” 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 District requirements for no extension of existing pads.
ii. Since strict application would require non-exempt grading, the LCP encourages such setback modifications prescribed by the Variance process.

LIP 3.6 (F)(5) states, “Modifications to required yards/setbacks standards shall be permitted where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources.” The proposed siting for the ADU, within the identified 15 ft. rear yard setback, allows for no new landform alteration consistent with the purpose and goals of the LCP.
iii. This would also fulfill the purpose of CHAPTER 8. “The purpose of the Grading Ordinance is to ensure that new development minimizes the visual and resource impacts of grading and landform alteration.” Figure 1 below shows the proposed ADU siting with variances for setback and second building pad, allowing siting fully on the lower building pad. Figure 2 shows the infeasibility of siting the ADU on the lower building pad without rear yard setback relief. 4 Figure 1
Figure 2
Based upon the foregoing, strict application of the LCP would deprive the property of reasonable development privileges enjoyed by similarly zoned parcels that do not suffer from comparable easement constraints and topographic conditions. 5 B. 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. a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. The City Biologist has reviewed and approved the project, finding it consistent with the City’s goals and policies for biological resource protection.
iv. The proposed development has been reviewed and approved by City geotechnical staff, confirming that the site is geologically suitable for development, meeting the threshold set in LIP 9.3 “A Coastal Development Permit for the proposed development shall only be granted if the City’s decision making body is able to find that: 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; 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; 3. The project, as proposed or as 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; 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.”
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.
6 C. The granting of the variance will not constitute a special privilege to the applicant or property owner.
a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. Second Units are Permitted Uses in the SF Zone (LIP Table B). ii. The subject property is subject to unusual physical and legal constraints not shared by surrounding properties, including large utility easements occupying the northern quarter of the lot and a unique landform consisting of two legally established building pads divided by a slope within one approved development area as defined in LIP section 2.1 “DEVELOPMENT AREA – the approved portion of a project site that is developed, including the building pad and all graded slopes, all structures, and parking areas.” These conditions significantly limit feasible building locations. iii. A variance 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.
iv. The proposed ADU, 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.

D. 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.
a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. 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. ii. The project is located away from ESHA, marine resources, and sensitive visual resources.
iii. By utilizing an existing graded pad, the project protects coastal resources as demonstrated above while fulfilling the LCP’s purpose. “1.2. PURPOSE The purpose of this article is to implement the policies of the California Coastal Act of 1976, to carry out the policies of the City of Malibu Land Use Plan, and to:
7 (A). Assure orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources, taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of this City and of the State.”
(b) Protect, maintain, and where feasible, enhance and restore the overall quality of the coastal zone environment and its natural and manmade resources.
(c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.”
Based upon the foregoing, the proposed siting protects and maintains public access to coastal resources while balancing social and economic needs of the people regarding affordable housing and private property rights, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Malibu Local Coastal Program.

E. 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. a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. The subject property is located inland of Pacific Coast Highway in a fully developed residential neighborhood. No Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (ESHA) are located on the site or in the immediate vicinity. No ESHA standards or buffers are implicated by the proposed development.

F. For variances to stringline standards, that the project provides maximum feasible protection to public access as required by Chapter 12 of the Malibu LIP. a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. The subject property 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.

G. 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.
8 a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. The subject property is zoned Single-Family Residential (SF). Pursuant to LCP Table B, second units (ADUs) are a permitted accessory use in the SF zone. The existing single-family residence establishes the primary use and therefore, the ADU/Second Unit may be permitted as an accessory use. ii. The surrounding neighborhood is developed with single-family residences, and the proposed ADU is consistent with the existing land use pattern and the intent of the SF zone to maintain low-density residential development that respects surrounding properties and the natural environment.

H. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. The proposed ADU site is located on a flat, historically graded pad at the toe of the slope in the rear portion of the property that requires no site grading to establish a new or extended pad.
ii. The site has been reviewed and approved by the project geologist and City geotechnical staff.
iii. The requested variance results in reduced landform alteration, avoidance of slope disturbance, and minimized environmental impacts.

I. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law. a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. The proposed ADU complies with the Malibu Local Coastal Program and Malibu Municipal Code including provisions related to the required findings for these Variances.
ii. The project is consistent with the goals and requirements of State ADU law, including the setback standards authorized by Government Code section 66321(b)(3).
iii. The project is consistent with Government Code Section 65580 as it pertains to balancing housing needs (including low-income housing objectives) and is consistent with State Housing law and the California Coastal Act. (d) “Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and development of housing to 9 make adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments of the community, and conservation goals within the Coastal Zone.” J. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007) a. Second Building Pad & Rear Yard setback:
i. The subject property is located in a residential cul-de-sac and contains no public parking facilities.
ii. No public parking spaces are proposed to be removed or altered by the project.
iii. Accordingly, the granting of the requested variances would not reduce or eliminate public parking for access to beaches, public trails, or parkland.

For the reasons set forth above, the requested Variances are fully supported by the required findings and are consistent with the Malibu Local Coastal Program, Malibu Municipal Code, the California Coastal Act, and applicable state housing and ADU law.

The proposed ADU is sited on an existing, historically graded, legally established building pad in a manner that minimizes environmental and visual impacts, avoids slope disturbance and unnecessary grading, protects coastal resources, preserves public access, and balances resource conservation with the reasonable use of private property.

Based upon the foregoing, it appears that with the incorporation of these Variance findings, the ADU may be approved strictly under the provisions of the Malibu LCP, without the City’s reliance on State ADU law and/or questions of interpretation surrounding the implementation of State law. Therefore, we respectfully request approval of the subject CDP application.

Sincerely,
Keystone Strategic Planning
Matt Jewett
Principal
ATTACHMENT 5

BIOLOGY REVIEW

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

TO: City of Malibu Biologist
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 9/23/2021
JOB ADDRESS: 24507 VANTAGE POINT TER
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Matt Jewett, Keystone Strategic Planning APPLICANT ADDRESS: 4859 West Slauson Avenue
APPLICANT PHONE #: (425)753-6115
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) ADU with Minor Modification for rear yard setback modification.

Los Angeles, CA 90056
PROJECT NUMBER: ACDP 21-045
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: Didier Murillo
TO:

The project review package is INCOMPLETE and; CANNOT proceed through Final Planning Review until corrections and conditions from Biological Review are incorporated into the proposed project design
(See Attached).

