Malibu City Council
October 21, 2026

5740327.1

SUMMARY OF OBJECTIONS COMPELLING DENIAL
Myriad grounds compel denying the Application, each of which is explained in detail below. We summarize them here:
• Because the Property includes ESHA buffer, the Project is subject to the ESHA overlay’s “development area” limitation. The Applicant fails to calculate development area correctly and, even under Applicant’s own calculation, the Project violates the development area cap. (See LIP § 4.7.1.) • The ESHA overlay prohibits virtually all development in ESHA buffer areas. (LIP § 4.5.4.) Ignoring these requirements, the Project proposes a new solid wall, gates, pilasters, fencing, trench drain, fire turnaround and driveway, planter boxes, landscaping, and other improvements in the ESHA buffer. (See Plans, Sheet A-0.3 [Site Plan].)
• As our Client’s biologist opines, the Applicant’s biological assessment remains inaccurate and inadequate. It does not constitute the “reasonable, credible, or solid evidence” the law requires to support approval. (See Doe v. University of Southern Calif. (2016) 246 CA4th 221, 248-253.) Nor does it suffice under the LIP. • The Project violates a condition of approval that prohibits grading or ground disturbing activities within 30 feet of the northern property line in order to protect cultural resources. (See Archaeology Review Sheet, p. 1.) In fact, the Project impermissibly proposes hundreds (if not thousands) of cubic yards of grading in this area.
• The project violates the Local Implementation Plan’s (“LIP”) archaeology requirements because the City failed to require additional “Phase I” archaeology investigations or the preparation of a Phase II archaeology report, despite the discovery of cultural artifacts and a record of artifacts on adjacent properties. (LIP § 11.3.) Under these circumstances, the LIP expressly requires the preparation of an Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) or Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) and makes the City’s reliance on a Class 3 exemption impermissible. (Id.) • The City states that no significant impacts on cultural resources exist because such impacts will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. But CEQA prohibits relying on such mitigation measures to obtain a categorical exemption. As such, the City 256
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
cannot rely on a categorical exemption from CEQA and must prepare an MND or EIR. In addition, unusual circumstances and potential impacts on environmental resources preclude the use of the Class 3 exemption.
• Because the Property lies along the coast and on a coastal bluff, the LIP requires the Applicant to consult with and obtain a written determination from the State Lands Commission before this Application can be heard. No evidence of such consultation exists. (LIP §§ 10.5(C), 13.6.2.(B).)
• Neighboring owners have a property interest in the Property and Application because they have an easement that allows them to use a portion of the Property that the Project affects. However, the City and Applicant failed to invite these owners to join as co-applicants as the LIP requires. (LIP § 13.6.2(C).) • The City improperly uses the Application and this hearing to resolve code enforcement issues that the Malibu Municipal Code (“MMC”) requires the City to resolve through its administrative enforcement powers. (MMC Ch. 1.10.) • The Notice of Hearing did not comply with LIP requirements or Coastal Act regulations because the City did not send it all agencies known to have an interest in the Project, including the California Native American Heritage Commission, and because it failed to indicate that the code violations might be resolved through this hearing. (See LIP § 13.12.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13566.) • The Project’s landscaping violates our Client’s Primary View Determination (“PVD”) and impairs bluewater views in contravention of LIP Chater 6. • In light of the foregoing, the findings for a CDP and Minor Modification cannot be made.
• In addition, the Property’s certificate of compliance (“CoC”) under the Subdivision Map Act precludes the development because the Applicant has not complied with the CoC’s conditions of approval.
• Finally, the Planning Commission should not reward a Property or Applicant with longstanding code violations with a CDP and Minor Modification.

For all of these reasons, the Application should be denied. 257
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1

ANALYSIS OF ISSUES COMPELLING DENIAL
I. ESHA & Biology Objections.

A. The Project Violates the ESHA Overlay Development Area Limitation.

As shown on the Project Plans, the Project lies partially within an ESHA buffer. (See, e.g., Plan Sheet A-0.2, showing new planters, gates, walls, pilasters, and fencing located behind a line labeled “approx. 100’ from ESHA boundary.”) Our Clients’ biologist team, Amigo Environmental, LLC (“Amigo”), prepared a peer-review of the Applicant’s biological assessment (the “Amigo Report”), attached as Exhibit A, which likewise states that “at least a portion of the subject property and proposed Project may be located within an ESHA buffer and/or within 100 feet of protected of riparian habitat.” (Id. at 4.) Accordingly, the Project must comply with the development-area limitations that apply to such projects. Indeed, Applicant admits as much by purporting to demonstrate compliance with the development area limitation on Sheet A-0.3 of the Plans. (See Sheet A-0.3, below, marked-up.)
Importantly, pursuant to LIP section 4.7.1, the allowable “development area is limited to 10,000 square feet or 25 percent of the total lot area, whichever is less. (LIP § 4.7.1.) Based upon the gross lot area of 37,786 square feet, the Project’s allowable development area would be limited 258
Determination
BQU NOARJESOFt.'1,.,.PEO~----
RIP,._RIAN ISTRE~
Applicant's Development Area Calculation
---------------------------.,,. --
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
to approximately 9,446.5 square feet. Unlike total development square footage (“TDSF”), development area includes all structures (such as walls, fences, and gates), as well as all graded and parking areas. (See LIP § 2 [defining “development area” as “the approved portion of a project site that is developed, including … all graded slopes, all structures, and parking areas”].) Here, the Applicant purportedly demonstrates compliance with the development area limitation on Sheet A-0.3, showing a total development area of 9,652 square feet. (See Plans, Sheet A-03.)
However, at least three critical flaws exist with Applicant’s calculation:

1. Applicant provides no breakdown, legend, or methodology for its development area calculation other than an unlabeled, unhelpful graphical depiction, making it impossible for staff, the public, or this Commission to confirm that Applicant correctly calculated development area. The Commission should request that Applicant provide a tabular breakdown of the development area calculation.

2. Applicant incorrectly excluded significant portions of the Property from development. For example, a large, circular area of grading is proposed near the coastal bluff, apparently to provide a catch basin for drainage:
259
GRADING PlAN LEGEND

STRUCTURE OUTLINE ON GRADE

EXISTING MAJOR GRADE CONTO

EXISTING MINOR GRADE CONTD

PROPOSED MAJOR GRADE CONT
Grading that Applicant failed
to include in development
area calculation.

PROPOSED MINOR GR.PDE CONTOLR
REMOVED MAX:>R GRADE CONrOUR
REMOVED Mt-lOR GRADE CONTOUR

CUT & FILL TRANSITION

GRKIE TRANSITION

DISTURBED AREA BOUNDARY
(El FENCE

CUT AREA

FILLAREA
REMO¼ ANO RECOMPACT AAEA

SITEMLL
' ' ' ' F.G. 67 .50 ' CTON
POSED
DETO
S WITH
OM THE

AOE,PER

LREPORT,
TED6/2/'22.

City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
Applicant plainly failed to include this area in development area, even though the LIP defines development area to include “all graded and parking areas.” (See LIP § 2.) Indeed, Sheet C-3.0 of the civil engineering plans identifies 12,603.6 square feet of “disturbed area,” or grading over approximately 0.29 acres—plainly exceeding the 9,446.5 square-foot development-area limitation.1

3. Even assuming the Applicant correctly calculated development area, the Applicant’s purported 9,652 square feet of development area exceeds the 9,446.5 square-foot cap. Thus, the Project still violates the code.

Accordingly, the Project violates the development area limitation and cannot be approved as proposed. At a minimum, the Applicant must provide detailed calculations demonstrating compliance with the LIP’s development-area restriction.

B. The Project Must Be Revised to Comply With the ESHA Buffer Permitted Use Regulations.

The City’s ESHA overlay ordinance prohibits virtually all development within ESHA and ESHA buffer areas. As to buffer areas, it states that “[d]evelopment in the following habitats is limited to the uses listed below”:

A. Public accessways and trails, including directional signs B. Interpretive signage designed to provide information about the value and protection of the resources
C. Restoration projects where the primary purpose is
restoration of the habitat.

D. Invasive plant eradication projects if they are designed to protect and enhance habitat values.
(LIP § 4.5.4.)
Here, the Applicant proposes various types of impermissible development within the Property’s ESHA buffer, including a new wall, gates, pilasters, fence, trench drain, fire turnaround 1 Even assuming that the fire turnaround—whose size is not calculated—can be excluded from development area, the Applicant has failed to properly calculate or comply with the development area limitation, much less allow this Commission to confirm compliance.
260
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
and driveway, planter boxes, and landscaping. A marked-up Sheet A-0.3 (Site Plan), below, shows this issue:

The latest Biology Review Sheet attempts to justify this by stating:

The former Planning Director and Senior Planning Staff have determined that the project is in compliance with Malibu LIP Chapter 4 because the residence and any other development requiring fuel modification are located 100 feet from the stream. The Planning Department is allowing development not requiring fuel modification within the 100-foot buffer.
(Biology Review Sheet, June 6, 2025, p. 2.) We attach the Biology Review sheet as Exhibit B.

This misunderstands the law. The ESHA buffer standards do not merely prohibit “development requiring fuel modification” within the ESHA buffer. The ESHA buffer standards prohibit all development within the buffer area except for a narrow set of expressly listed uses— such as interpretive signage or public trails. Because the Project proposes multiple unpermitted 261
New Planter Box
~l
\ ~9·
\
\
I
I '" I
I
I
I
1 I
.. ._, ............. .. ..-1-., ...... ~
.t
....

New Development Within ESHA Buffer
\
\
'""
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
structures and uses within the buffer, it violates LIP section 4.5.4. Until the Applicant revised the Project to comply with these mandatory buffer restrictions, it must be denied.

C. The Applicant’s Biology Assessment Remains Inaccurate, Incomplete, and Insufficient.

Our Client’s retained Amigo Environmental, Inc. (“Amigo”) to prepare a peer-review memorandum (“Amigo Report”) of the Applicant’s Biology Assessment and related memoranda.

The Amigo’s Report is attached as Exhibit A. We attach the Applicant’s Biology Assessment and related memoranda as Exhibit C.

The Amigo Report demonstrates that the Applicant’s biology documentation remains woefully inadequate. Among other issues:
• Description of Existing Conditions. The Existing Conditions section of Applicant’s biological assessment lacks basic scientific rigor and required locational/context materials to support impact analysis or mitigation. It offers only vague qualitative statements without quantitative or spatial data. And it fails to adequately identify or classify on-site habitats and sensitive resources. (See Amigo Report, p. 3, excerpt below.)
• Description of Common Plant Life. The description of common plant life for the Project site in the biology assessment is incomplete. (Id. at 2, excerpt below.) 262
The Existing Conditions section lacks the level of detail, documentation, and basic scientific rigor necessary to characterize the baseline biological environment, and it therefore cannot support regulatory applicability, impact analysis, or commensurate compensatory mitigation.

There is no mention of the parcel's Assessor's Parcel Number (APN), latitude/longitude coordinates, section Township and Range, or U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-m inute quadrangle-basic locational data required for all environmental reports . The omission of topograph ic maps prevents reviewers from understanding the Project's context relative to known ESHAs or potential fuel modification zones.

The description of common plant life tor the Project site is inconsistent and does not include the level of detail required for environmental analysis in Malibu LCP and coastal zone jurisdiction. This section provides only a cursory list of a few plant species, some of which are incorrectly classified or ecologically implausible fo r a Southern California coastal bluff site, and lacks any supporting methodology, mapping, or context.

There are four fundamental errors which undermine the credibility of the assessment and indicate an absence of qualified botanical ability and oversight2 :

City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
• ESHA. This Presence of ESHA section in the Applicant’s biology assessment misstates the site’s ESHA relationship, omits critical spatial and ecological data, and fails to evaluate or acknowledge the regulatory implications of the Project’s proximity to mapped riparian ESHA and fuel-modification overlap. (Id. at 9.) As Amigo notes: “The section contains no figure, map, or cross-reference to show the relationship between the proposed structure, the ESHA boundary, and required buffers or fuel-modification zones. There is no quantification of distances, buffer widths, or ESHA acreage.” (Id., excerpt below.)
• Potential Impacts. The Potential Impacts section of the Applicant’s biological assessment does not provide any analytical, quantitative, or spatial evaluation of potential effects on sensitive biological resources. (Id. at 10.) 263
This Presence of ESHA section in the BA misstates the site's ESHA relationship, omits critical spatial and ecological data, and fails to evaluate or acknowledge the regulatory implications of the Project's proximity to mapped riparian ESHA and fuel-modification overlap. The section contains no figure, map, or cross-reference to show the relationship between the proposed structure, the ESHA boundary, and required buffers or fuel-modification zones. There is no quantification of distances, buffer widths, or ESHA acreage .

The most consequential deficiency of this section is that the ESHA occu rs on an adjacent parcel and was never surveyed, mapped, or biologically characterized in the BA. This omission may invalidate the document's conclusions regarding ESHA presence, buffer adequacy, and compliance with Malibu LIP Sections 4.6.1 and 4.7.1 , because a proper biological assessment cannot determine ESHA status, buffer sufficiency, or potential impacts without direct field verification and scientific description of the protected habitat itself.

10. Potential Impacts
The Potential Impacts section of the BA does not provide any analytical, quantitative, or spatial evaluation of potential effects on sensitive biological resources. The section misrepresents Malibu LCP buffer requirements, omits the ESHA and fuel modification conflict, and relies on geotechnical conclusions that are unrelated to biological impacts. Further, there is no quantification of vegetation removal, no analysis of habitat loss, no discussion of construction footprint or grading limits, and no evaluation of indirect impacts such as noise, lighting, or human intrusion.

I
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
• Native Tree Protection. The Applicant’s biological assessment’s discussion of the native tree protection ordinance is misplaced and fundamentally misunderstands the role of the biological assessment. (Id. at 5, excerpt below.) • Soil. The Soils section of the biological assessment lacks a scientifically supported description of the site’s soil conditions. Instead of characterizing on-site soils through field observation or verified mapping, the report merely cites the USDA Web Soil Survey and identifies the site as within the “Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (CA692).” However, this is not a soil map unit but a Survey Area ID. This fundamental error demonstrates a misinterpretation of basic soil data and their relevance to biological resources. (Id. at 6.) • Common Wildlife. The Common Wildlife section lacks documentation of survey effort, fails to reference field data, and provides no ecological interpretation of wildlife use relative to onsite or adjacent habitats, including coastal bluff ESHA and wetland resources. (Id. at 6.)
264
The inclusion of the Native Tree Protection Ordinance section under the Biological Resources section represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose, structure, and scientific function of a biological assessment. The section as written is not biological analysis, rather it is a verbatim reproduction of a municipal regulation. While the ordinance itself is part of Malibu's regulatory framework, referencing it here does not provide biological context or resource data, and it does not constitute a field-based assessment of existing biological resources as required under CEQA and the Malibu LCP/LIP.

The failure to identify or describe the correct soil series undermines the biological baseline by omitting the soil's influence on native plant community composition, ESHA characterization, and potential wetland hydric indicators. The section provides no discussion of soil texture, permeability, drainage class, or erosion potential, all of which are essential for evaluating habitat quality, stormwater interactions, and bluff-top stability under the Malibu LCP (Malibu LIP Chapter 10, "Bluffs") and Malibu LIP Section 4.4.2 (ESHA Overlay).

The section contains no discussion of survey methods, dates, duration, seasonal timing, weather conditions, or personnel qualifications. Without this information, it is impossible to determine whether wildlife observations were made during appropriate survey periods, or whether the site was surveyed multiple times to capture seasonal variability. Under CDFW (2018) survey protocols and CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), a valid biological assessment must describe the methods used to detect wildlife, including visual surveys, auditory observations, or indirect sign (e.g., scat, tracks, burrows).

City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
• Plant Species of Special Concern. The Plant Species of Special Concern section fails to show that an adequate survey effort was conducted or that the potential presence of special-status plant species was adequately evaluated. (Id. at 7.) • Mitigation Measures. The biology assessment provides an inadequate mitigation and monitoring program and instead includes limited, generalized and generic measures without specific criteria. (Id. at 11.)
• Wildlife Species of Special Concern. The biology assessment fails to comply with technical standards for analysis of species of special concern. (Id. at 8.) • Fire Analysis. The Applicant’s biological assessment’s analysis of wildfire impacts is generic and inadequate. (Id. at 8.)
265
The Plant Species of Special Concern section does not demonstrate that an appropriate level of survey effort was conducted nor that the potential occurrence of special-status plant species was systematically assessed using current data sources and field methodology.

11. Mitigation Measures
The listed measures in the Mitigation Measures section do not provide quantifiable performance standards or monitoring protocols, and do not connect to the Project's identified biological impacts.

This Wildlife Species of Special Concern section in the BA is internally inconsistent and noncom pliant with the technical standards of CEQA, CDFW (2018) survey protocols, and the Malibu LCP/LIP. The listed species appear to have been selected without supporting habitat analysis, data citations, or field evidence. The discussion fails to distinguish between special-status taxa, common species, and incidental observations.

The Wildfire Frequency section included in the BA reads as a generic narrative rather than a technical assessment and provides no meaningful connection to the Project's biological context, fuelmodification constraints, or ESHA interface. This section does not evaluate how historic or future wildfire events have affected (or may affect) vegetation succession, habitat quality, or post-fire regeneration, nor does it analyze whether fuel modification requirements might encroach into ESHA or alter habitat function.

City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
This Planning Commission’s decision must be supported by the findings and the findings must be supported by substantial evidence. (Cal. Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(b).) “Such evidence must be reasonable, credible, and of solid value.” (California Youth Authority v. State Personnel Bd. (2002) 104 Cal.App.4th 575, 585.) Respectfully, as demonstrated by Clients’ biologist team, the Applicant’s biological assessment does not provide reasonable, credible, or solid evidence sufficient to support an approval. As such, additional biological analysis must be done. Until then, the Project must be denied.

D. The LUP Does Not Change This Analysis.

The Applicant contends that the Property cannot be subject to the ESHA overlay or ESHA buffer restrictions because surrounding parcels are allegedly subject to fuel modification requirements. (See Exh. C, p. 2.) The Applicant relies on Land Use Plan (“LUP”) Section 1(a), §

3.1, which states that “fuel modification areas required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA.” (Id.) That argument fails for multiple reasons:
• Even if the Applicant’s premise were correct (which it is not) the Coastal Act independently requires riparian protection. Coastal Act Section 30231 mandates that natural vegetation buffer areas that protect riparian habitats be maintained, and that the alteration of natural streams be minimized. (LUP § 1.) Thus, streams and their associated riparian habitats receive protection in addition to ESHA status. • More importantly, the Applicant concedes that the stream itself still constitutes ESHA. (Exh. C, p. 2 [“Accordingly, with the exception of the stream channel itself, the entire area is not defined as ESHA.”].) Once an ESHA area is identified, buffer requirements attach to protect it; the LUP provides no mechanism for developers to evade buffer obligations by invoking nearby fuel modification zones.

This makes sense: There may be logic to avoid designating an area as ESHA that has already been disturbed or has been cleared of all natural vegetation due to fuel modification requirements. However, once it has been determined that a protectable environmental resource exists, it makes sense to then protect that resource by enforcing buffer requirements. Therefore, if the stream is still ESHA as the Applicant admits, the ESHA buffer requirements still apply. 266
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
• The Applicant further impliedly admits that the ESHA overlay requirements apply by providing a development area calculation as required by the overlay. (See Plans, Sheet A-0.3.)
• In any case, the Applicant’s interpretation would produce absurd results. Under its theory, any development adjoining a parcel subject to fuel modification could claim exemption from ESHA or ESHA-buffer restrictions, creating a domino effect that would incrementally eliminate ESHA protections citywide. Such an outcome is plainly inconsistent with the Coastal Act and the LUP’s conservation purposes. • The Applicant’s position also contradicts LUP policy. Section 3, Policy 5.6 provides that “[p]rotection of ESHA and public access shall take priority over other development standards and, where there is any conflict between general development standards and ESHA and/or public access protection, the standards that are most protective of ESHA and public access shall have precedence.” The Applicant’s argument does precisely the opposite.
• Finally, the Applicant offers no competent evidence of surrounding fuelmodification zones. Its crudely drawn map in an email memo lacks a legend, scale, or verifiable methodology and cannot serve as substantial evidence to rebut the biological and ESHA findings discussed above.

II. Archaeology Objections.

A. The Project Impermissibly Proposes Grading Within 30-Feet of the Northern Property Line.

The City’s Archaeological Review Sheet includes certain conditions of approval. We attach the archaeology review sheet as Exhibit D. Among other things, it commands that “no geologic trenching, soil borings, ground clearance, grading, equipment placement, or similar surface-disturbing impacts shall be allowed within 30 feet of the northern property boundary.” (Exh. D, p. 1, emphasis added.) See below:
267
Based on the information submitted, the applicant may proceed with obtaining an excavation permit through City Geotechnical Staff with the conditions listed above. In addition, no geologic trenching, soil borings, ground clearance, grading, equipment placement, or similar surface-disturbing impacts shall be allowed within 30 feet of the northern property boundary. When completed, please submit a report describing the archaeologist's findings.

City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
Here, the Project patently violates this requirement by proposing significant grading along the entire northern property boundary, as shown on Sheet C-3.0 of the civil engineering plans. (Note: north is on the right side of the sheet.) Accordingly, the Project as presently proposed must be denied. 268
CD
0 I,)
0 I!)
m
m
B
l!I
!3
!ill
!;;I
Ell
r .,. .,. , ~f ----
' I
I
Approximat
from No
CONSl'l!UCIION NOm
=~=i:.~"1:~"·
rt()l>O!I.DTV.>!E~l.011U
:=:•"""11:0tMVo!JO.YIIIOM,ACn::c
CUIJl''Ml'.HC,AAIA
l:asl!NCN(l(;HIOll"Sf£HCf10111~
f:ii:rsnt«;'illt"""li. \
lll2SIMGtlllGHIOllffGsmJC1URI \
I
I
I
I
I
I
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
B. The Project Violates the LIP’s Requirements to Fully Investigate Cultural Resource Impacts Prior to Planning, Grading, or Building Permit Approval.

Cultural resource protection remains particularly important here, where, as discussed later in this letter, the Applicant has a history of conducting unpermitted development activity on the Property. The City’s general plan agrees, making it a policy to: “identify, designate, protect, and preserve areas, sites, or structures of historic, cultural, paleontological, and/or archeological significance” and to “avoid the destruction or alteration of cultural resources.” (Conservation Element, Policies 2.1.1 and 2.1.2.) The City’s LUP likewise makes it a policy that “[n]ew development shall protect and preserve archaeological, historical, and paleontological resources from destruction and shall avoid and minimize impacts on such resources.” (LUP Policy 5.60.) In accord, LIP section 11.2 requires certain archaeological and cultural resource investigations “prior to the issuance of a planning approval, development permit, … building permit, [or] grading permit….” (LIP § 11.2, emphasis added) Specifically, LIP section 11.3(D) requires applicants to prepare a “Phase I inventory” of cultural resources whenever a project may cause a substantial adverse change to cultural resources. “If on the basis of the Phase I Inventory … one or more significant cultural resources is found, a Phase I Inventory may be required to” be supplemented with additional investigation, such as shovel test pits, recommendations for additional investigation (i.e., a “Phase II” investigation), and monitoring programs. (LIP § 11.3(F).) These additional investigations must “be conducted in consultation with a qualified Chumash Cultural Resources Monitor.” (LIP § 11.3(D).) A “Phase II” or “Phase III” investigation may then be required if the Phase I investigation reveals potential adverse impacts to cultural resources. (LIP §§ 11.3(G), (H).) Here, a the Applicant prepared a Phase I Archaeological Study (Boxt, Ph.D., March 2023), which found cultural resources, including shell and stone tools, albeit with uncertainty about whether the materials are in situ or displaced. (See Staff Report, p. 8.) This report has not been made available to the public or interested parties. Because the Phase I study found cultural resources, the LIP requires the Applicant to supplement its Phase I investigations and potentially conduct Phase II and Phase III investigations, but no such supplementation or investigations took place. This violates the LIP. Additional investigation must be done now, prior to planning, grading, and building permit approval, not after. (See LIP § 11.2.) 269
----
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
C. The LIP’s Cultural Resources Chapter Requires a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report.

Where, as here, cultural resources are found, the Phase I investigation is required to be supplemented to include additional investigations, such as shovel testing, recommendations for additional (Phase II) investigation, and monitoring programs. (LIP § 11.3(F).) In this scenario, the LIP requires, at minimum, the City to prepare a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or environmental impact report (“EIR”). (LIP §§

11.3(F)(1) [“An evaluation of limited shovel test pits to determine whether a subsurface deposit is present and a negative declaration shall be prepared”], (2) [“Evaluations and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report or an environmental impact report shall be prepared”], (3) [“Monitoring programs pursuant to Section

11.3 (F)(4)(b) of the Malibu LIP and a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared.”].) Phase II and Phase III testing also require an MND or EIR. (See LIP § 11.3(G) [requiring a negative declaration, MND, or EIR for Phase II investigations], § 11.3(H) [requiring the same for Phase III investigations].) The City failed to do so in violation of the LIP.

In addition, staff conditions approval on archaeological monitoring during grading. It requires, vaguely, that “the appropriate measures to be taken should such resources be uncovered.” (See Draft Resolution, No. 25-76. Conditions of Approval Nos. 12 to 16.) This puts the cart before the horse. LIP section 11.2 requires cultural resource review before issuing planning approvals, grading permits, or any other permit or approval. Approving the CDP first and deciding what significant impacts exist later inverts the LIP’s sequence and deprives decision-makers and the public of the required pre-approval analysis.

CEQA agrees. Case law generally prohibits deferring environmental analysis or creating post-hoc mitigation measures. “By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions [of approval] run counter to that policy of CEQA which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process.” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) As such, the Applicant should be required to conduct additional investigations now, not later. Until then, the Application should be denied. 270
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
III. CEQA Violations.

A. The City Improperly Relies Upon Mitigation Measures to Support a Categorical Exemption from CEQA.

City staff asserts that the Project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA, which generally applies to minor new construction, including single family homes. (See Staff Report, p. 18 [“the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e)”]; Draft Resolution No. 25-76, p. 2 [stating a Class 3 exemption applies].)
The City’s reliance on the Class 3 exemption is misplaced. Critically, the City cannot rely on a categorical exemption because substantial evidence demonstrates that there is “a reasonable possibility” of an adverse environmental impact. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game Com.(1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 124 [stating “an activity that may have a significant effect on the environment cannot be categorically exempt”].) Moreover, “[a]n agency may not evade CEQA by adopting mitigation measures simply to qualify a project for a categorical exemption.” (Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771, 789; see also Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199–1200.)
That’s exactly what the City unlawfully attempts to do here. The City’s Archaeology Review Sheet, states “that potential cultural resources are located on the project site.” (Exh. C at

1.) And the Staff Report acknowledges that the Applicant discovered American Indian tools and shells on the Property. (Staff Report, p. 8 [“The cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools….”].)
Further, an archaeology report for the upslope property at 33002 PCH also demonstrated the presence of cultural artifacts in the immediate area. (See Archaeology Determination Letter, PPR 99-120/SPR 99-045, July 27, 1999.) Our Client, Tamara Mackey, recalls human remains being discovered at this upslope property. Further, our other Client, Unknowingly Devolving, LLC, has recovered cultural artifacts on his own property at 32960 PCH—which lies immediately east of the subject Property—including mortar, pestles, and hand tools. We attach photos of these as Exhibit E.
271
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
For example, the following photograph shows examples of artifacts recovered on the adjacent property at 32960 PCH property:

Undoubtedly, given the documented cultural resources on the Property and adjacent properties, the Project—which involves 2,974.6 cubic yards of cut and fill grading over 12,603.6 square feet of area (see Civil Plans, sheet C-3.0)—presents a reasonable possibility of an adverse impact on cultural resources.

Unsurprisingly, the City all but admits the potential adverse impact of the Project on these resources, requiring the Applicant “[t]o mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance” through two proposed mitigation measures. (Id.) The Staff 272
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
Report, likewise, states that in light of the shells and tools, “a condition of approval has been added … that requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist for all earthmoving activities….” (Staff Report, p. 8.) In other words, the City does exactly what it is not supposed to do: It attempts to evade CEQA by adopting mitigation measures in order to qualify the Project for a categorical exemption.

A court will agree the City has unlawfully used mitigation measures to evade CEQA:
• In Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, a county acknowledged that a residential construction project may have potential adverse impacts on adjacent stream habitat. It then adopted conditions of approval (e.g., requiring a riparian protection plan) designed to mitigate the potential adverse impacts and thereby qualify the project for a Class 3 categorical exemption. (Id. at 1104.) The court of appeal stated that mitigation measures under CEQA are only proper at later stages of the process, and the County unlawfully evaded that process by adopting mitigation measures to rely upon a categorical exemption. (Id. at 1107-08.) Here, just like in Salmon Protection, a court would reject the City’s attempt to rely upon archaeological mitigation measures to obtain a Class 3 exemption.
• Similarly, in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, an agency authorized the continued disposal of municipal waste at a landfill and declared the project categorically exempt from CEQA as the operation or minor alteration of an existing facility. (Id. at 1193.) In granting the categorical exemption, the agency in Azusa had acknowledged that pollutants were leaking from the landfill but had relied upon evidence that mitigation measures could prevent further pollution. (Id. at 1198.) The appellate court concluded this violated CEQA, stating that “proposed mitigation measures cannot be used to support a categorical exemption; they must be considered under the standards that apply to a mitigated negative declaration.” (Id. at 1199.) Here too, the City cannot rely upon mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant effects on cultural resources.