The project is APPROVED, consistent with City Goals & Policies associated with the protection of biological resources and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

The project may have the potential to significantly impact the following resources, either individually or cumulatively: Sensitive Species or Habitat, Watersheds, and/or Shoreline Resources and therefore Requires Review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).

Signature Date
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of plan revision Contact Information:

Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 10/06/2021
X
10/6/21
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Matt Jewett, Keystone Strategic Planning
[email protected]
Project Address: 24507 VANTAGE POINT TER
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: ACDP 21-045
Project Description: (N) ADU with Minor Modification for rear yard setback modification
Date of Review: October 6, 2021
Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext 277 Email: [email protected]

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 9/23/21
Site Survey: 9/23/21
Landscape Plan:

Hydrozone Plan:

Irrigation Plan:

Fuel Modification Plan:

Grading Plan:

OWTS Plan:

Bio Assessment:

Bio Inventory:

Native Tree Survey:

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous:

Previous Reviews:

REVIEW FINDINGS
Review Status: INCOMPLETE: Additional information and/or a response to the listed review comments is required.

APPROVED: The project has been approved with regards to biological impacts.

CANNNOT APPROVE AS SUBMITTED: The proposed project does not conform to the requirements of the MMC and/or LCP.

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
ACDP 12-006
24507 Vantage Point Terrace
October 6, 2021

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The project is recommended for APPROVAL with the following conditions:

A. 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 square feet 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.

B. 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.

C. 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 feet (300 feet 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.

D. 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. -o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity.org .

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW SHEET
Project Information
Date: February 8, 2022 Review Log #: 4811
Site Address: 24507 Vantage Point Terrace
Lot/Tract/PM #: n/a Planning #: ACDP 21-045
Applicant/Contact: Matt Jewett, [email protected] BPC/GPC # Contact Phone #: 425-753-6115 Fax #: Planner: To be Determined Project Type: New pre-manufactured accessory dwelling unit (ADU) Submittal Information
Consultant(s)/Report
Date(s):
(Current submittal(s) in Bold.)
GeoSoils Consultants, Inc. (Miller, GE 2257; Ruberti, CEG 1708):
12-15-2021 (revised 1-14-2022), 10-12-2020
Architectural plans prepared by Keystone Strategic Planning dated October 20, 2020.

Structural plans prepared by Chapman Home Builders, Inc. dated April 30, 2020 (in geotechnical report).

Previous Reviews: 10-11-2021
Review Findings
Coastal Development Permit Review
The proposed ADU is APPROVED from a geotechnical perspective, with the following comments to be addressed prior to building plan check stage approval.

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

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

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

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

Remarks
The referenced response geotechnical report was reviewed by the City from a geotechnical perspective.

The project includes the construction of a new 623 square foot pre-manufactured ADU adjacent to John Tyler Road on the property. R & R grading is proposed.

City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL26211) – 2 –
Review Comments:

None.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review Comments:

1. Please provide a plan check review fee of $1,016.00 for City geotechnical staff to review the plans upon Building Plan Check submittal.

2. Please submit a grading plan that implements the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations for removal and re-compaction grading (upper 3 feet of previously compacted fill to be removed and recompacted to a minimum of 3 feet beyond the ADU footprint).

3. A drainage plan prepared by a licensed civil engineer is to be included as part of the plans.

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

5. Prior to final approval of the project, an as-built compaction report prepared by the Project Geotechnical Consultant must be submitted to the City for review. The report must include the results of all density tests, a dry density and optimum moisture maximum curve(s), a map depicting the limits of fill, locations and elevations of all density tests, locations and elevations of all removal bottoms, and the expansion index of the sandstone bedrock used for foundation embedment.

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

6. HARD COPY PLANS: Three sets of grading and ADU plans (APPROVED BY BUILDING AND SAFETY) incorporating the Project Geotechnical Consultant’s recommendations and items in this review sheet must be reviewed and wet stamped and manually signed by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer. City geotechnical staff will review the plans for conformance with the Project Geotechnical Consultants’ recommendations and items in this review sheet. Appointments for final review and approval of the plans may be made by calling or emailing City Geotechnical staff.

7. ELECTRONIC PLANS: If final foundation and civil plans are digitally signed and stamped by the Project Geotechnical Consultant, as allowed under Board of Registration for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors (2020 PE &PLS Board Rules (16 CCR §§400-476), the Plan Review Letter must contain the following:
• Project description – Address, scope, including structures being permitted (e.g., pool, guest house etc.).
• Plan set information – The date and preparer of the plan set reviewed; this must match the plan set that was submitted to the city for final approval. • Report references – All applicable geotechnical or coastal engineering reports need to be referenced.
• Approval of specific plan sheets reviewed – List all plan sheets approved, e.g., civil (grading and drainage) as well as structural.
• Licensed Professional signature and stamp – The letter must be signed and stamped by all licensed professionals who signed the reports.

City of Malibu Geotechnical Review Sheet
(MAL26211) – 3 –
Please direct questions regarding this review sheet to City Geotechnical staff listed below.

Engineering Geology Review by: __________________________________ 2-8-2022 Christopher Dean, C.E.G. #1751, Exp. 9-20-2022 Date
Engineering Geology Reviewer (408-656-3210)
Email: [email protected]
Engineering Geology Review by: 2-8-2022
Franklin Fong, GE #315, Exp. 12-31-23 Date
Geotechnical Engineering Reviewer (909-860-7515)
Email: [email protected]
This review sheet was prepared by representatives of Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc. and GeoDynamics, Inc., contracted through Cotton, Shires and Associates, Inc., as an agent of the City of Malibu.

City of Malibu
.
– GEOTECHNICAL –

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

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

2. Show the name, address, and phone number of
the Project Geotechnical Consultant(s) on the
cover sheet of the Swimming pool plans.

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

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

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

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

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

Grading Plans (as Applicable)

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

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

Geologic conditions exposed during grading
must be depicted on an as-built geologic map.

This comment must be included as a note on the
grading plans.

Retaining Walls (As Applicable)

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

2. Retaining walls separate from a residence
require separate permits. Contact the Building
and Safety Department for permit information.

One set of retaining wall plans shall be
submitted to the City for review by City
geotechnical staff. Additional concerns may be
raised at that time which may require a response
by the Project Geotechnical Consultant and
applicant.

PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:

TO:

City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
DATE: 9/23/2021
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Matt Jewett, Keystone Strategic Planning APPLICANT ADDRESS: 4859 West Slauson Avenue
APPLICANT PHONE #: (425)753-6115
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: (N) ADU with Minor Modification for rear yard setback modification.

Los Angeles, CA 90056
PROJECT NUMBER: ACDP 21-045
JOB ADDRESS: 24507 VANTAGE POINT TER
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.

The project was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the City’s Public Works and LCP policies and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
x
10/25/21
1 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/24507 Vantage Point Terrace/ACDP 21-045/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/24507 Vantage Point Terrace - ACDP 21-045 - COA.docx Recycled Paper City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Danh Duong PE., Assistant Civil Engineer
Date: October 25, 2021
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for 24507 Vantage Point Terrace - ACDP 21-045 The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the above referenced project.

Based on this review sufficient information has been submitted to confirm that conformance with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) can be attained. Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions.

STORMWATER

1. 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 Water Conservation Practices
Management Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste
Management
2 https://malibucity.sharepoint.com/sites/LandDevelopment/Shared Documents/01 LD - Planning and Plan Check Reviews/24507 Vantage Point Terrace/ACDP 21-045/01 Planning Stage/The Public Works/1st Submittal/24507 Vantage Point Terrace - ACDP 21-045 - COA.docx Recycled Paper
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance to 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.

MISCELLANOUS

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

ATTACHMENT 6
From: Eran Eliyahoo
To: Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045) Hearing Date Dec 1, 2025 Date: Sunday, November 30, 2025 5:23:10 PM
Hello,
To whom it may concern, We own a property in the Malibu Country Estates that is directly next to the lot the subject ADU is planned for. The project does not pose any view impact since it is at the very bottom of the slope facing the large Pepperdine parking lot on John Tyler. There being no other concerns from our side, there is no reason for us to object and we recommend to approve the application.

Best regards,
Eran Eliyahoo
ATTACHMENT 6
From: emmanuel gonzalez
To: Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045) Hearing Date Dec 1, 2025 Date: Saturday, November 29, 2025 4:15:35 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners:

Our home is immediately adjacent to the Meissners’ property. We have seen the plans and feel comfortable with the project. Therefore, we may ask you to approve it.

Happy HolidaysEmmanuel Gonzalez
Sent from my iPhone
From: Teresa LeGrove
To: Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045) Hearing Date Dec 1, 2025 Date: Friday, November 21, 2025 3:01:07 PM
Attachments: AIorK4xXdTTrLyEUj2uxyaPqM07M6SN89yiQN1i-tUX1jBAUDwEln-LrYmb7Mx_eqJST5BOl_c03ffY.png AIorK4yXCMS582h9cTXkp0JzNXdsO79KkWwPXgfxUE8mgDBEwn7aBD_qO-E1VkR-Es4IEKfC5FFWhjw.png AIorK4z6iAKiYbVoriBcJm1PpOCHtlC9h7CKHkhhPH9lYh0iPE4XKUgRZqmvNf_B_E-VmhPALoR3uZw.png AIorK4wIi7BIpRl2CAqKiY0nZI3_OtuWcreUZ8Vyis21c1l2ZfK1mU2UMGASO-Ebmu5n_NXQrJaV8xM.png AIorK4z6pTulkSK7Ckq9Lc6i0jKk-ur43pG5CwsNPCYsxhm9siZcnNF0SDOvLJ8oDjV5HnnhSlRRRG0.png Dear City of Malibu Planning Department,
I’m writing as both a Malibu Country Estates resident and a local Realtor who works closely with families, students, and professionals in our community. I want to express my full support for my neighbor’s proposed ADU project, as well as the broader effort to encourage wellplanned ADUs in Malibu.

ADUs provide meaningful benefits in a city where housing costs continue to rise. They offer flexible options for those who work or study in Malibu, but cannot afford traditional rental prices. They also give homeowners a way to support aging parents, young adults who are just launching, or long-term local employees who are essential to the fabric of our community.

When a property has the space to responsibly accommodate an ADU, it becomes an opportunity to strengthen our neighborhood without changing its character.

From both a resident’s and a Realtor’s perspective, I’ve seen how thoughtfully designed ADUs increase stability, improve housing accessibility, and help maintain the economic diversity that keeps Malibu vibrant.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I fully support this project and hope you will too.

Warm regards,
Teresa LeGrove
Malibu Country Estates Resident
Realtor®, Coldwell Banker Malibu
From: Planning Commission
To: Magda Gonzalez
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Gail Duncan
Subject: FW: Support of ADU application 24507 Vantage Point Terrace, Malibu (ACDP-21-045) Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2026 5:20:38 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Hi Magda,
Please see this correspondence regarding CDP 21-045. It should be added with any other correspondence received since the agenda report was last published for this packet when this item next goes to the planning commission.

Regards,
Gail Duncan
Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Dana Harger >
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2026 7:56 AM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Support of ADU application 24507 Vantage Point Terrace, Malibu (ACDP-21-045) Dear Commissioners,
I am writing to register my support of the above mentioned project at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace in Malibu. I am a neighbor living at Vantage Point Terrace, only a few homes away, and I have no opposition to the project going forward.

As a senior citizen living in Malibu I have given much thought to how I might be able to remain in my home. I believe having a separate living space for a caregiver will afford me the best opportunity to stay in my home. As the planning commission surely knows, we have a lack of housing for caregivers in the community and as many in the city of Malibu are over 60 and would surely like to remain in their homes, one solution would be to allow ADU's.

Thank you for taking the time to consider my position regarding this project.

Best,
Dana Harger
BREDEFELD & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
125 MAPLE AVENUE, SUITE C
CHESTER, NEW JERSEY 07930
(732) 764-9292
FAX: (732) 764-8988
M. BREDEFELD, CPA 23805 STUART RANCH ROAD, SUITE 101
MALIBU, CALIFORNIA 90265
(310) 317-4608
January 12, 2026
Dear Commissioners:

I am a homeowner in the Malibu Country Estates and live on the same street as the applicant. I know from personal experience about the importance of live-in caregivers when a family member needs them.