Given the potentially adverse impacts to cultural resources, the City must prepare a mitigated negative declaration or EIR instead. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1108 [“Reliance upon mitigation measures (whether 273
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
included in the application or later adopted) … must be conducted under established CEQA standards and procedures for EIRs or negative declarations.”].) Until then, the Application must be denied.

B. Unusual Circumstances Preclude the Use of the Class 3 Exemption.

Categorical Exemptions do not apply where “unusual circumstances … create a ‘reasonable possibility’ that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment.” (Save the Plastic Bag Coalition v. County of Marin (1st Dist. 2013) 218 Cal. App. 4th 209, 220 (citing Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2, subd. (c)).) This exception has two prongs: (1) whether the project presents unusual circumstances; and (2) whether there is a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to those unusual circumstances. (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086, 1114.) Berkeley Hillside observed that a party can show an unusual circumstance by demonstrating that the project has some characteristic or feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105; Berkeley Hillside also clarified that a party may establish an unusual circumstance with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (Ibid.) Here, unusual circumstances obviously exist: The Property contains cultural resources, including tools and shells, which distinguishes the Project from other projects within the Class 3 exemption. And indeed, the City has all but admitted that the Project will have significant effect on those resources absent measures “[t]o mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance.” (Exh. D, p. 1.) Because unusual circumstances exist, and because the Project will have a significant effect on cultural resources, the City cannot rely upon a Class 3 exemption and the City must prepare an MND or EIR.

C. The Development in the ESHA Buffer Precludes Applying a Class 3 Exemption.

A Class 3 exemption cannot be applied to a project that “may impact” an “environmental resource of hazardous or critical concern” designated and mapped by a federal, state, or local agency. (CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2, subdivision (a).) Here, the Project lies partially in a mapped and designated ESHA buffer.2 Moreover, it impacts that buffer by proposing new development— 2 The Applicant’s plans admit the Project’s location in ESHA buffer. Plan Sheet A-0.2, among other sheets, show new planters, gates, walls, pilasters, and fencing located behind a line labeled “approx. 100’ from ESHA boundary.” 274
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
such as a wall, a fence, pilasters, a gate, a turnaround, paving, planter boxes, and other improvements—in an area that the LIP normally requires to remain undeveloped in order to protect ESHA. Accordingly, a Class 3 exemption remains inappropriate. (See, e.g., Gaviota Coast Conservancy v. Santa Barbara County, (Cal. Ct. App., Dec. 21, 2009, No. B216420) 2009 WL 4894456, at *5 [where project was on a “scenic ridgeline” and was part of a “key observation point” that “provides long scenic vistas for recreational uses,” substantial evidence supported the finding that the project is not subject to a Class 3 exemption under exception for environmental resources].) Before this Commission can approve the Project, the City must prepare an MND or EIR.3
IV. Procedural Violations of the LIP.

A. The Project Application Remains Incomplete Because the Applicant Failed to Consult with the State Lands Commission.

The Project qualifies as “shoreline development” under the Coastal Act and Malibu’s Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”). The Property lies directly along the Pacific Ocean; state tidelands form its southern parcel boundary; and the proposed improvements sit atop a coastal bluff subject to coastal wave action. Indeed, staff’s September 1, 2023, incomplete letter noted that “[d]ue to the fact the project abuts the ocean per LIP Section 10.5(C) a Determination from the California State Lands Commission is required.” We attach this incomplete letter as Exhibit F.

As such, the LIP required the Applicant to submit “written evidence of a review and determination from the State Lands Commission relative to the proposed project’s location to or impact upon the boundary between public tidelands and private property.” (LIP § 10.5(C).) “Such determination [is] a filing requirement for a Coastal Development Permit,” and “any application filed without such determination shall be determined to be incomplete.” (Id.; see also LIP § 13.6.2 [“Applicants for development along the shoreline property or fronting a beach shall submit written evidence of a review and determination from the California State Lands Commission relative to the project's location to or impact upon the boundary between public tidelands and private property.”].)
To our Client’s knowledge, the Applicant has not provided this required written evidence, and neither the Staff Report nor any attachments reference or include such documentation. In fact, 3 Separate and apart from the above arguments, our Clients assert that the the historical resource exception (Guidelines § 15300.2(f)) precludes the use of the Class 3 exemption because the artifacts can be considered historic resources and because the Project would have an adverse impact on them. 275
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
staff records personnel Jason Ernst indicated by email on October 14, 2025, that “[t]here was a note in the database stating that a state land’s letter is not required for this project.” We attach this email as Exhibit G.

The omission renders the application incomplete as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Commission must either deny the application or continue the hearing until the required State Lands Commission determination has been provided. (See LIP § 10.5(C).) B. The Applicant and City Failed to Invite Parties with Property Interests to Join as Co-Applicant in Violation of the LIP.

The Malibu LIP states that “[a]ll holders or owners of any other interest of record in the affected property shall be notified in writing of the permit application and invited to join as coapplicant.” (LIP § 13.6.2(C).) This requirement is not new or unique: The Commission also requires developers to invite interests holders to join an application as co-applicants. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13053.5.) Indeed, staff’s last incomplete letter, dated February 10, 2025, and attached as Exhibit H, states that “Staff has been made aware that improvements are proposed within the access easement. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.6.2, all holders or owners of the easement shall be notified in writing of the subject permit application and invited to join as co-applicant.” Staff is correct: the Property is subject to an access easement and an easement road that connects several properties along the easement road to Pacific Coast Highway. (See Plans, Sheet T-2.1 [Survey].) We attach the easement deed as Exhibit I.

Importantly, all properties on the easement road have a right to use the entire easement as the easement was granted to “each party” to the easement agreement “along and under said strip of land to the end,” stating “that said easements shall be used and enjoyed by said owners and their successors and assigns.” (Exh. I, Easement Deed, p. 4.) The easement deed reiterates this point, noting that the easement is “appurtenant to and for the common benefit of all of the said lands, or portions thereof, above referred to.” (Id.) Because these owners hold an easement over the Property, they have a property interest in it. (See, e.g., County Sanitation Dist. v. Watson Land Co. (1993) 17 Cal.App.4th 1268, 1278 [“An easement is an incorporeal interest in the land of another…”].)
276
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
The following depiction, prepared by Client’s title company, Chicago Title, shows the area of the easement road:

To our Client’s knowledge, no easement holders were ever invited to join the application as co-applicant. Further, no such invitation is included in the materials before this Planning Commission. Because the City and Applicant failed to invite interest holders to join as co-applicants, the application was, at best, incomplete and cannot be acted upon now. (LIP §

13.6.2.) See below depiction.

C. This Hearing Improperly Purports to Resolve a Code Enforcement Matter.

1. No Process Exists to Resolve Code Enforcement Matters Through the CDP Entitlement Process.

This hearing purports to resolve a code enforcement matter. According to Applicant’s memorandum, attached as Exhibit J, the City opened a code enforcement case “for an unpermitted 277
LI
9 OR
I
\
\
\
s~ .. a ·•:::s.::--..._ __
.... ,,,., ---- - -- ~~, ~ - - - --
/
I • I
I
I
·" ___________ ¢. , .. _.....,_.,_, r
Subject Property
// ,' , I
. I
.. .,,...

I
I
I
I
C - I / -....... , I
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
fence and gate with electrical power, landscape and drainage, and [disturbing ground] on Chumash designated land.” (Exh. J, p. 1.)
The City, meanwhile, has a process for resolving code violations and code enforcement cases. That includes, without limitation, the Administrative Citations and Penalties Chapter of the Municipal Code. (See MMC Ch. 1.10.) That chapter provides a process for issuing citations, appealing citations, conducting a hearing on citations, recording liens (as appropriate), and judicial review, among other procedures. (See, e.g., LIP §§ 1.10.040-10, 1.10.140.) By contrast, nothing in the CDP chapter of the LIP (Chapter 13) or any chapter of the LIP or Municipal Code indicate that a Planning Commission hearing or the CDP entitlement process the appropriate process for resolving code violations. The Staff Report points to none. The City cannot invent that process now from whole cloth.

2. The City Violates Longstanding Policy on Processing Code Enforcement Cases.

Besides lacking any basis in the LIP or Municipal Code, the City has long maintained that outstanding code enforcement matters must be resolved before new entitlement applications can be processed—let alone brought to hearing. To take just one example: in 2024, the owner of 25040 Pacific Coast Highway filed an application for a CDP and two variances related to new walls on the property (CDP No. 25-008; Variance No. 24-007). The property included an outdoor fireplace and patio for which permits had expired and final inspections had never occurred. When this came to the attention of Code Enforcement, City planning stated unequivocally:

It has come to my attention that there is an open code enforcement case for the [property]. You cannot apply for a new application until the code enforcement case is resolved.

We attach the City’s April 3, 2024, email as Exhibit K. Only once the owner of 25040 PCH fully addressed the code enforcement issues did the City begin to process the CDP and variance application.

The City cannot take a contrary approach now. Consistency and fairness require that the same standard be applied here. The Applicant must first resolve the outstanding code enforcement violations before this Commission can lawfully consider the Project. 278
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1

3. The City Failed to Provide Legally Adequate Notice That This Hearing Might Resolve Code Enforcement Issues.

The City failed to properly provide notice that this hearing might resolve the outstanding code violations. The City issued an updated Notice of Public Hearing (“Notice”) for this hearing on October 9, 2025, which we attach as Exhibit L.

Specifically, the Notice indicates that the hearing will consider Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 and Minor Modification No. 25-009. It makes no mention of the code violation.

The actual agenda item, by contrast, indicates that the subject of the hearing also includes Code Violation No. 23-047, and the Staff Report indicates that “[a]fter the CDP is approved and upon final inspection of the project, the code violation case will be closed.” (Staff Report, p. 3.) Under the Coastal Act regulations, The public hearing must be conducted “in any … manner reasonably calculated to give interested persons an opportunity to appear and present their viewpoints, either orally or in writing.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13566.) And Malibu’s LIP requires all application numbers and all development being considered to be summarized in the notice. (See LIP § 13.12.1 [requiring the notice to include the application number(s) being heard and the development being considered].)
By failing to even mention the code violation, the general public remains unaware that the hearing potentially affects its resolution. In so doing, the City denies potentially interested persons the opportunity to be heard in violation of the LIP, the Coastal Act regulations, and due process.

As such, City must, at minimum, continue and re-notice the hearing.

V. This Commission Cannot Make the Findings to Grant a CDP or Minor Modification.

A. The CDP Findings.

Several findings must be made to approve a CDP. (LIP § 13.9.) Among other things, the Project must comply with the Local Coastal Program, including the LIP. (Id.) This Commission cannot make this finding. To reiterate briefly:
• The Project fails to calculate
“development area” correctly and
violates the development area maximum.
(LIP § 4.7.1.)
• The Project proposes impermissible uses
in an ESHA buffer. (LIP § 4.5.4.)
• The Applicant’s biological assessment
remains inaccurate and inadequate.
279
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
• The City and Applicant failed to consult
with the State Lands Commission. (LIP
§§ 10.5.C, 13.6.2.)
• The City failed to invite property owners
with a property interest in the Property to
join as co-applicants. (LIP § 13.6.2(C).)
• The City improperly uses the Application
and this hearing to resolve code
enforcement issues. (MMC Ch. 1.10.)
• The Public Notice of Hearing does not
conform to the requirements of the LIP or
related Coastal Act regulations. (See LIP
§ 13.12.1; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §
13566.)
• The project violates a condition of
approval prohibiting grading within 30
feet of the northern property line. (See
Archaeology Review Sheet, p. 1.)
• The project violates CEQA by failing to
prepare an MND or EIR despite the
discovery of cultural artifacts. (LIP §

11.3)
• The project violates the LIP’s
requirements to prepare a supplemental
Phase I or Phase II archaeology report.
(LIP § 11.3.)
The Commission must also find that “[t]he project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.” (LIP § 13.9(C).) Here, Staff purports to analyze alternatives, such as taller house, or alternative building pad locations. (See, e.g., Staff Report, pp. 10-11.) However, Staff failed to consider or analyze that the Project is located partially within an ESHA buffer. Moreover, while the turnaround in the ESHA might (at least arguably) be required, the other development in the ESHA buffer, such as planters, fences, gates, walls, etc., is not. Because the Project could viably exist without these improvements, it is not the “least environmentally damaging alternative.” Finally, if the “project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay)” the Commission must find “that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.” (LIP § 13.9(D).)
Here, the Project lies partially within an ESHA buffer. Accordingly, it must be referred to the Environmental Review Board. Until it is, this Commission cannot approve it. 280
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
B. The Minor Modification Findings.

The Applicant seeks a large reduction to the front yard setback. To grant a Minor Modification, the Commission must make certain findings. (LIP § 13.27.5(B).) These include, among other things, that “the proposed project complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law.” (Id.) For reasons stated in the previous section, this finding cannot be made because the Project violates various state and local laws. Accordingly, the Minor Modification must be denied.

VI. The Project Does Not Comply With the Certificate of Compliance and NonCompliance Prohibits Approval.

A Conditional Certificate of Compliance No. 29220, was recorded against title to the Property on October 30, 1986 by the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning (the “CoC”). We attach the CoC as Exhibit M. In conformance with Government Code section 66499.35, subdivision (b), the CoC expressly provides that “the conditions listed below must be fulfilled before issuance of a building permit or other development approval.” (Id., p. 1.) Condition #2 of the CoC required the owner to:

Dedicate to the County the right to restrict the erection of buildings and/or other structures because the property and/or its access is within a flood-prone area.
(Exh. M, p. 1.)
In purported satisfaction of this condition, the then-owner recorded a deed restriction prohibiting development within the flood-zone portion of the Property—approximately 7,335 square feet along the coastal bluff. We attach this deed restriction as Exhibit N.

The dedication fails to comply with the CoC. The CoC did not just require the owner to dedicate a deed restriction to the flood-mapped portions of the Property. It required the County to retain authority to restrict the erection of buildings throughout the Property. By limiting the dedication to one corner of the site, the owner did not satisfy the CoC’s conditions of approval.

Accordingly, because the CoC’s conditions remain unfulfilled, no building permit or other development approval may lawfully issue for the Property. (Id.; Government Code section 66499.35 [“the fulfillment and implementation of [a CoC’s] conditions shall be required prior to subsequent issuance of a permit or other grant of approval for development of the property”].) 281
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
Moreover, even if the owner had complied by granting the County authority to restrict development throughout the entire parcel, any local development approval would still conflict with that County-held authority, leaving it unclear how the City could lawfully approve a project that the County would retain the power to order removed.

VII. The Project Violates the Neighbor’s Primary View Determination and Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resources Protection Ordinance.