However, not all properties in our neighborhood lend themselves to a live-in situation. That’s why those lots which have sufficient space in their backyard should be allowed to add a small ADU to their home. In the case of the Meissners’ property, there is a building pad along John-Tyler Drive available for such purposes. Having an ADU at that location cannot possibly bother any neighbor because you can only see it when you walk through the campus. Based on the foregoing, I fully support the subject application.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely yours,
Mitchell Bredefeld
MB/
From: Buzzy Bookman [email protected]
Subject: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045 Date: December 12, 2025 at 05:38
To: [email protected], Ellie Somerfield Buzzy Bookman [email protected], Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am the attorney for Eleanor Somerfield who resides on Vantage Point Terrace. I am also a co-trustee of the Somerfield Family Trust.

I am sending you this email on behalf of Mrs. Somerfield and myself personally, in support of the above application. I have inspected the plans for this project and it appears that the ADU causes no view obstructions and has been approved by the City geologist. In addition the unit planned for this project only occupies empty space in the backyard in a way that no neighbor could reasonably object to its presence. For these reasons I recommend that the Commission approve the application
Thank you,
Buzzy Bookman
(Mobile Tel:

Lawrence E. Bookman, Esq.

LAWRENCE E. BOOKMAN

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
16633 Ventura Boulevard,11th Floor
Encino, CA 91436-1865
Tel: (818) 907-3042; Fax: (818) 377-5433
e-mail: [email protected]
The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient. Any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. If you think that you have received this e-mail in error, please e-mail the sender at "[email protected]".

From: Scott Dudelson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045) Hearing Date Feb 2, 2026 Date: Monday, January 26, 2026 1:06:36 PM
Dear Commissioners:

This email is in support of the Meissner family’s application to build an ADU in their backyard. I am their neighbor on the Eastern cul-de-sac of Vantage Point Terrace and had a chance to see the plans. Being located at the bottom of a slope, the project does not have any view impact on my property — actually on nobody’s property since the planned ADU is facing the university's Firestone Fieldhouse parking lot. Owners over 60 need a lawful approach to such development for caregivers/multi-generational living. Since the applicants have a suitable space for an ADU, I respectfully request that you grant them the permit.

Sincerely,
Scott Dudelson
Vantage Point Terrace, Malibu CA 90265
Scott
https://www.linkedin.com/in/scottdudelson
https://www.swagbucks.com
The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination or copying is strictly prohibited.

If you think that you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender.

From: sarah fischbach
To: Planning Commission
Subject: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045) Hearing Date Feb 2, 2026 Date: Saturday, January 24, 2026 2:11:52 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I am a homeowner in the Malibu Country Estates [ Skyline View Dr] and write in support of the subject project. When I first heard of the restriction that each lot in our subdivision can only have one building pad, I assumed this is mandated by our CC&Rs.

However, our governing documents do not contain such a provision. It is my understanding that use restrictions for the properties in our neighborhood are only legitimate when mandated by the CC&Rs. So it is very questionable how the City could legislate the second building pad prohibition without the unanimous approval of all HOA members required for an amendment of this kind, especially since this rule only applies to our neighborhood and not to the rest of Malibu. Whether or not there can be a second building pad is a factual matter. Most lots in the Malibu Country Estates simply don’t have a second lot. But those few along John-Tyler Drive who do cannot be reasonably deprived of using their existing second pad of their property. Therefore, I respectfully request the subject application to be approved. As a professor at Pepperdine University, I enjoy living by the community that I work in and supporting the Malibu community as well.

Thank you and if you have any questions please do not hesitate to reach out.

Thank you for your support and consideration.

Dr. Sarah Fischbach & Lt Col Aaron Fischbach
Skyline View Dr, Malibu
From: Tom Botz
Subject: Fwd: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045) Date: December 19, 2025 at 20:10
To: Meissner Helmut
Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Botz
Subject: ADU Application 24507 Vantage Point Ter (ACDP 21-045) Date: December 19, 2025 at 20:01:45 PST
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Dear Sir or Madam:

I have owned my house in Malibu Country Estates ( Malibu Country Drive) since 2003.

I am writing in support of the application of my neighbor Helmut Meissner for a permit to build an ADU on the back portion of his lot at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace.

I have reviewed the plans and renderings and believe that the proposed ADU is entirely in character with the neighborhood and will in fact add to its charms.

Accordingly, I believe that Mr. Meissner’s application should be granted and the permit issued.

Respectfully,
Tom Botz
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 20, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA for the project identified below. Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21-045 AND VARIANCE NO. 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 / APN / ZONING: 24507 Vantage Point Ter / 4458-033-006 / Single-family Medium (SFM) APPLICANT / OWNER: Keystone Strategic Planning / Meissner Family Trust APPEALABLE TO: City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 APPLICATION FILED: September 23, 2021
CASE PLANNER: Magda Gonzalez, Contract Planner, [email protected] (925) 789-7160
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Commission’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the Planning Commission on, or before, the date of the meeting.

LOCAL APPEAL - A decision of 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 ten days following the date of action which the appeal is made 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/planningforms or in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 246.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU

OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOLANDA BUNDY, Community Development Director Date: March 27, 2026 ATTACHMENT 7
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, April 20, 2026, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA for the project identified below. Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21-045 AND VARIANCE NO. 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 / APN / ZONING: 24507 Vantage Point Ter / 4458-033-006 / Single-family Medium (SFM) APPLICANT / OWNER: Keystone Strategic Planning / Meissner Family Trust APPEALABLE TO: City Council
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 APPLICATION FILED: September 23, 2021
CASE PLANNER: Magda Gonzalez, Contract Planner, [email protected] (925) 789-7160
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Commission’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the Planning Commission on, or before, the date of the meeting.

LOCAL APPEAL - A decision of 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 ten days following the date of action which the appeal is made 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/planningforms or in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 246.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU

OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOLANDA BUNDY, Community Development Director Date: March 27, 2026

EXHIBIT D
From: Oona K
Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 10:04 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Subject: Malibu Country Estates MEISSNER ADU
Hi Tyler:

I just finished watching the April 20 Planning Commission Meeting where Helmut Meissner's ADU in Malibu Country Estates was discussed in great detail.

I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to you and Kellan Martz (I don't know his email so please forward to him) for fighting AGAINST this ADU.

I am the Vice President of the HOA (Helmut is the President, as you know). As much as I adore Helmut, I am COMPLETELY OPPOSED to this ADU (he is aware of my opposition). Last November, the Board consulted an HOA attorney who basically said we'd open ourselves up to legal liability if we objected to the ADU, because of the recent California laws, etc. So we decided as a Board to not get involved.

I realize now this was a huge mistake and I will be there on Monday night at the Planning Commission Meeting to speak against the ADU.

I was incredibly impressed with the job you and Kellan did to protect MCE and am grateful that you are at the City.

Feel free to share any suggestions for me that you may have going forward, and I look forward to seeing you on Monday evening at City Hall.

Oona Khan, MD (irrelevant but kinda worked hard for the degree so there ya' go!) Cell

EXHIBIT E
From: Quentin Lilly
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Tyler Eaton
Subject: Malibu Country Estates: ADU Construction Application for Approval Date: Thursday, May 28, 2026 4:42:10 PM
Dear Malibu City Planning Commission,
This correspondence relates to a proposed ADU within Malibu Country Estates ("MCE"). It is my present understanding that the Planning Commission will be meeting Monday evening (June 1) to either approve or deny the application for construction of an ADU (as submitted for review by MCE homeowner Helmut Meissner).

My wife and I have owned a home in MCE since 1998, I am a current board member of the MCE HOA, and I am submitting this correspondence to the Malibu Planning Commission solely and exclusively in my capacity as a MCE homeowner (not as a MCE Board member). I would also note that I have known the applicant (Helmut Meissner) for many years, and consider him a friend - we simply have differing views regarding the possible construction of ADUs in MCE.

In short, I oppose any potential approval and construction of ADUs in MCE. As you all know, MCE is a well-established and long-standing community in Malibu, and it has been governed by well-defined CCRs since its initial development. Homeowners' ongoing adherence to MCE's CCRs over its many years of existence is what has continued to make MCE a very well-maintained and highly desirable neighborhood within Malibu.

The MCE community was clearly designed at inception (in 1972) with modest/relatively small lots to support one-single family residence per lot. Additionally the MCE CCRs specifically state in part of paragraph #1 the following:
"Said premises shall be used solely for the purpose of one-single family private residence per lot, including appurtenant private garage, servants' quarters and other appurtenant outbuildings and improvements and no structure shall be moved from any other place onto said premises." The spirit and intent of this very basic provision in the CCRs is very clear - there is to be onesingle family private residence per lot - not one-single family private residence and a separate/additional ADU structure (which is also a one-single family private residence itself).

Garage space, and parking in our community was all originally designed with one singlefamily residence per lot in mind. And although it is my understanding that this ADU is being submitted for approval to facilitate "aging-in-place" for Helmut and his wife, approval of this individual ADU will undoubtedly lead to the addition of more ADUs over time in MCE - which in-turn will lead to a progressive change in and degradation of the unique and appealing residential character of MCE.

It is also my understanding that the Malibu Overlay District guidelines were designed and put in place to reflect the intention and objectives of MCE's CCRs. Given this, it seems incumbent on the Planning Commission to ensure that the Overlay District guidelines are fully enforced, and the spirit and intent of the MCE CCRs are concurrently maintained and enforced, and this means that construction of ADUs in MCE should not be allowed.

Thank you for your time and attention on this matter.

Sincerely,
Quentin Lilly
From: Andrew Tuck <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2026 4:40 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>; Magda Gonzalez <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Cc: Matt Jewett <[email protected]>; Whitney Wetherill <[email protected]>
Subject: CDP Application No. 21-045 for a new Second Unit (ADU) at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace - Submission to the Planning Commissioners
May 14, 2025
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: CDP Application No. 21-045 – 24507 Vantage Point Terrace Summary of Attached One-Page Findings Tables and Prior Submittals Dear Chair Peak and Members of the Planning Commission:

On behalf of the applicant, Helmut Meisner, we are submitting three one-page summary tables to assist the Commission in its review of CDP Application No. 21-045 for a new Second Unit (ADU) at 24507 Vantage Point Terrace. These documents are intended as a concise reference to the required findings and variance standards applicable to the project that were discussed at the conclusion of the April 20 hearing before the Commissioners voted to continue. These will show, at a glance, how the proposed second unit meets all standards for approval.

1. Required Findings for Approval (One-Page Table).

This table lists each of the nine Local Implementation Plan (LIP) provisions cited in the Staff Report, and offers the corresponding required findings for approval, along with a brief explanation of how the project satisfies each finding. It is meant to provide a clear answer to the cited "nine points" and the evidence demonstrating compliance.

2. Variance – Second Building Pad (One-Page Table).

This table summarizes the necessary LIP variance findings related to the use of the existing second building pad, including special circumstances, lack of special privilege, consistency with the LCP, and physical suitability of the site. It highlights

Variance – Second Building Pad
LIP Requirements Findings
A. 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.

County drainage easements occupy 25% of total lot area -- more than double any other easement in the neighborhood -- significantly reducing the buildable area. The ADU could otherwise be sited on the upper building pad. The property contains two building pads (as defined by LIP 3.4.1(D)(6)(d)) suitable for development, separated by an existing manufactured slope, dating back to at least 1976.

B. 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.

Environmental Health, Fire, Public Works, Biology, and Geotechnical departments determined the proposed development is safe and compliant with applicable health and safety standards.

C. 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 (LIP Table B). The subject property is uniquely constrained by two easements and a landform consisting of two building pads separated by a manufactured slope, significantly limiting feasible building locations. Variance would provide reasonable relief from unique constraints and does not confer a special privilege.

D. 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 development clusters construction (LIP §4.4.2(A)), avoids slope disturbance, and minimizes grading (LIP §3.5(A)). It is located away from ESHA (LIP §4.4.1(A)), marine resources (LIP §3.10(A)), and sensitive visual resources (LIP §6.4(A)), and assures "orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources, taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of this City and of the State." Coastal Act PRC §30001.5(b) E. 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.

Does not apply. The subject property is located inland of PCH in a fully developed residential neighborhood. No ESHA located on the site or in the immediate vicinity.

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

Does not apply. The subject property is not subject to stringline standards and does not limit public access to coastal resources.