One of our Clients, the upslope neighbor at 33006 Pacific Coast Highway, has a Primary View Determination, PVD No. 17-0036 (“PVD”), which we attach as Exhibit O. The PVD captures the view looking south from 33006 PCH directly over the Property in question.

A. Bluewater Views.

In protecting primary views, the Municipal Code provides that “[n]o view obstruction within blue-water ocean, mountain or canyon-view elements per project shall be permitted.” (MMC § 17.040.040(A0(17).) The LIP’s Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resources chapter, meanwhile, similarly requires this Commission to find “[t]he project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.” (LIP § 6.4(A)(1); accord LIP § 6.4(E)(1) [“Where the topography of the project site descends from the roadway, new development shall be sited and designed to preserve bluewater ocean views” through certain measures].) The Project violates these requirements.

The Draft Resolution indicates that “[n]o existing Bluewater views are present from PCH and when viewing the proposed project against the backdrop of the existing landscaping and bluff development from nearby public viewing areas, views of the Pacific Ocean are minimal.” (Draft Resolution No. 25-76, p. 3.) Staff also states that “[b]ased on the project plans and staff’s site visit, it was determined that the proposed project would result in a residence that would be similar to other existing development in the area and would result in a less than significant visual impact to public views from PCH and nearby public beaches….” (Staff Report, p. 3.) However, Staff’s story pole analysis indicates that the Project, will, in fact have impacts on bluewater views, particularly from 33006 PCH, as demonstrated in the following marked up photograph:
282
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
Accordingly, the Project should be modified to protect—not obstruct—these view.

B. Landscaping
The PVD protects our Client from landscape that would significantly obstruct our Client’s view as documented in the PVD. (See MMC § 17.40.040(A)(17).) Our Clients also recognize that the Draft Resolution includes a condition of approval that ostensibly prohibits the Project’s landscaping from obstructing primary views. (Draft Resolution No. 25-76, Condition #39 [“Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to significantly obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).”]; see also Condition #44 [prohibiting vegetation above six feet from obstructing primary view].) Nevertheless, the Project’s landscape plans include trees that appear destined to violate the PVD and the Project’s conditions of approval. Sheet L3.00 of the landscape plans, for example, notes four proposed Big Berry Manzanita trees with a maximum height of 10 to 20 feet, three proposed citrus trees with a maximum height of 12 feet, and two proposed Island Oak trees with a maximum height of 35 feet. The Applicant proposes to scatter these trees around the Property.

Sheet L3.00 provides the following Plant Palette:
283
View of Proposed Residence from 33006 PCH
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
Although staff attempts to address this issue by referencing Condition of Approval No. 33, the current architecture and landscape plan inherently conflicts with that condition and the visualresource findings required by LIP section 6.6.4. Approval of trees capable of growing five to six times the permitted view height invites a future code-enforcement action once the vegetation matures.

To ensure compliance with LIP section 6.6.4, the landscape plan must be redesigned to include plant species whose mature height will not obstruct protected primary views. Without such revisions, the City cannot make the required finding that the project “will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts,” and approval would be inconsistent with the findings to grant a CDP. (See LIP § 6.6.4(A)(1).)
VIII. The Applicant Constitutes a Bad Actor: The Applicant Continues to Undertake Unpermitted Development and the City Should Not Reward Them with a CDP.

Finally, our Clients note that the Applicant constitutes a bad actor whom the City should not reward with entitlement approvals. As the Staff Report acknowledges, the Property remains subject to an open code-enforcement case (Code Violation No. 23-047) involving multiple violations. (Staff Report, p. 3.) The Applicant’s memorandum indicates that this includes “[an] unpermitted fence and gate with electrical power, landscape and drainage, and [ground disturbance] on Chumash designated land.” We attach the Applicant’s May 12, 2023, memorandum as Exhibit P. Indeed, our Client’s have observed some of this illegal activity. We attach photos from November 2022 as Exhibit Q showing dirt, trees, and tile or pavers being 284
' --.. -.. \\ \ \ ( \._: ________ ,. ' •, ' " \, .. , , ' ,. , .. ,'\_ .\ "~ \ \ ·-. '• . ..... •, Pl a nt Pa I ette
Botenlc ~me Common ~me Sile auantrty WUCO LS MAX Height Treea &. Large Shruba
.m:lo•fo,cf>ylm g{S1Jca Big Bal)' 1,1..,..arna 16,g 4 1113d 10•-0• • 9:J'·O• Gm\J<spp. A&:a:l"'Bd Ottu&VS'EtB& 24•&,x 1113d 12'·0'
a.Jercuc romenre~ lslondO!I< 4a•ea, Lo,.> 36'·0'
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
delivered to the Property without permits. To use just one example, we provide the following picture of the Applicant’s Property in 2022 with dirt, sod, mechanical equipment, and wood plans, delivered apparently in order to conduct unpermitted development:
285
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
Our Clients also present evidence of additional, ongoing violations, including the apparent unpermitted construction of a path on the coastal bluff. The following photo, for example, attached as Exhibit R, shows Applicant’s gardening team walking on a trail on the coastal bluff that appears to include unpermitted wood railing.

This trail is not permitted, is not part of the adjacent properties or public access trail, and is not the subject of this Application. This Commission should not reward this Applicant with a CDP, much less a reduced a setback to the coastal bluff it refuses to project.

IX. Conclusion.

Our Clients do not oppose all development on the Property. But such development must be lawful, with due respect given to ESHA and cultural resources, in compliance with CEQA, and accord with the procedural and substantive safeguards under the LIP. As explained in detail above, 286
orker uti
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

5740327.1
the Project fails to meet this standard. Accordingly, as presently proposed, the Application must be denied.

Very truly yours,
JACKSON D. McNEILL
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
JDM:jdm
cc: Yolanda Bundy ([email protected])
Raneika Brooks ([email protected])
Trevor Rusin ([email protected])
Kellan Martz ([email protected])
[email protected]
287
From: Jerry Jacob
Subject: Corrected letter, added our address
Date: October 17, 2025 at 1:41:24 PM PDT
To: Ron Jenny
Dear Planning Commission,
We are neighbors of the Jenny's on Encinal Bluff. I'm writing this to express my support for their proposed construction of a small, two-bedroom house with an office. As a fellow resident of Malibu, I appreciate their long-standing commitment to our community. We have been residents of Malibu for many years, and I've known the Jennys for a significant portion of that time.

From what I have observed, their plans are carefully designed to adhere to all height and size regulations. I am confident that this development will blend seamlessly into our neighborhood, contributing positively without compromising the neighborhood’s character or tranquility.

My wife and I fully support the Jenny's project and encourage the commission to approve it.

Thank you for your thoughtful review.

Sincerely,
Jerry and Lynn Jacob
Pacific Coast Hwy
Malibu
288
1111
289
Dear Members of the Planning Commissron,
We are pleased to endorse the Jennys' application to develop a single-bedroom residence with care quarters on their Malibu property. Havin,g known them for many years, I can attest to their positive Influence In our community. They have been lifelong residents. raising their child/en locally and contributing to the neighborhood's charm.

They purchased this land approx.imately four years ago. and 1 understand this project is their flnal residence. The pLan is modest, complies with all regulatiOl"IS. and carefully aligns with ttie neighborhood's character;
Given their tong-standing ties to Malibu and their commitment to responsible development, I support 111is p(oposal and believe It wm benefit ltlelr famny and 1he community.

Thank you for yotJr consJderation..
290
To Members of the Planning Commission,
I am pleased to offer my support for the Jennys' proposal to construct a single-bedroom residence with a care-quarters on their property in Malibu. I have known the Jennys for many years, having seen them contribute positively to our community for over five decades. They raised their four children here and have deep ties to the area.

They purchased this land about four years ago and have shared that this will be their final residence. Their plan is modest, designed to meet all regulatory requirements, and intended to blend well with the surrounding neighborhood.

As longstanding Malibu residents, I believe they have earned the right to develop their property in a way that supports their comfort and aging needs. I support their application and am confident it will be a good addition to the neighborhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
D - . Dou~an
... :;t~ad
Malibu, CA 90265
From: Gregory Hyland
Subject: Re: Letter and plans
Date: October 6, 2025 at 3:27:38 PM PDT
To: Ronald Jenny
Dear Planning Department,
I support my neighbor’s application to build a small, compliant residence in Malibu. The design respects all height and size regulations, and the homeowners have been respectful of the neighborhood’s character. I am confident that this development will be a positive addition and will not cause any disruption. Thank you for considering my support.

Best regards, Denise Melle Pacific Coast HWY. Malibu CA. 90265
291
292
October 4, 2025
Dear Planning Commission,
I am pleased to support my neighbor's plans to build
a modest, compliant home in our community here In Malibu.

As I understand, the plans respect all height and size guidelines and is intended to contribute posittvely to our community.

I have known the owners for many years and trust their Integrity to follow all necessary guidelines. I trust the construction will be carried out responsibly, maintaining the neighborhood's peace, harmony and environmental concerns and responsibilities.

Please consider this letter as my encouragement for your approval.

Warm regards,
Christina Stevens
Christina L Stevens. -Pacific Coast Highway Malibu . Callfomla 90265 USA 293
October 1, 2025
Malibu Planning Commission
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Attn: Rebecca Evans, Recording Secretary
Members of the Planning Commission:

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as a neighbor residing at-Pacific Coast Highway to express my support for the proposed 41 89 square foot single-family residence at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, known as the Jenny Residence.

The owner, Mr. Jenny, has thoughtfully coordinated the siting of the home to preserve views of the ocean from the street and to ensure that second-floor views-while not protectedremain largely unobstructed. This consideration reflects a genuine effort to maintain the scenic character of our neighborhood and thoughtfully adheres to the height and size restrictions applicable to the parcel.

Additionally, Mr. Jenny has committed to minimizing construction-related disruptions to our lane. As a nearby resident, I appreciate this proactive approach and the respect shown toward the surrounding community.

I believe this project will be a positive addition to our neighborhood and encourage its approval.

Sincere_J,y,
/
Robert Marderosian
Vantage Point Terrace
Malibu, CA 90265
10/27/2025
Attn: City of Malibu Planning Commission
Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, CA 90265
[email protected]
Attn: Rebecca Evans
[email protected]
Subject: PC Meeting November 3, 2025, Item 4B: Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 / 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

I want to begin by thanking you for your service to our community. I know that the decisions you make are never easy, and I appreciate the time and care you dedicate to balancing the rights of property owners with the needs of our broader community. I am writing today about the proposed development at Pacific Coast Highway, and I ask that you consider some concerns that may not be immediately apparent from the application materials.

I understand the appeal of this project on its surface. A property owner wants to improve their land, and at first glance, that seems reasonable. But as I've learned more about this particular situation, I've come to believe that approving this project would create problems that extend far beyond this single property—problems that could affect how development happens throughout Malibu for years to come.

Let me share what troubles me most. This property is subject to a deed restriction from that was specifically designed to prevent building in flood-prone areas. That restriction was not arbitrary—it was put in place by Los Angeles County to protect both the property owner and the public. The current proposal appears to circumvent that restriction by limiting it to just one corner of the property, rather than honoring its original intent to protect the entire flood zone.

If you allow this precedent, what message does that send about the permanence and enforceability of deed restrictions throughout our city? Property owners who have faithfully honored their restrictions for decades might reasonably ask why they should continue to do so.

I'm also concerned about the environmental implications. The project site includes portions of an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area—the very ecosystems that make Malibu special and that the California Coastal Act requires us to protect. I know the applicant has submitted a biological assessment, but my neighbors who have studied this issue closely have raised serious 294
-
questions about its adequacy. Before you make an irreversible decision, shouldn't you be absolutely certain that you're not causing permanent damage to habitat that belongs to all of us?
What troubles me even more is the pattern of behavior you're being asked to reward. According to the City's own records, there is currently an open code enforcement case against this property for unpermitted work—including fencing, gates with electrical power, landscaping, drainage, and ground disturbance on Chumash-designated land. The applicant is essentially asking you to approve a project that would legitimize some of these violations after the fact. I understand that people make mistakes, but this appears to be a pattern rather than an isolated incident. Photographs from show materials being delivered to the property without permits.

There's even evidence of what appears to be unpermitted construction of a path down the coastal bluff to the beach.

I want to be clear… I'm not opposed to all development. Malibu has always been a place where people can build homes and enjoy their property. But there has to be rules, and those rules have to mean something. When we reward those who ignore the rules while their neighbors follow them faithfully, we undermine the entire system that protects our community.

There is also the matter of due process. According to the legal analysis my neighbors have obtained, several parties who hold property interests in an easement road affecting this property were never invited to join the application as co-applicants, as required by the Local Coastal Program. Additionally, the public hearing notice did not mention that this hearing would resolve the outstanding code violations—so members of the public who might want to comment on that aspect have been denied the opportunity to participate. These are not just technicalities, they are fundamental fairness issues that go to the heart of how we govern ourselves.

Finally, I want to mention the impact on neighboring properties. One of the neighbors has a Primary View Determination that protects their ocean views. The proposed landscaping includes trees that will grow to feet tall, which appears to directly violate both the Municipal Code's view protection requirements and the conditions of approval that specifically prohibit vegetation from obstructing primary views. The photographic evidence is compelling—this project will block views that are legally protected.

I know you may be thinking that denying this application seems harsh. But I would ask you to consider what approval would mean. It would mean that deed restrictions can be reinterpreted decades later to suit current desires. It would mean that patterns of code violations can be resolved by simply applying for after-the-fact permits. It would mean that environmental protections and view protections are negotiable rather than enforceable. And it would mean 295
that the procedural safeguards that have been put in place to ensure fairness do not really matter.

The applicant will have other opportunities to develop this property in a way that respects the deed restrictions, protects the environment, honors the neighbors' legal rights, and complies with our codes. But this particular proposal asks you to compromise too many principles that are essential to Malibu's character and to fair governance.

I urge you to deny this application—not out of opposition to the property owner, but out of respect for the rules that protect all of us in Malibu. Our community depends on your willingness to make the difficult decision to uphold our standards, even when it would be easier to simply approve what is in front of you.

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter and for your continued service to our community. I trust that you will make the decision that best serves Malibu's long-term interests.

Respectfully,
Robert Marderosian
Malibu Resident since 2002
296
From: AK Munaim
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Scott Hoeft; Chris Deleau; Don Schmitz
Subject: Support Letters for Item 4B - Planning Commission Hearing - 11-3-25 Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 1:05:50 PM
Attachments: Matza_Dear Planning Commission.pdf
Hi Gail,
Please find 2 additional support letters for the hearing tomorrow. Thank you.

Arfakhashad (AK) Munaim
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.444.6144
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
297
~ -----
@ ________ _
~ ------------
~ -----------------
November 1, 2025
Dear Planning Commission,
I have been a resident of Malibu for 56 years. My wife, Mary, who sadly passed away, and Jane worked side by side 40 years ago in the PTA as our children were growing up. Ron Jenny was actively involved in the Kiwanis Club of Malibu for years, supporting our community while raising four children here in our beautiful town of Malibu.