G. 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.

Second units (ADUs) are a permitted accessory use in the Single-Family Residential (SF) zone.

H. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed ADU site is located on a flat, historically graded pad requiring no site grading to establish a new or extended pad. The site has been reviewed and approved by Public Works, the project geologist, and City geotechnical staff. The requested variance avoids landform alteration, slope disturbance, and minimizes environmental impacts.

I. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law. The proposed ADU complies with the Malibu LCP and MMC, including provisions related to the required findings for these Variances. The project is consistent with the goals and requirements of State ADU law, including the setback standards authorized by Government Code section 66321(b)(3). The project is consistent with Government Code Section 65580 as it pertains to balancing housing needs (including low-income housing objectives) and is consistent with State Housing law and the California Coastal Act. Further, it accords with recent direction from the California Coastal Commission which, in an April 13, 2026 memo stated, "LCPs may contain side or front yard setback requirements or other design standards that conflict with State ADU Law and that are not necessary to protect coastal resources (e.g., they are not needed to protect public access, wetlands, or public view corridors). In such cases, the Commission believes that jurisdictions should use flexibility within LCPs (e.g., variances, administrative modifications of standards, ranges) to modify the standards in order to comply with State ADU Law without lessening the effect of the Coastal Act." - Dr. Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission from Draft Guidance on Processing LCP Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units in the Coastal Zone.

J. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007)
No public parking spaces are proposed to be removed or altered by the project.

Granting the requested variances would not reduce or eliminate public parking for access to beaches, public trails, or parkland. Project, as proposed, maintains existing off-street parking.

Variance – Rear Yard Setback
LIP Requirements Findings
A. 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.

County drainage easements occupy 25% of total lot area -- more than double any other easement in the neighborhood -- significantly reducing the buildable area. Strict application of LIP 3.4.1(D)(2)(c) would require siting the ADU on/into the slope, require non-exempt grading/landform alteration, and the extension of the existing building pad, in conflict with LIP 3.4.1(D)(8)(b). LIP 3.6 (F)(5) "Modifications to required yards/setbacks standards shall be permitted where necessary to avoid or minimize impacts to sensitive resources." B. 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.

Environmental Health, Fire, Public Works, Biology, and Geotechnical departments determined the proposed development is safe and compliant with applicable health and safety standards.

C. 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 (LIP Table B). The subject property is uniquely constrained by two easements and a landform consisting of two building pads separated by a manufactured slope, significantly limiting feasible building locations. Variance would provide reasonable relief from unique constraints and does not confer a special privilege.

D. 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 development clusters construction (LIP §4.4.2(A)), avoids slope disturbance, and minimizes grading (LIP §3.5(A)). It is located away from ESHA (LIP §4.4.1(A)), marine resources (LIP §3.10(A)), and sensitive visual resources (LIP §6.4(A)), and assures "orderly, balanced utilization and conservation of coastal zone resources, taking into account the social and economic needs of the people of this City and of the State." Coastal Act PRC §30001.5(b) E. 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 subject property is located inland of PCH in a fully developed residential neighborhood. No ESHA located on the site or in the immediate vicinity.

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

The subject property is not subject to stringline standards and does not limit public access to coastal resources.

G. 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.

Second units (ADUs) are a permitted accessory use in the Single-Family Residential (SF) zone.

H. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed variance. The proposed ADU site is located on a flat, historically graded pad requiring no site grading to establish a new or extended pad. The site has been reviewed and approved by Public Works, the project geologist, and City geotechnical staff. The requested variance avoids landform alteration, slope disturbance, and minimizes environmental impacts.

I. The variance complies with all requirements of state and local law. The proposed ADU complies with the Malibu LCP and MMC, including provisions related to the required findings for these Variances. The project is consistent with the goals and requirements of State ADU law, including the setback standards authorized by Government Code section 66321(b)(3). The project is consistent with Government Code Section 65580 as it pertains to balancing housing needs (including low-income housing objectives) and is consistent with State Housing law and the California Coastal Act. Further, it accords with recent direction from the California Coastal Commission which, in an April 13, 2026 memo stated, "LCPs may contain side or front yard setback requirements or other design standards that conflict with State ADU Law and that are not necessary to protect coastal resources (e.g., they are not needed to protect public access, wetlands, or public view corridors). In such cases, the Commission believes that jurisdictions should use flexibility within LCPs (e.g., variances, administrative modifications of standards, ranges) to modify the standards in order to comply with State ADU Law without lessening the effect of the Coastal Act." - Dr. Kate Huckelbridge, Executive Director, California Coastal Commission from Draft Guidance on Processing LCP Amendments for Accessory Dwelling Units in the Coastal Zone.

J. A variance shall not be granted that would allow reduction or elimination of public parking for access to the beach, public trails or parklands. (Ord. 303 § 3, 2007)
No public parking spaces are proposed to be removed or altered by the project.

Granting the requested variances would not reduce or eliminate public parking for access to beaches, public trails, or parkland.

City of Malibu
Planning Commission Hearing
June 1, 2026
24507 Vantage Point Terrace, Malibu, CA 90265
CDP 21-045
VAR No. 26-003
APN 4458-033-006
Prepared by Keystone Strategic Planning
Vicinity Map
Malibu Canyon Rd
Subject Property
24507 Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu Country Estates
Pacific Coast Highway
Existing Site Conditions
3,572 SQ FT Single
Family Residence
Swimming Pool
& Spa
Wooden
Deck
Unique Circumstances: Lot Consists of Upper Building Pad, Slope, Existing Site Conditions and Lower Building Pad Slope
Lower
Building
Pad
Upper Building Pad
Existing Site Conditions Variance Request 1 - MCE Overlay District Regulations Assume One Building Pad Per Lot:

Requested VAR to Utilize Existing Second Building Pad
Proposed 594 sq. ft. Second Unit
(900 sq. ft. max. allowed)
Existing Site Conditions Variance Request 2 - LCP Rear Yard Setback Standard is 15 Ft. (LIP 3.4.1(D(2)(c)) Requested VAR to Reduce Setback to 4 Ft. to Avoid Slope/Grading/Impacts in accordance with LCP Rear Yard Setback – 4 Feet
Rear Yard Setback – 15 Feet
Two Resolutions Provided to Commission: Exhibit A Resolution Grounds Potential Denial Findings in repeated assertion that alternate locations “appear” feasible without supporting evidence Exhibit B Resolution Analysis Confirms that Alternate Locations are NOT Feasible Sewer and Storm
Drain Easements
Front yard setback – (26 ft.)
26 feet from curb
LCP Required Building
Setback – 6 Feet LCP

3.6(R)(b) Distance
Between Accessory and
Main Buildings. A
minimum distance of six
feet shall be required
between any main
residential building and
an accessory building
established on the same
lot or parcel of land.