Ron has shared with me that he and Jane wish to spend the rest of their lives in the house they have designed on their lot. He also expressed that it has been quite arduous to reach this point through the planning process over the past several years.

Furthermore, I am aware that their neighbors are doing everything they can to prevent them from building their home. Also, what I have been told is that there are four neighbors on the same block as Jenny's who wrote letters in favor of Jenny's being able to build their Home.

The Jennys should have the right to build a home on the property they purchased. Ron Jenny informed me that the lot is three-quarters of an acre and that they are building a 4,000-square-foot house. He also mentioned that they could have built a house a few thousand square feet larger, but chose not to maximize their building.

Please consider allowing the Jennys to proceed with building their home.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Joe Matza
298
299
Oear Mali~ Planning Commission,
II
attomeys
nas come
n
to
an
my
attempt
etl nuon ths, two ne bors of Ron and Jane Jer:my have retained to p,evenl t.hem from buiktlng a modesUy s ed home on their property, ich lhey purchased ~pproXlmately tour yeam ago. l have known the Je.nnys for many years, BJ'ld they have been residetlls or e.llbu for eboul 55 years. They raised rtleir four childl'8fl ere and have always l11lancfcd lo spend the rest of lhei r ,ves a.libu. tnCilJCing on this piece of property.

That despite paytr,g sub:stantial property lax • the, Jenny are un to enJoy their property wtthdut l'larassmen&. Tho attorneys have even Qf'Chostrated tters aimed at dlscredi1Slg heM. ThlS feels lb a targetted attack on I.heir rig t tt1 bulrel a samp1e. two-- betlroom horns for thelr rellrem9ot vnthin a city thBY cnedsh. ln my V\ew. denying property rfghts is unconstltutiotlaJ. If tho nys are unable to uso their property as ln.lahded, they should be oompenss1od b\l Iha • . OJ the aty stiourd consider purdiasl g the pmf>etty. Property taxes shook! ba aispeoded In the interim.

From: Malibu Township Council
To: Planning Commission; Drew Leonard; John Mazza; Marni Kamins; Elizabeth Riddick; Skylar Peak Cc: Bill Sampson; Patt Healy; [email protected]; Rebecca Evans; Gail Duncan Subject: Fwd: Item 4B - CDP 23-034- 33008 PCH
Date: Friday, October 31, 2025 4:38:35 PM
Honorable Planning Commission,
Malibu Township Council has been advocating for responsible development since 1947.

A Phase I Archaeological Study was prepared by Matthew A. Boxt, Ph.D. for the subject property in March 2023. The cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools. This should immediately thus warrant a Phase 2 archaeological study.

From Malibu's Archaeological Evaluation and Inventory Information on the city's website link attached below:
“All Phase I Inventories that involve any excavation or monitoring shall be conducted in consultation with a qualified Chumash Cultural Resources Monitor. A Phase I Inventory must include the following information: - A public records search through the regional historical resources information center; - An archival search of historic records; - A field survey; - A written report that describes how the survey was conducted and the result of the survey. If, on the basis of the Phase I Inventory described above, one or more significant cultural resources is found, a Phase I Inventory may be required to include: - An evaluation of limited shovel test pits to determine whether a subsurface deposit is present and a negative declaration shall be prepared. - Recommendations for a Phase II Evaluation and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report or an environmental impact report shall be prepared. - Monitoring programs pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code (M.M.C.) Section 17.54.040(D)(4) and a mitigated negative declaration shall be prepared. Where, as a result of the Phase I Inventory, it is determined that the project may have an adverse impact on cultural resources, a Phase II Evaluation of cultural resources will be required and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report, or an environmental impact report must be prepared." “All Phase II Evaluations must be conducted by a qualified archaeologist and, where the Phase I Inventory indicates the presence of prehistoric or ethnohistoric Chumash cultural resources. The evaluation shall also be conducted in consultation with a qualified Chumash Cultural Resources Monitor. A Phase II Evaluation is an investigation intended to: - Gather additional data in order to assess the importance of the cultural resources identified in Phase I inventories; - Define site boundaries of the cultural resources; - Assess the site’s integrity; - Evaluate the project’s potential adverse impacts on cultural resources; - Develop measures to mitigate potential adverse impacts." "In the event that any potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of excavation or trenching, work shall immediately cease until the qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Where, as a result of this evaluation, it is determined that the project may have an adverse impact on cultural resources, a Phase II Evaluation of cultural resources shall be required pursuant to a Phase III Mitigation Program. The limitations on mitigation as described in a Phase II Evaluation shall not be applicable to monitoring programs described in a Phase III Mitigation Program.” https://malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/92/Archaeological-Evaluation-and-Inventory-Information? bidId=#:~:text=%E2%80%A2%20A%20Phase%20II%20Evaluation%20is%20an%20investigation%20intended%20to:%20%2D%20Gather%20additional&text=surface%20collection%20and%20archaeological%20excavation%20as%20provided%20for%20under%20this David Paul Dominguez, a Qualified Chumash Cultural Resources Monitor, inspected the site and adjacent area just last week and researched historical cultural records and recommends at the very least a Phase II study to be completed and a mitigated negative declaration prepared before this application can be approved. There are apparently artifacts throughout the area.

There is also a blue line stream within 100 ft of the proposed new turnaround and multiple proposed walls and a shed. This is not addressed in the staff report at all and needs to be evaluated (see p 66) even though confirmed in the plans and by both the city and applicant's biologist. See p 103 of staff report: "K. All new development including structures, septic systems, or landscaping, shall be set back no less than (100) feet from the (stream)" There are also multiple code violations including illegal stairs to the beach, planting of giant fire hazardous trees on the bluff, illegal gates and fences, etc. These need to be corrected before this application can proceed.

All the trees that are proposed to be planted within the PVD of the neighbor behind at 33006 PCH must be removed from the project. See also p 103 - "F. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth)." Due to all these multiple reasons the project cannot yet move forward.

Plus it is Halloween - do you really want to be haunted by Chumash ghosts for not protecting or respecting their cutlural resources? ;) Due diligence is more than necessary for a project of this size and scale.

Thank you for your consideration,
Jo Drummond
Malibu Township Council
300
From: AK Munaim
To: Planning Commission; Didier Murillo; Tyler Eaton
Cc: Scott Hoeft; Chris Deleau
Subject: Item 4A - Planning Commission 12/1 - Support Letter Date: Monday, November 24, 2025 8:58:00 AM
Attachments: 20251123 We find it troubling that dedicated individuals like th.pdf Hi Gail,
Please find attached additional support letter. Thank you.

Arfakhashad (AK) Munaim
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.444.6144
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
301
302
November 23, 2025
Dear Malibu Planning Board,
We are writing to share our perspective on the ongoing_situation involving our friends, Ron and Jane Jenny.

Recently, we learned that two neighbors have engaged attorneys to obstruct their efforts to build a modest home on the property they purchased a few years ago. We have known the Jennys for many years, and they have dedicated decades to Malibu-raising their children here and contributing positively to our community.

We believe everyone has the right to develop their property within established guidelines, and it is unfair that these efforts are being hindered through legal threats and character attacks.

We find it troubling that dedicated individuals like the Jennys, who have invested so much in Malibu, are being prevented from enjoying and utilizing their property as they have planned.

In our view, such interference infringes upon fundamental property rights. If the Jennys are unable to proceed with their project, they should be compensated or given the opportunity for the city to purchase the land . Ownership rights should be protected for all residents.

Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter.

Malibu, CA 90265
From: Jackson D. McNeill
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Marco A. Ornelas Lopez; Kenneth A. Ehrlich Subject: December 1, 2025, PC Meeting - Item 4.A - Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 / 33008 Pacific Coast Highway
Date: Sunday, November 23, 2025 4:06:49 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Archaeological Opinion Related to 33008 PCH.pdf
David Dominguez Ltr. re 33008PCH.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:

Please see the attached archaeological opinions concerning the proposed project at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034), agendized as Item 4.A on the Planning Commission’s December 1, 2025, agenda. It you have any questions, please let me know.

Thank you.

Best,
Jackson D. McNeill
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (310) 746-4424 | Fax: (310) 746-4499 | Download VCard Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
10345 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064
www.elkinskalt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments.
303
::( ELIKINS KALT
1 Archaeological Opinion Related to
33008 Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California
by Chester King, PhD
Topanga Anthropological Consultants
November 20, 2025
I. Executive Summary.

This summarizes my professional archaeological opinion concerning the potential cultural resources located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California, as further detailed below:
• 33008 PCH lies within the known archaeological site LAN-29 and likely contains intact subsurface cultural deposits and potentially contains a cemetery. • The Phase I assessment prepared by the applicant’s archaeologist, Dr. Boxt, remains both incomplete and contradicted by prior documented findings, including human remains at a parcel in the immediate vicinity. • The applicant and City of Malibu’s proposed monitoring and mitigation measures remain wholly insufficient.
• The City must require a publicly reviewed Phase 2 subsurface testing program, conducted with a qualified Chumash cultural monitor, before any project approval.
• Further, alternative project designs should be considered to avoid or minimize excavation.

II. Qualifications and Background.

I began studies of archaeological sites related to Chumash history in the Santa Monica Mountains in 1960. My first involvement was excavating at the Tank Site (LAN-1) in Topanga when I started studying anthropology at Santa Monica City College. Later that year I worked with Thomas Blackburn and Earnest Chandonet at UCLA sponsored excavations at the Century Ranch site LAN-227, now part of Malibu Creek State Park. I worked at other Century Ranch sites LAN225 and LAN-229 in 1961, 1962 and 1963. I was the senior author of the report on excavations at the Century Ranch sites LAN-227, 229, and 225 in 1968. The Parker Mesa (now Sunset Mesa) site at the mouth of Topanga Creek (LAN-215) was excavated in 1961 The report on these excavations in 1962 was my first publication concerning an archaeological site. I participated in excavations at Paradise Cove (LAN-222) in 1962. I worked at UCLA sponsored excavations at the site of the historic period site (LAN-264) of Humaliwo (Malibu) at the mouth of Malibu Creek in 1964 and 1965 and participated in excavations at the historic period cemetery site in 1972. In 1966, I participated in the excavation of the Medea Creek cemetery (LAN-243) in Agoura Hills. I participated in excavations at Puerco Canyon (LAN-19) and San Nicolas Canyon in 1967 related 304
2 to a planned Highway 1 freeway. I directed excavations at Talepop (LAn-229) in 1980-1981, for California State Parks related to the widening of Las Virgenes Road.

I worked under two five year time and material contracts for the Santa Monica National Recreation area between 2000 and 2012. I conducted surveys of many reas and I directed NPS studies at King Gillette Ranch as parts of these contracts.

I served as Malibu City Archaeologist between 1993 and 2000. I conducted many surveys and reviews of studies. As City Archaeologist, I prepared a sensitivity map that included assessment of all parcels in the city. Preparation of the map involved consideration of the locations of all sites recorded at the time. Knowledge of the types of locations chosen for sites by the Chumash and surrounding groups was used to identify other parcels that included areas where sites were most likely to be found. I walked areas of the coast where houses were built over the beach on pilings and did not include soils and used knowledge of other parcels not known to contain sites and determined that many parcels would not require Phase 1 studies. I believe the sensitivity map continues to be used.

I have visited and participated in many other Malibu area excavations, and conducted many archaeological surveys in Malibu. In addition to my work in the Santa Monica Mountains I have also conducted many studies and participated in many excavations in Santa Barbara and Northwestern Ventura County.

While working for the Santa Monica National Recreation Area I prepared "Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains: Draft 10-2011" The overview synthesizes much of the information I have learned studying the archaeology and history of the Chumash. It is available on line at Academia.edu and has been viewed by many people.

My doctoral dissertation Evolution of Chumash Society involved studying museum collections from Santa Barbara County and the Santa Barbara Channel Islands stored at UC Berkeley and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. The dissertation involved establishing a detailed temporal sequence of beads and other artifacts that were found with burials. The dissertation was published in The Evolution of North American Indians, a 31-Volume series of outstanding dissertations. My dissertation was the only one chosen from California.

In sum, I have more experience studying Chumash archaeological sites in the Malibu area than any other person.

III. Evidence of Archaeological Sites.

Evidence of archaeological sites usually found on surfaces that have not been buried varies depending on many variables. Two of the most important variables are the length of time sites were inhabited and their age. Sites inhabited for shorter periods of time contain fewer artifacts than those inhabited for longer periods of time. Sites that were occupied earlier in time have lost many of the shells and bones originally deposited due to dissolution by acidic soil conditions and gopher burrowing. The dissolution of shellfish near the surface of sites usually results in less shellfish remains on the surface of early sites than at depths and a higher ratio of thick shells such as clam shells on the surface. In addition to the dissolution of shells and bones, other organic material also 305
3 decrease over time and soils slowly revert to the characteristics that existed before human occupation. Decrease in the presence of forms of evidence of human activity in archaeological sites over time does not preclude the ability of archaeologists to study older sites.

Chumash area settlement sites contain the remains of house structures, cemeteries, earth ovens, and other features. These features can usually only be identified with certain through excavations.

In his report for 33008 PCH, Matthew Boxt notes:

Visible in clearings adjacent to the modern road and chain link boundary fence, were found lithic artifacts and shell, primarily trampled and pulverized pieces of abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum), scallop (Pecten sp.), and mussel (Mytilus californianus) (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The currently available evidence regarding these materials is somewhat ambiguous and is not complete enough to evaluate the true nature of the finds (Figure 8 to Figure 12). The crucial question, of course, is the likelihood that the artifacts and shell were originally deposited here, representing the activities of some ancient people, or were they moved here by disturbance processes, including road construction, residential development, dumping, burrowing animals, and/or erosion.

Matthew Boxt observed the presence of objects he considered probable artifacts and shellfish remains. At a nearby parcel at 33004 Pacific Coast Highway referenced by Boxt, I observed a few artifacts and shellfish remains similar to the observations made by Boxt (King 1999). I recommended Phase 2 testing. Gary Stickel conducted what he described as initial Phase 2 testing involving holes one foot in diameter excavated with a shovel (Stickel 2000). The testing program resulted in discoveries of human bones which were probably parts of burials. Stickel then recommended additional Phase 2 testing. From my experience the burial remains discovered by Stickel probably indicate the presence of a cemetery or cemeteries in the area he tested. Boxt interpreted his findings at 33008 PCH in the most negative way possible.

IV. Previous Disturbance of Site LAN-29.

In his report for 33008 PCH, Matthew Boxt concluded:

The archaeological resources of the Blufftop 1, LLC parcel were assessed following a careful review of maps and archival information housed at the SCCIC. The fragments of shell and stone tools observed during the survey do not appear to represent an intact, continuous midden deposit of any density; no large pieces of shell or any other indication of decomposing organic materials from human habitation (e.g., dark greasy soils) were never observed. In my professional opinion, these cultural remains were brought to the surface of archaeological sites LAN-28 or LAN-29 by natural and cultural disturbance processes and distributed on the study parcel as secondary refuse. In general, this relatively isolated Malibu community has been developed and landscaped, and at times in the recent past, particularly during house construction, was subjected to grading, gravelling, and filling.

Specifically, the degradation and likely destruction of archaeological sites LAN-28 and LAN-29 is attributed to these and other factors, such as building and maintaining critical infrastructure, disking to create fire breaks, heavy rain, erosion, construction and maintenance of the Theodore Roosevelt Highway and California State Route 1, and development of each property in this community. It should nevertheless be remembered that the survey was limited to surface contexts and that no examinations were made of the subsurface where it was not immediately visible. This point is noted because of the possibility that buried cultural deposits, though unlikely, might still be in existence on the parcel, and be obscured at present from ready visibility.

Archaeological studies at redevelopment sites in the centers of modern cities have resulted in significant discoveries. If Boxt’s negative attitude were to be accepted there would be no reason to conduct archaeological studies in Malibu or other cities in California; studies at sites 306
4 LAN-264 (the site of the Malibu settlement) and most other sites I have studied in Malibu would not have produced significant information concerning Chumash history.

V. Evidence concerning site LAN-29.

The LAN-29 site covers an area on the east side of Lachusa Canyon and south of the Pacific Coast Highway. Studies concerning the parcel at 33004 north of the project site document the presence of archaeological deposits on the parcel. Limited Phase 2 excavations by Gary Stickel documented the presence of human bones. It is probable that a cemetery is present in the area because most human bones found in Malibu area settlement sites have been found in cemeteries.

Evidence of settlement site deposits have been recorded south of the Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to both Lachusa and Los Alisos Canyons. These deposits may represent the remains of one large settlement or settlements occupied at different times.

My present assessment of LAN-29 including the project area at 33008 PCH is that it is the remains of a settlement occupied during a relatively short time (compared with many settlement sites in Malibu) of only a few hundred years. Settlements used for short periods of time are of value to archaeologists because the organization of features used at roughly the same time is more easily recognized than at sites occupied over thousands of years which have features of different time periods mixed together.

The geology at the mouth of Lachusa Canyon contain deposits of the only chlorite schist (commonly known as steatite) known by geologists to be present in the Malibu area. At the site of Malibu (LAN-264), the lower levels of the deposit (dating around 1500-2200 years ago) contain chlorite schist disc beads and chlorite schist disc beads in stages of manufacture (King 2011:190- 191). The beads from Malibu are visually distinctive from stone beads from other sources used in the same general time period as a result of mineral inclusions. These beads have been found in contexts dating around 1500-2200 years ago at Castaic Reservoir, Vasquez Rocks, Oro Grande on the Mojave River, and in sites near Cajon Pass. It appears that the distinctive beads from Malibu were important in the trade systems from the same time period. It is probable that the people who lived at Lachusa Canyon quarried the material used for these beads. The condition of the shellfish remains and the types of artifacts that have been observed at LAN-29 are consistent with the dating of these beads.

VI. Limitations of this Review Related to Denial of Independent Assessment of the Site in the Project Area.

On November 17 I requested access from the project developers to aid in assessment the conclusions of archaeologist Matthew Boxt hired by the developers I was denied access. Note the following emails:

Dear Schmitz and Associates,
I am reviewing the "Phase 1 Inventory and Archaeological Survey for the Blufftop 1, LLC Project, 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California” prepared by Matthew Boxt and submitted on March 22. 2023 for an upcoming meeting of the Malibu City Planning Commission. I would like to have permission to conduct a 307
5 walkover survey of the parcel at 33008 PCH to make in independent evaluation of the potential project impacts. I would like to have David Paul Dominguez, Chumash cultural resource consultant accompany me. It would be helpful if someone planning the project would accompany me on my visit. I would appreciate a timely response to my request in order to plan my schedule.

Sincerely,
Chester King, Topanga Anthropological Consultants
They replied on November 17, 2025:

Mr. King,
Thank you for reaching out to us. Our client has already retained the services of a professional archeologist to conduct a Phase I study to look for the presence of any significant cultural resources onsite. This study was conducted by Dr. Matthew Boxt. Dr.

Boxt's study found no evidence of en situ cultural resources on the applicant's property. Dr.

Boxt and the City have found that no further study is required at this time as no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. That said, the project will have standard monitoring conditions.

With respect to your colleague, David Paul Dominguez, we have received correspondence from Joe Drummond (attached for reference), a project opponent, advising that Mr.

Dominguez has already visited the property [and adjacent area] without our client's permission. This is unlawful and unprofessional. Please advise Mr. Dominguez that the owner has security cameras installed, and any further trespasses will be reported to the Lost Hills Sherriff's Department.

Thank you for your interest. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
The exclusion of my ability to independently field check the observations of Matthew Boxt indicates that the project managers are not comfortable with the quality of the archaeological study they commissioned.

VII. Problems With Monitoring in Archaeological Sites During Development.

Matthew Boxt recommends monitoring of excavations during project development. When monitoring is adopted as a mitigation measure without knowledge of what is present under the surface, the public has little input because the period where review occurs that is enabled by the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act has expired. During review it is possible to decide to preserve site areas through purchase or project redesign. After the public review period is over, it is impossible to propose adequate mitigation through data collection, avoidance of most impacts, or determine that the loss caused by project development can’t be mitigated.

Monitoring can also result in unpredictable costs to the developer that include:

1. Down time once development has begun.

2. Costs of designing programs for avoidance of disturbance of sensitive archaeological deposits through project redesign once development has begun. 308
6 Reduction of disturbance of intact soil can involve placement of fill to cap deposits or use of caisson foundations to reduce the area of soil disturbance for foundations.

3. Expensive mitigation programs including possible removal of whole cemeteries such as occurred at the Playa Vista project in the vicinity of Westchester. It is possible that such mitigation could exceed the cost of project construction.

VIII. Damage to Archaeological Site LAN-29 by the Proposed Project.

Project plans indicate from sections of the house, that much of the area covered by the proposed house area will be excavated to two to three feet below the present ground surface before construction of the house. Utility trenches will also be excavated, and a septic tank will also be placed in a deep excavation. Observations of site deposits on mesa surfaces similar to those at the project site indicate that site deposits are usually less than two or three feet deep except in areas where house pits or other features such as earth ovens were excavated into subsoil. The construction of the house as planned is expected to cause substantial damage to suspected site deposits. It appears that the excavations are to reduce the height of the finished house to comply with restrictions on the height of the structure. Knowledge of the significance of suspected site deposits may result in redesign to reduce the extent of excavation. Alternatives such as waiving limitations on the height of the house might be considered to reduce the extent of earth disturbance.

IX. Recommendations.

A subsurface testing program (Phase 2 study) should be conducted subject to public review by the Malibu Planning Commission and the City Council before project approval. The Phase 2 program should include monitoring by a qualified Chumash cultural consultant. 309
7 Bibliography
Boxt, Matthew, 2023, "Phase 1 Inventory and Archaeological Survey for the Blufftop 1, LLC Project, 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California” King, Chester, 1962, "Excavations at Parker Mesa (LAn-215)." UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1961-1962.

University of California, Los Angeles.
1967 , "The Sweetwater Mesa Site (LAn-267) and its Place in Southern California Prehistory. "UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1967, Vol. 9. University of California, Los Angeles. 1967 , “Archaeological Investigations at Big Sycamore Canyon, 4-Ven-89, Ventura County, California.” On file with California Department of Parks and Recreation.
1968, with Thomas Blackburn and Earnest Chandonet. "The Archaeological Investigation of Three Sites on the Century Ranch, Western Los Angeles County, California." UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1968: 12-107. University of California, Los Angeles.
1982, "Chapter 1: Introduction," "Chapter 2: Field and Laboratory Procedures," with C. Pierce and J. Hammett, "Chapter 3:

Summary and Integration of Research at Talepop," "Chapter 6: Beads, Ornaments, and Other Artifacts Used to Maintain Social Relationships," and "Chapter 11 Mammal Reptile and Bird Remains," with T. Kemperman. In Archaeological Investigations at Talepop (LAn-229) (Draft Report) by Chester King et.al. Report. submitted to the California Department of Parks and Recreation by the Office of Public Archaeology, University of California, Santa Barbara. 1986, “Oakbrook Park Cultural Resource Management Plan”. Prepared for Ventura Co. Archaeological Society. 1987, “An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Site of the Sherwood Towne Master Plan, Westlake California.” Prepared for McClelland Engineers, Inc
1989, “Oakbrook Regional Park Archaeological Resource Assessment.” Prepared for Jordan Gilbert Landscape Architects, Ventura.
1990, Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D 1804. Revised Ph.D. dissertation, with a new preface and updated bibliography. In The Evolution of North American Indians, a 31-Volume series of outstanding dissertations edited by David Hurst Thomas and published by Garland Publishing, New York
1990, “Oak Park Zone 3, Phase I Archaeological Resource Assessment”. Ms. on file at the UCLA Archaeological Center and Ventura County Resource Management Agency.
1991, with others: “Oak Park Zone 3 Phase II Archaeological Resource Assessment.” Ms on file at the UCLA Archaeological Center and Ventura County Resource Management Agency.
1992, “Review of Cultural Resource Element of Ahmanson Ranch EIR.” Submitted to Steve Craig, Santa Barbara. 1992, “Native American Placenames in the Vicinity of the Santa Monica Mountains”. for the National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
1994, “Prehistoric Native American Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains.” Submitted to Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation and Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. 1996, “Appendix I: Beads and Ornaments from Cemetery Excavations at Humaliwo (CA-LAN-264).” Prepared for UCLA Native American Studies.
1997, with Lynn Gamble “Chapter 5: Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Santa Monica Mountains.” In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene. Edited by Jon Erlandson and Michael Glassow. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1999, “Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for a Phase 2 Study at 33004 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu California.”
310
8 2000, Native American Indian Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains prepared for the SMMNRA. 2000, with Jeff Parsons “Malu’liwini, Archaeological record of settlement and Activity in the Simi Hills.” Prepared by Topanga Anthropological Consultants for Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation and National Park Service Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area Cooperative Agreement No. LA 8540-94-003 2001, “Small Archaeological Tests at Lower Solstice Canyon Sites.” prepared for the SMMNRA. 2002, “Significance of Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites.” Prepared for City of Calabasas, April 28, 2002, New Edition May 14, 2002.
2002, Archaeological Tests at Three Lower Solstice Canyon Sites. Prepared for National Park Service. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area on March 28, 2002.
2004, “Archaeological Surveys in the Vicinity of Castro Crest in 2001-2003.” Prepared for National Park Service. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area on September 5, 2004 2005, “Cultural Resources in the Ormond Beach Wetlands; Restoration Area.” Prepared for Wishtoyo Foundation. 2006, “Archaeological Assessment of Areas Burned by the Topanga Fire, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California”.

Prepared for the National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Thousand Oaks, California under Purchase Order 854806002 and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, 5810 Ramirez Canyon Road, Malibu, CA 90265 under MRCA contract 149/06. October 2006.
2006, “Archaeological Assessment of King Gillette Ranch, Los Angeles County, California” June 2006. Prepared for Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, 5810 Ramirez Canyon Road, Malibu, CA 90265 under contract MRCA 163/06. 2008, with Jeff Parsons, “Archeological Investigations at Solstice Canyon: Presentation and Synthesis of Archeological Information Obtained from Solstice Canyon” with sections by Tom Wake, Virginia Popper, Jacqueline Eng and Phillip Walker.

Prepared for the National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Thousand Oaks, California under Contracts C8540000007 and C8540060020. October 1, 2008. 2011, "Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains: Draft 10-2011." Online pdf at Academia.edu
2012, with Jeff Parsons, Archeological Excavations at Talepop (LAN-229), in 2010 and 2011: A Chumash Village in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Los Angeles County, California (Draft). July 2012. Prepared by Topanga Anthropological Consultants for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, California. Contract C8548060020, Purchase Order T2011101273.

Stickel, Gary, 2000, “Memorandum Regarding the Burial Site at 33004 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu,” October 2, 2000. Letter in file 99-120 at Planning Department, City of Malibu. 311
33008 PCH
Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034/33008 PCH
Haku, my name is David Paul Dominguez, I am a Chumash Elder from the Santa Ynez Chumash Reservation, as well as, Yokut and Tongva, and a former and parttime current resident of Malibu and I have been working in cultural resources for over 30 years and currently retired from my reservation as a monitor and cultural resource manager and a strong advocate for the protection of sacred sites while working along with qualified archeologists, and, very familiar with the prehistoric Chumash and Tonvga native Americans inhabiting the proposed development area.

I was asked on behalf of the neighbors along, 33008 PCH, to consult on this proposed development, and add my expert advice, as well as, view the current sight. I met with neighbors Mark and Tammy, whom also informed me that they viewed a reinterment done on an adjacent property at 33004. During my visit, I also noticed numerous suspected burial artifacts and obvious midden and dark organic soil consistent with Chumash habitation lasting for over 8,000 years documented in the local archeological and cultural resource records and also noticed, the obvious and preferred village living area adjacent to fresh water during the prehistoric times of my Chumash relatives and this proposed project will have extreme damage to unknown archeological and cultural resources and more than likely, will hit and discover unknown burials, that are consistent in the immediate bluff area.

On, Saturday November 1st 2025, I had personal communiqué with former City of Malibu, archaeologist, Chester King, and he informed me that he worked on an adjacent property and found and discovered that there is a certain kind of steatite/soapstone bead that is only found in that part of Malibu and adjacent creek area and it is well documented that Chumash burial sites include a vast array of bead offerings as well as personal possessions, such as killed pestles and mortars, including, mano and metates, as well as, flakes and arrowheads.

And, it is a well known burial area that has been brought to the attention of the city of Malibu, and well known that the area will contain other burials and will be wide spread given the minimal 8,000 years of prehistoric habitation by Chumash David Paul Dominguez
312
tribal families and that he prepared a document that should be in the records that reference the extent of the sacredness of the area as far as burials are concerned.

On the same day, I had personal communiqué with Julie Tumamait, former Chairperson of the Ventareño/Barbareño Chumash Tribe, and she further verified that there are multiple burials on the proposed project bluff area and re-burials in the immediate vicinity.

Recommendations
First, and more importantly, this project should not be approved on account of the sacred sensitivity to the Chumash people and undiscovered burials, that, are in no doubt, in the immediate project area.

Postpone this hearing until all previous reports of the lot and nearby lots in the vicinity are presented by the city of Malibu and all other pertinent information properly presented.

Do a phase 2 and 3 archeological report since it has been brought to my attention there was a minimal phase 1 survey done in the past and artifacts were discovered on the immediate top soil.