Proposed 594 sq. ft. Second Unit
(900 sq. ft. max. allowed)
Unusually Large LACO Easement Prevents Siting Second Unit along North side of Property LA County Sewer
and Storm Drain
Front yard setback – Easements (26 ft.)
26 feet from curb
LCP Required Building
Setback – 6 Feet LCP

3.6(R)(b) Distance
Between Accessory and
Main Buildings. A
minimum distance of six
feet shall be required
between any main
residential building and
an accessory building
established on the same
lot or parcel of land.

Lower Building Pad Only Feasible Location for Proposed Second Unit, as Identified in Exhibit B Approval Resolution
EXHIBIT: B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Approval) Seven of Ten Variance Findings Required (No ESHA, Stringline, or Public Parking) Upper Pad Existing
Lower Pad
Variance Finding A: Special Circumstances/Exceptional Characteristics Two Existing/Established Building Pads when Code Only Contemplates One Other properties have graded slopes but not two separate, flat, well graded areas that meet the LCP definition of “pad”, which makes this property unique 24606 Plover Way
1,886 sq ft Easement
7% of Property
Variance Finding A: Special Circumstances/Exceptional Characteristics Largest Easement by SQ FT and % in the MCEs
Subject property
4,285 sq ft Easement

25.5% of Property
3602 Forest Gate Circle
1,542 sq ft Easement
6% of Property
3601 Forest Gate Circle
1,566 sq ft Easement
5% of Property EXHIBIT: B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Approval) 14 Variance Findings B&H: Not detrimental to public safety/health as confirmed by City and County Staff (Finding B) and is Physically Suitable (Finding H) Approvals: LACoFire,
LaCO WD29, LACo Fuel
Mod, City Biology, City
Geotechnical,
& City Public Works
Staff Report – Resolution B
Staff Report – Resolution B
Variance Findings C and G: No Special Privilege (Finding C), & Consistent with Purpose & Intent of Zone (Finding G)
Per LCP Table B , Proposed
Second Unit is a permitted
accessory use consistent with
the purpose/intent of the SF
zone.

Does NOT confer a special
privilege not enjoyed by
other properties in the
vicinity and under the same
zoning classification
Staff Report – Resolution B
Variance Finding D: Not Contrary to General Intent of LCP to Minimize Impacts Clusters development
with existing house
and surrounding
development
Existing lower pad
requires no grading
to establish or extend
a building pad.

No landform
alteration
No ESHA impacts
No visual impacts
No marine resource
impacts Staff Report – Resolution B
Variance Findings I: Complies with the goals, purposes, and intent of State and Local Law
California Coastal Act
State HCD Law
Staff Report – Resolution B
Based on Resolution B Analysis-All Variance Findings can be Readily Made Staff Report – Resolution B
The “Nine Points” Previously Raised are Addressed with Exhibit B Resolution

1. One Building Pad
Historical Evidence: Two Existing/Established Building Pads Staff Report 1976 Applicant Provided 1980 Slope Map 2018

1. One Building Pad: Utilizing Existing Lower Pad is Least Damaging Alternative Geotechnical Report shows
Lower Building Pad comprised of Artificial Fill
and “well graded”
Staff Report – Resolution B
The proposed Second
Unit is sited on the
existing lower building
pad. It is not on a slope
and it is not cantilevered
over the slope.

Therefore, it complies
with LIP § 3.4.1(D)(6)
LIP § 3.4.1(D)(6)
Slope

2. Siting – No Extension of Existing Pad

3. 15-foot rear yard setback: Variance requested to Avoid Slopes/Grading/Impacts 4-foot rear yard setback consistent with requirements of State Law Slope

VARIANCE REQUESTED
Rear Yard Setback – 4 Feet
Staff Report – Resolution B
On an existing building pad, no maximum impermeable surface thresholds. Complies with LIP § 3.4.1(D)(7) Meets the definition of a building pad per LIP § 3.4.1(D)(7) “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.”

4. All Impermeable Coverage on EXISTING building pad Consistent with LCP §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.
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.

Proposed Second Unit height 11’ 2”
Significantly less than maximum 18’

5. Structure height – 18’ Maximum, Proposed Second Unit 11’2” ADU is proposed on the
existing lower building
pad where
no structure exists
LIP § 3.4.1(D)(5)(d)(ii)
Structure is Less Than 12
Ft. Tall: Complies with All
LCP Max Height
Requirements

5. Proposed Second Unit Height Complies with LCP/MCE Height Requirements

6. Grading Compliance
No Pad Extension or Grading Proposed – Project Complies Second unit is sited completely
within existing lower building pad.

7. No walls are proposed. Project Complies
Wall
(as defined in LCP)
Side of
Building

8. Remedial Grading Not Allowed and NONE Proposed
Only Exempt R&R for Foundation Proposed per Standard GeoTech Recommendation i. Exceptions. Excavation for foundations and other
understructure excavation and incremental excavation for basements and safety purposes shall be excluded from
grading limitations.

LIP § 8.3

8. Remedial Grading Not Allowed and NONE Proposed
Only Exempt R&R for Foundation Proposed per Standard GeoTech Recommendation i. Exceptions. Excavation for foundations and other
understructure excavation and incremental excavation for basements and safety purposes shall be excluded from
grading limitations.