Also, CEQA requirements should NOT be exempt for this application and a proper EIS/EIR be completed with consideration to geological adjacent cliff area in which erosion should be taken into account, and also, it is a sensitive creek area leading in and out of the foothills and once was a prior steel head tributary. There is also a female California black bear in the area with 3 cubs whom, might be using the area due to its unique access to shoreline food and carcasses.

The city of Malibu needs to move and adapt into the current technology available and use GPR ground penetrating radar to find any anomalies below the surface, to prevent any destruction to known Chumash burials and/or house and ceremonial ground impressions, including hearths and yucca ovens.

Protect the project area and allow for open space usage for Native American ceremonies and park for the residents of the gated community, with owners approval, of course, and use pavers over the open space to allow large fire trucks to use as a turnaround during emergencies and/or fire, by the property owner as previously recommended by said, property owner…
David Paul Dominguez
313
From: Jackson D. McNeill <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 1:47 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Marco A. Ornelas Lopez <[email protected]>; Kenneth A. Ehrlich <[email protected]> Subject: Letter re December 1, 2025, PC Meeting - Item 4.A / 33008 PCH To Whom It May Concern:

Please find the attached letter submitted in opposition to the proposed project at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (CDP No. 23-034, Minor Mod. No. 25-009), agendized for the Planning Commission’s December 1, 2025, meeting as Item 4A. Please contact me with any questions.

Best,
Jackson D. McNeill
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (310) 746-4424 | Fax: (310) 746-4499 | Download VCard Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
10345 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064
www.elkinskalt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments.
314
::{ ELIKINS KALT
8010499.3
Jackson D. McNeill
D: (310) 746-4424
[email protected]
Ref: 15289-0001
November 25, 2025
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Re: Reply to City Staff’s Response to Objections to CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Modification No. 25-009
Address: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California Meeting: December 1, 2025
Item #: 4A
Dear Commissioners:

Our firm represents Unknowingly Devolving LLC and Mark and Tamara Mackey (collectively, our “Clients”), the owners of the real property and single-family residences located at and Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California, respectively. Bluff Top 1 LLC (“Applicant”) requests a Coastal Development Permit (CDP No. 23-034) and Minor Modification (Minor Modification No. 25-009) (together, the “Application”) to construct a new single-family residence and associated development (the “Project”) on a coastal bluff property at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (the “Property”).

In connection with the Commission’s December 1, 2025, meeting, City staff have provided an updated staff report (the “Staff Report”) and the Applicant has provided updated materials purportedly responding our Clients’ previous opposition to the Project. Respectfully, as detailed below, City staff’s response remains inadequate and the Project as proposed cannot be approved.

I. The Plain Language of the LIP Requiring a State Lands Commission Determination and Staff Cannot Substitute Its Own Judgment for SLC.

The Applicant failed to obtain a written determination from the State Lands Commission for the subject project as required by the LIP. (See LIP §§ 13.6.2(B), 10.5(C). Staff responds that “[t]he requirement to obtain written determination from the State Lands Commission is only applicable to beachfront properties. The subject property is facing the ocean; however, there is a steep bluff in front of the property separating the building pad from the ocean.” (Staff Report, p. 315
::( ELKINS KALT
a...
_j
_j
QJ
"O
V>
~
ro
CJ
C:

QJ
.0
::,
QJ
a::
.0
::,
~
-C:

QJ
3:

V>
C:
_,-,::
lJ.J
- -
T 310.746.4400 F: 310.746.4499
10345 W. Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064 I elkinskalt.com City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

8010499.3

2.) Staff further responds that “there is no development proposed along the shoreline nor development on the beach.” (Staff Report, p. 2.)
Respectfully, this response fails. By staff’s own admission, this requirements applies to “beachfront properties.” (Staff Report, p. 2.) Indisputably, this property fronts on the beach. The Property’s coastal bluff remains subject to wave uprush, and the Property is bounded to the south by state tidelands.

Essentially, staff seeks to substitute its own judgment for the State Lands Commission. By concluding that the Project contains adequate blufftop setbacks and that no development will occur directly on the beach, staff makes the very determination that the LIP reserves for the State of California. This is not what the LIP requires. Until Applicant obtains a determination from the State Lands Commission, the Project remains incomplete and cannot be heard.

II. The Plain Language of the LIP Requires Requesting Our Clients Join As CoApplicants, Regardless of Whether Development Occurs in the Easement Area.

Our Clients have correctly asserted that “[a]ll holders or owners of any … interest of record in the affected property shall be notified in writing of the permit application and invited to join as co-applicant.” (LIP § 13.6.2(C).) Here, the Applicant previously proposed development within an easement area to which our clients have access rights. Neither staff nor the Applicant dispute that the easement over the Property exists or that our Clients constitute easement holders. Instead, to avoid this “co-applicant requirement,” the Applicant now proposes to leave the easement area totally undeveloped—that is, to leave a dirt area between the paved easement road and Applicant’s proposed, paved driveway.

At the outset, our Clients’ question whether Applicant—who has a history of code violations—truly intends to leave the easement area undeveloped. Regardless, staff’s response still fails. Critically, no language in the LIP requires development within the easement area in order for the “co-applicant” requirement to be triggered, and staff cites none. The plain language of the LIP simply states that “[a]ll holders or owners of any other interest of record in the affected property shall be notified in writing of the permit application and invited to join as coapplicant.” (LIP § 13.6.2(C).) Where the language of the law is clear and unambiguous, staff cannot substitute the plain language of the law with its own judgment. Put simply, our Clients must be asked to join as co-applicants before the Project can proceed. 316
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

8010499.3
III. The Archaeology Buffer Applies to the Project.

The City’s Archaeological Review letter includes certain conditions of approval. Among other things, it states that “no geologic trenching, soil borings, ground clearance, grading, equipment placement, or similar surface-disturbing impacts shall be allowed within 30 feet of the northern property boundary.” Staff responds that these were not conditions of the Project, they were merely “a precaution implemented by City staff prior to obtaining an excavation permit through City Geotechnical Staff.” (Staff Report, p. 3.) The Archaeology Review letter, however, does not indicate it was prepared solely in connection with an excavation permit, or that its conditions are limited to geologic testing. Indeed, language in the Archaeology Review refers to “construction personnel” as well as “geologic testing or any other activity,” demonstrating it was meant to apply more broadly. (Archaeology Review Letter, p. 1, emphasis added.) Staff cannot escape the archaeology buffer now by artificially limiting the Archaeology Review’s conditions of approval to geologic testing.

At the same time, a letter from a qualified archaeologist (Chester King, PhD) and a Chumash Elder (David Dominguez) indicate that the Applicant’s Phase I archaeology report remains insufficient and that human remains and other cultural resources likely exist on site.

Because the Project does not comply with the buffer condition designed to protect these important resources, the Project as proposed must be denied.

IV. The Applicant’s ESHA Mapping Remains Fundamentally Flawed.

The original Project plans admitted that the Property and the proposed development lies within 100 feet of an EHSA-mapped blue-line stream, and thus within an ESHA buffer. (See, e.g., Original Plans, Plan Sheet A-0.2, showing new planters, gates, walls, pilasters, and fencing— located behind a line labeled “approx. 100’ from ESHA boundary”). Conveniently, the Applicant and its biologist now opine that the Property lies at least 104’ feet from the blue-line stream, and therefore lies outside the ESHA buffer. (See Forde Memo, November 12, 2025, p. 2.) On this basis, staff agrees that the ESHA standards do not apply. (See Staff Report, p. 4.) This analysis is flawed. Critically, the Applicant’s biologist measured the distance between the Property and the top of the stream bank. But the LIP states that “[n]ew development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation.” (LIP § 4.6.1(A), emphasis added.) A marked-up version of the Applicant’s aerial drone exhibit demonstrates this point:
317
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

8010499.3
To reiterate: the Applicant, by its own admission, measured the distance between the Property and the “top of bank.” It failed to measure the distance to the outer edge of the riparian vegetation, which extends laterally eastward. (Worse, the biologist’s exhibit measures from the centerline of the stream, not the top of bank.) At the same time, even a casual review of the stream from google maps shows vegetation extends outward from the banks of the stream. In fact, Applicant’s own biological assessment admits that riparian vegetation extends outward from the stream:
318
Approx. ESHA Buffer
Area on Property Not
Included by Applicant
(I.E., Area 100 Feet
From Edge of Riparian
Vegetation)
VACANTLAl«l 33008 PACIFIC COAST HIG/iWAY APN: 4473-017-003 " New development shall
provide a buffer of no less
than 100 feet in width from
the outer edge of the canopy
of riparian vegetation." (LIP§

4.6.1(A), emphasis added.)
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

8010499.3
(July 2023 Biology Assessment, p. 10.) The biological assessment also notes that “the ESHA area is a riparian woodland community.” (Id.) Forde Memo does not contradict this conclusion.

Thus, the ESHA buffer area extends 100 feet east of the vegetation canopy, not the top of the stream bank. So measured—and as shown in the above illustration—the Property and a portion of the development lie within ESHA buffer areas. The ESHA buffer standards, meanwhile, prohibit virtually all development in ESHA buffer areas. (See LIP § 4.5.4.) And here, among other violations, the Applicant proposes fencing along the western portion of the Property, as well as fencing, stone pilasters, and a new gate in the ESHA buffer. Until this unlawful development in the ESHA buffer is addressed, the Project as proposed should be denied.

V. The Coastal Bluff Qualifies as ESHA.

City staff dismisses our Clients’ suggestion that the Property’s coastal bluff qualifies as ESHA. In a short set of nearly throwaway set of sentences, staff states that “the bluff is located within the fuel modification zones of adjacent single-family residences and non-native vegetation dominates. The bluff does not have any ESHA vegetation and is not considered ESHA.” (Staff Report, p. 4.)
Respectfully, this analysis fails. First, far from concluding that the bluff vegetation is nonnative, staff later admits that, at least as to trees on the coastal bluff, staff “cannot confirm the origins of these trees.” (Id.) Applicant’s contention, likewise, is apparently that “the trees existed prior to the [Woolsey] fire.” (Id.)
More importantly, Clients’ biologist submitted a thorough email memorandum explaining the species present on the bluff and why the floristic composition of the bluff qualifies as ESHA.

We this memorandum as Exhibit A. He stated, among other things:

The bluff located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, has been mapped as Malosma laurina -Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance (Laurel sumac scrub).

The bluff supports a diverse and largely native assemblage of Southern Coastal 319
ESHAAREA !SA.RIPARIAN wooDLAND c oMMUNITY . .IHERE 1s-A STREAM THAT RUNS T1rnouc1-1 nmESHAAND DRAINS INTO Tl-IE OCEAN. ALONG TIIE PERIMETER or TIIE STREAM VARIOUS TREES AND ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN AREAS ARE PRESENT. PLEASE NOTE THERE ARE ADDITIONAL DEVELOPED PROPERTIES WITHIN THE ESf!A TMAT ARE NOT ILLUSTRATED. ADDITIONALLY, Tl·IERE IS A PAVED ROAD AND RESIDENTIAL HOME CREATI C PI-IYSICAL BARRIERS BETWEEN Tl·lll ES HA AND PROPERTY AREA.

City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

8010499.3
Bluff Scrub vegetation, as defined under the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2) (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf & Evens 2009). The site lies within the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) area and retains the essential structure and species composition of a native coastal bluff scrub, qualifying as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) pursuant to Malibu LUP Policy

3.23. The bluff community is characterized by a co-dominance of Artemisia californica (California sagebrush) and Malosma laurina (Laurel sumac), forming a mixed scrubland typical of maritime bluffs and terraces in the Santa Monica Mountains.

The floristic assemblage reflects both coastal sage scrub and chaparral influences, with additional halophytic components along the bluff toe:
• Upper and mid-slope vegetation: Artemisia californica, Malosma laurina, and Isocoma menziesii dominate the canopy, with Diplacus puniceus and Rhus ovata providing secondary structure.
• Lower bluff and seep zone: Batis maritima and Distichlis spicata occupy a moist, saline toe area, forming a halophytic fringe indicative of marine seepage and salt influence.
• Naturalized, non-native invasive and ornamental elements: Hesperocyparis macrocarpa (Monterey cypress), Washingtonia robusta (Mexican fan palm), Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco), and Osteospermum sp. (African daisy) occur in disturbed or landscaped edges but do not dominate.

Under Malibu LUP Policy 3.23, the bluff qualifies as an ESHA due to the following:
• The presence of a regionally rare and valuable native plant community (Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub) adapted to maritime influence and saline conditions.
• A high proportion of native cover and species diversity, including multiple coastal sage scrub indicators.
• Ecological function as a bluff stabilizer, wildlife corridor, and pollinator habitat.
320
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

8010499.3
• Limited anthropogenic disturbance, with only minor ornamental encroachment.

In light of the following, staff’s conclusion does not comport with the facts. Indeed, when our Clients informed their biologist that the City and Applicant assert that no native vegetation exists on the coastal bluff, the biologist asserted, among other things, that this was “scientifically impossible” and controverted by his field observations and photographs. We attach his analysis as Exhibit B.

VI. The Bluff Development Remains Unpermitted.

Our Clients identified significant unpermitted development on the Property’s coastal bluff, including unpermitted trees and erosion controls (such as straw wattle and fencing). City staff responded that the Applicant had previously asked the City if the Applicant could implement these measures and staff said “yes.” (Staff Report, p. 4.)
This response fails. Even if the City told the Applicant he could place erosion control measures, that does not make those erosion control measures legal or permitted. Further, nothing indicates that Applicant’s development on this sensitive coastal bluff could be completed without permits, and staff never states as much. Indeed, if this were the case, then any applicant could build unlimited fencing or place unlimited straw wattle, jute netting, sandbags, and other erosion control measures without any need for a permit. This is not the City’s practice, nor is it the law. In any case, the trees themselves remain unpermitted. Consistent with City practice, the Project should not be able to move forward until these code enforcement issues have been addressed. 321
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

8010499.3
VII. Conclusion.

Our Clients appreciate staff’s willingness to examine these important issues. However, to date, neither staff nor Applicant have adequately addressed our Clients’ objections to the Project, including the ones identified above. Until those objections are adequately addressed, the Project should be denied.

Please note that this letter does not identify all issues with the Project. Please refer to our prior correspondence (and, as applicable, our testimony at the Planning Commission hearing) for additional objections to the Project.

Very truly yours,
JACKSON D. McNEILL
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
JDM:jdm
322

EXHIBIT A
323
1 Anna Feng
From: Joshua Zinn
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 12:52 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway: Bluff Floristic Composition and Bio Review Attachments: 33008 PCH Bluff-floristic composition photos_20251025.docx Dear Courtney,
A couple of weeks ago we spoke together by phone concerning 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (project). I want to thank you for your responsiveness, approachability, and guidance concerning my questions about the biological resources/biological assessment of this proposed project.