LIP § 8.3
Staff Report – Resolution B

9. Archaeological/Cultural Resources
Only 3 Feet of Removal/Recompaction Proposed on top of vs. 20 Feet of Artificial Fill 3 Feet Removal
& Recompation
20 Feet
Artificial Fill
Potential
archaeological
significance
EXHIBIT: B. Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 (Approval) The “Nine Points” Have Been Addressed with Resolution B Staff Report – Resolution B
33 Letters of Support From MCE Neighbors
April 2026 CCC Memo Supports Approval of VAR for Unique Circumstances Like This Conclusion
• This Second Unit for housing caregivers enables applicants to safely age in place with appropriate elder care accommodations.
• Approving Variances to utilize the lower building pad with a 4-foot setback provides relief from unique site constraints without lessening the Coastal Act. • Property is encumbered by easements more than any other lot in the MCEs, constraints that justify the requested variances.
• Photographic evidence and geotechnical testing prove since at least 1976 this property has two artificially filled, well-graded building pads.
• No grading proposed. Only exempt removal and recompaction proposed on existing building pad.
• All coastal resources protected: No impacts to ESHA, public views, parking, or neighbors’ views.
• 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. • Approval is legally supported, fair to the owners, and aligned with Malibu’s housing and coastal protection goals; we respectfully ask you to approve the Second Unit and Variances tonight.

Thank You
We are available to answer any questions.

CC&R’s
37 State ADU Law vs. CC&R’s:

Original CCRs
Subject Property. No
Restricted Use Area
Neighboring Properties
with Restricted Use Area
Tract Map Restricts Some Properties. Subject Property – No Restricted Use Area Findings
41 Based on Analysis All Variance Findings can be Readily Made

8. Project Complies with all LCP Grading Requirements:

No remedial grading proposed; only removal and recompaction. The City’s Grading Yardage Certificate distinguishes Removal and Recompaction
(R&R) from Remedial Grading.

LIP 8.3(G). Remedial Grading. For the
purposes of this Section, remedial grading is
defined as grading recommended by a full
site geotechnical report approved by the
Director and City Geologist, except that no
such remedial grading will be allowed when it
could be avoided by changing the position or
location of the proposed development.

Removal and Recompaction (R&R) is Exempt.

Remedial Grading is Not Exempt.

No Remedial Grading Proposed
Only Exempt Removal/Recompaction for Foundation
i. Exceptions. Excavation for foundations and other
understructure excavation and incremental excavation for basements and safety purposes shall be excluded from
grading limitations.

LIP § 8.3
Variance Findings: Physically Suitable
Variance Finding C: No Special Privilege
Slope
“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.” - Planning Commission
Resolution No. 26-02 (Denial)
Geotechnical Conclusions
Building Pad Definition
The second pad
fulfills all objective
definitions of the
building pad
163.68 Feet
26 Feet
165.99 Feet
26 Feet
Easement Area = 4,285.71 sq ft
Subject Property Area = 16,772.36 sq ft
Easement renders 25.56% of Subject
Property unsuitable for development
Variance Findings: Special Circumstances/Exceptional Characteristics Site Plans
50 Existing Stairs
Swimming Pool and Spa Deck
3,572 SQ FT Single
Family Residence
Existing Stairs

Alternate Siting
53 15-foot setback
ADU Sited on Slope
LIP 3.6 (F)(5) states, “Modifications to
required yards/setbacks standards shall be
permitted where necessary to avoid or
minimize impacts to sensitive resources.”
- VAR proposed to eliminate unnecessary
grading/landform alteration on slope
Front Yard Siting Blocks Front Walkway and Front Door
Front
Walkway
Front
Door
378 Sq Ft
37% Less Sq Ft
than Proposed
ADU
Maximum Square Footage Available in Side Yard is Insufficient 256 Sq Ft
57% Less Sq Ft
than proposed
ADU
Pictures
57 Side Yard Available Space
Side Yard Siting Blocks Light/Air to Primary Bath and Creates Privacy Concerns for Caretaker Second Unit

Parking
61 Eliminating Existing Garage Parking is Not Supported by the LCP, which promotes provision and maintenance of Off-Street Parking as Currently Provided LIP 1.2 Purpose H. To lessen
congestion on the streets
and provide for adequate
off-street parking.

LUP 2.25
New development shall provide off-street
parking sufficient to serve the approved
use in order to minimize impacts to public
street parking available for coastal access
and recreation.

Garage Conversion would exacerbate limited street parking and create adverse Impacts to neighbors and degrade Neighborhood Character in violation of goals/requirements of the LCP and City’s Archaeological Survey – 20 Feet of Fill
For the six houses
in the cul-de-sac,
there are
approximately six
(6) parking spaces
1a
2a
3a
4a
5a
6a
Site’s Cul de Sac Parking is Extremely Limited for Off-Site/Guest Parking for 6 Homes Variance Findings: No Reduced Parking or Access
Subject Property
Located in a residential cul-de-sac,
NO parking for beach access, trail
access, or parkland access will be
reduced.

Approvals
65 Fire Access Plan
Existing Fire Hydrant
5’ Wide Fire
Department Access
Fire Flow Approval
Fuel Modification Approval
Fuel Modification Approval
Biology Approval
Public Works Approval
Water Works Will Serve ADU
Geotechnical Approval
Letters of Support
74 Letters of Support
Letters of Support
Letters of Support
Letters of Support
Letters of Support
Letters of Support

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public hearings on WEDNESDAY, September 23, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the projects identified below.

APPEAL NO. 26-017 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-02 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; 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
Location: 24507 Vantage Point Terrace
APN: 4458-033-006
Zoning: Single-Family Medium (SFM) and Malibu Country Estates Overlay District
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Section 15270 Applicant: Keystone Strategic Planning
Owner/Appellant: Meissner Family Trust
Application Filed: September 23, 2021
Appeal Filed: June 11, 2026
Case Planner: Courtney Brown, Senior Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 268
[email protected]
APPEAL NO. 26-006 - Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 26-10 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 to construct a new new two-story, 18-foot high, 4,856 square foot single-family residence, including a 791 square foot attached garage and an 824 square foot second-story second unit, landscaping, hardscape, grading, fire department turnaround area, vehicular access gate, and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system; including Minor Modification No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback
Location: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway
APN: 4473-017-009
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e)
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission
Applicant: Schmitz and Associates, Inc.

Owner: Bluff Top 1 LLC
Appellant: Mark Mackey
Application Filed: May 17, 2023
Appeal Filed: February 26, 2026
Exhibit 5
Case Planner: Didier Murillo, Principal Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 342
[email protected]
For the project identified above with a categorical exemption for environmental review, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has analyzed these proposed projects and found that they are listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the projects are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Community Development Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to these projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the projects. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on 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 4:00 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] To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: August 20, 2026