On Monday October 20, 2025, I was scheduled to speak at the Malibu Planning Commission Hearing about my findings concerning my firm’s review of the Biological Assessment (Elizabeth Moorman Biological Services July 2023 [2023 BA]). Unfortunately, I didn’t get the opportunity to speak given that the first item on the agenda went beyond the anticipated time (which is understandable given the nature of public hearings). The planning commission rescheduled to hear the project for this Monday, November 3, 2025.

Even though I didn’t get the opportunity to speak on my findings of the 2023 BA, our findings report was submitted to the commission as an exhibit. Additionally, while I was up in Malibu before the hearing, I took the opportunity to conduct a reconnaissance site visit to document the floristic composition of the bluƯ at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

In our 2023 BA review we did raise the issue of the bluƯ being characterized as ‘coastal strand’. However, we did not have an opportunity to document the floristic composition until October 20, 2025. Below are my findings concerning the bluƯ (please see attached for photos taken during the recon survey of the bluƯ).

The bluƯ located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, has been mapped as Malosma laurina - Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance (Laurel sumac scrub). The bluƯ supports a diverse and largely native assemblage of Southern Coastal BluƯ Scrub vegetation, as defined under the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCV2) (Sawyer, Keeler-Wolf & Evens 2009). The site lies within the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) area and retains the essential structure and species composition of a native coastal bluƯ scrub, qualifying as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) pursuant to Malibu LUP Policy 3.23.

The bluƯ community is characterized by a co-dominance of Artemisia californica (California sagebrush) and Malosma laurina (Laurel sumac), forming a mixed scrubland typical of maritime bluƯs and terraces in the Santa Monica Mountains. The floristic assemblage reflects both coastal sage scrub and chaparral influences, with additional halophytic components along the bluƯ toe:
 Upper and mid-slope vegetation: Artemisia californica, Malosma laurina, and Isocoma menziesii dominate the canopy, with Diplacus puniceus and Rhus ovata providing secondary structure. 324
2  Lower bluƯ and seep zone: Batis maritima and Distichlis spicata occupy a moist, saline toe area, forming a halophytic fringe indicative of marine seepage and salt influence.  Naturalized, non-native invasive and ornamental elements: Hesperocyparis macrocarpa (Monterey cypress), Washingtonia robusta (Mexican fan palm), Nicotiana glauca (tree tobacco), and Osteospermum sp. (African daisy) occur in disturbed or landscaped edges but do not dominate.

Under Malibu LUP Policy 3.23, the bluƯ qualifies as an ESHA due to the following:
 The presence of a regionally rare and valuable native plant community (Southern Coastal BluƯ Scrub) adapted to maritime influence and saline conditions.  A high proportion of native cover and species diversity, including multiple coastal sage scrub indicators.
 Ecological function as a bluƯ stabilizer, wildlife corridor, and pollinator habitat.  Limited anthropogenic disturbance, with only minor ornamental encroachment.

These characteristics satisfy the ESHA criteria of rarity, ecological value, and susceptibility to disturbance. The bluƯ’s native vegetation and halophytic fringe also enhance hydrologic stability and biological connectivity along the Malibu coastline.

In closing, the bluƯ at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway exhibits a structurally and floristically intact Southern Coastal BluƯ Scrub community consistent with the Malosma laurina – Artemisia californica Shrubland Alliance. Native elements dominate, with only isolated ornamental intrusions. The site’s composition, maritime setting, and habitat function warrant ESHA classification under the Malibu LCP.

Restoration and management should prioritize native species preservation, halophytic seep protection, and removal of invasive ornamentals.
33008 Pacific Coast Highway BluƯ Species List
Scientific Name Common Name Native Status Habitat Position Artemisia californica California
sagebrush
Native Upper and midslope dominant
Malosma laurina Laurel sumac Native Upper and midslope codominant Rhus ovata Sugar bush Upper slope
Isocoma menziesii Coastal
goldenbush
Native Mid to lower slope
Diplacus puniceus Red bush
monkeyflower
Native Mid-slope; open
scrub
Batis maritima Saltwort Native (halophyte) BluƯ toe; saline seep
Distichlis spicata Saltgrass Native (halophyte) BluƯ toe; saline seep
Hesperocyparis
macrocarpa
Monterey cypress Naturalized
(regionally nonnative)
Upper bluƯ margin
325
3 Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm Naturalized
(regionally nonnative)
Adjacent
ornamental
landscape
Nicotiana glauca Tree tobacco Non-native
Invasive/Naturalized
Disturbed bluƯ
edges
Osteospermum sp. African daisy Nonnative/Naturalized Disturbed edges References:
 Sawyer, J.O., Keeler-Wolf, T., & Evens, J. (2009). A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.  CNPS Vegetation Database (2024). Malosma laurina Shrubland Alliance (CaCode 45.455.00). https://vegetation.cnps.org/alliance/235.
 USGS National Vegetation Classification (NVCS). Malosma laurina – Artemisia californica Shrubland (CEGL003697). https://www1.usgs.gov/csas/nvcs/unitDetails/790147.  Malibu Local Coastal Program (LUP Policy 3.23). City of Malibu, CA.

Thanks so much Courtney. Please feel free to reach out with any questions or requests concerning this matter and/or our bio review of the project anytime!
Joshua Zinn, PWS | Regulatory Program Manager and Ecologist Mobile:

Email:

Amigo Environmental, LLC | Certified DBE

326
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

FLORISTIC COMPOSITION OF BLUFF

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
October 20, 2025
327
Photo 1: Looking northwest. Artemisia californica and Malosma laurina co-dominant on upper coastal bluff at 33008 PCH. Photo taken October 20, 2025.

Photo 2: Looking northwest at Artemisia californica and Malosma laurina mid-slope canopy detail of coastal bluff at 33008 PCH. Photo taken October 20, 2025. 328
Photo 3: Looking north. Distichlis spicata and Batis maritima forming halophytic seep at bluff toe at 33008 PCH; note Isocoma menziesii nearby (lower right of photo). Photo taken October 20, 2025.

Photo 4: Looking north. Diplacus puniceus and Artemisia californica near Mexican fan palm intrusion mid-slope of coastal bluff at 33008 PCH. Photo taken October 20, 2025. 329
Photo 5: Looking north. Halophytic seep along toe of bluff with Distichlis spicata, Batis maritima, and adjacent juvenile Hesperocyparis macrocarpa installed along upper portion of bluff at 33008 PCH. Photo taken October 20, 2025.

Photo 6: Close-up of Batis maritima dominance at lower bluff; saline soil crust visible under jute erosion geotextile mat. Photo taken October 20, 2025. 330

EXHIBIT B
331
1 Anna Feng
To: Joshua Zinn; Jackson D. McNeill; Justin Smith
Cc: Marco A. Ornelas Lopez
Subject: RE: 33008 PCH
From: Joshua Zinn
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2025 11:36 AM
To: Jackson D. McNeill <[email protected]>; Justin Smith Cc: Marco A. Ornelas Lopez <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 33008 PCH
---EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe--- Hi Jackson,
Thanks for the update. Pursuant to your recent conversation with the City and your question:

1. Going by the July 2023 Moorman BA no plants are ID’d or discussed concerning the bluƯ. Additionally, the bluƯ never characterized or discussed in basic biological terms or LCP/LIP regulatory framework. Indeed, the July 2023 BA states ‘Vegetation communities can be catergorized (sic) as ruderal, coastal sage scrub, and coastal strand. There’s no mention of Coastal BluƯ Scrub in the July 2023 BA.

2. In terms of the assertion made by both the City and applicant’s biologist that no native flora exist on the coastal bluƯ, did they provide how they both came to this conclusion in light of the October 20, 2025 reconnaissance survey and photodocumentation conducted by Amigo and made available by you (in addition to independent outreach by me [by your request], please see attached)

3. Did the City countermand our data with their own?
One would think our submission(s) are accurate, defensible, and consistent with the vegetation data, Malibu LCP definitions, MCV2 classification rules, and the photographic evidence. The City/applicant’s claim that “no native flora exist on the bluƯ” is not supported by:
 The field reconnaissance photos Amigo/Elkins Kalt provided the City;  The species you documented;
 The alliance-level vegetation classification; or
 The Malibu LCP’s definitions of ESHA and native coastal bluƯ scrub.

There is no biologically legitimate basis for concluding the bluƯ is non-native if the City and/or applicant’s biologist made this assertion while:
 No field data were collected;
 No floristic composition was documented; and
 No vegetation alliance determination was performed.

Our photos and simple recon survey make the City/Applicant’s biologist assertion scientifically impossible. For this assertion by the City and Applicant’s biologist to be true:
 Artemisia californica would have to be non-native
 Malosma laurina would have to be non-native
 Isocoma menziesii would have to be non-native
 Batis maritima and Distichlis spicata halophytes would have to be non-native 332
2 Our photos also show non-native ornamental species but these are incidental to the larger established native community This is scientifically impossible. Our data and the photographs show the opposite:

A high-quality native bluƯ scrub with halophytes. Unless the City or applicant conducted their own floristic survey (which they have not produced), their assertion is:
 Unsupported
 Contrary to the visual record
 Contrary to MCV2 classification rules
 Contrary to Malibu LCP definitions
 Contrary to actual vegetation onsite
Finally, under Malibu LUP Policy 3.23, his coastal bluƯ scrub community clearly qualifies as an ESHA The Malibu LCP’s ESHA criteria include:
 Rarity of the community
 Ecological value
 High native cover
 Sensitivity to disturbance
 Habitat connectivity
 BluƯ stabilization function
 Intact hydrologic and geomorphic conditions
The bluƯ we documented (with relatively little eƯort) contains:
 A mostly intact native scrub community
 Halophytes at the toe (saltwort, saltgrass)
 Minimal anthropogenic disturbance
 High native species richness
 A clear maritime influence
 A documented shrubland alliance recognized by MCV2
These findings meet Malibu LCP/LIP ESHA criteria directly.

Hope this helps, thx
Joshua Zinn, PWS | Regulatory Program Manager and Ecologist Mobile:

Email:

Amigo Environmental, LLC | Certified DBE
333
334
Marcy Paul
Malibu.CA 90265
01/16/2026
Malibu City Planning Commission
Dear Planning Commission,
My name is Marcy Paul, and I am a neighbor of Ronald and Jane Jenny. My house is located on the same easement, behind the Mackey's home. I have known the Jennys for many years, and I am writing to express my support for their planned construction project.

I have recently observed that the Jennys have erected story poles for a new home on the vacant lot next to their property. Since my house is directly above the Jennys' residence, I recognize that portions of their new structure will impact my view. Although this may slightly affect my perspective, I firmly believe that the Jennys have the right to build on the property they have purchased.

In my discussions with tt:ie Jennys, they informed me that their neighbors, the Andersons and the Mackeys, have hired an attorney in an attempt to block their building rights. To my understanding, they have raised various objections, including claims regarding potential Chumash burial grounds on the Jennys' property. However, extensive studies have revealed no evidence of any archaeological issues.

It is crucial to note that the concerns expressed by the Andersons and the Mackeys primarily center around their views rather than legitimate legal or environmental matters.

The Jennys purchased their lot and should have the right to build on it, particularly since they have consistently adhered to the city's guidelines regarding height and size.

From my observations, the Mackeys' house is significantly taller than the planned construction for the Jennys' home. Furthermore, the Andersons have planted numerous large trees, including approximately 30 specimen olive trees that directly obstruct my view. The Mackeys also have large palm trees, a giant eucalyptus, and a substantial coral tree that they allow to grow unchecked. Despite my requests for them to trim or relocate these trees to help restore my view, they have shown no willingness· to accommodate this.

Given these considerations, I urge you to uphold the Jennys' right to build their new • home. They have meticulously designed the project and have been collaborating with the Malibu building department for nearly four years. '
Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Marcy Paul
To: Didier Murillo
Principal Planner
Community Development Department.

City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Dear Mr. Murillo, I am writing to you asking for your help in helping correct a misquote attributed to me, which was included in a letter that was recently sent to the City of Malibu Planning department by David Paul Dominguez, regarding an application for a building permit at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

The background is this: On December 8th 2025, I received a call from Mr.

Dominguez. He wanted to know if I had any knowledge of coastal sites in the City of Malibu. I was under the impression that he asked because he was going to do some cultural monitoring there.

I told him that yes I do have knowledge of the Malibu area. I have worked in Malibu many times as a cultural resources consultant, the last time as part of the Woolsey Fire Cleanup project. I am the founder and former Chair of the Barbareno Ventureno Band of Mission Indians. I have 40 years of experience in all aspects of my Chumash cultural heritage including Cultural Resource Management. Even more to the point, it is well documented that my family has direct descendancy from the Chumash villages of Humaliwo and Zumo (Dume Pt.).

In response to David’s question I provided him some general information about a site I’m familiar with based on my work in the Malibu region. My point by referencing it was simply to reinforce the notion that Malibu is a culturally sensitive area. The site that I was telling David about is 10 miles west from the 33008 property, not at all related to 33008. I had never been on the site at 33008 and never made any representation to David that I had been.

As we continued to talk, I realized that his focus was the property at 33008, and learned that it was being contested by many people and that David and Chester King, an archaeological consultant, were being paid to consult with property owners in this neighborhood and report to them and the City of Malibu.

Since then I have seen the letter that David sent the City of Malibu where he states:
335
“On the same day I had personal communication Julie Tumamait, former chair of the Ventareno/Barbareno Chumash Tribe, and She further verified that there are multiple burials on the proposed project bluff area and reburials in the immediate vicinity.”
This attribution is completely false. I never made any such statement about the 33008 property. He knows that I wasn’t talking about that property, knows that I’ve never been there, never said anything about that property. Further, David totally misrepresents when our conversation took place. We spoke on December 8, not November 1.

I just want to be absolutely clear. Neither the city in its setting permitting conditions nor the property owners in their own stewardship should be relying on any statements attributed to me by Mr. Dominguez. I’ve asked David to correct this record, yet he has refused, so I am compelled to send this letter both to protect my own integrity and to be clear about the actual record of the 33008 property.

That all said, please also know that I am very passionately committed to protecting Chumash cultural resources. But our work must be based on honesty and reliability. Archaeology is a very specific and scientific process. There are many levels to follow, one process following the other to see the presence or absence of Cultural material. One cannot conclude that because there may be human remains on one property, that it means there are remains on other properties miles away.

Finally, on a related point, each parcel and project needs to be taken seriously and deliberately. Yet what’s apparent in this situation is that both David and Chester are relying on made up claims and the disaffection of neighbors to claim evidence of Chumash cultural resources at 33008. There may be, but the City and property owner need to follow appropriate and reliable procedures to determine that.

In closing I would like to add that I have been asked to be present as the Cultural Monitor for the extended Phase 1 archaeological testing. I’m honored to participate in the work to document what is actually at this property. The findings will determine what comes next. But I’d also like to note that as I write this there is road work being conducted right out on the highway. If there was real concern about the sacredness of our culture wouldn’t the neighbors and others have been 336
337
equally concerned to have a Cu ltura l Monitor there too? The neighbors are concerned about the 33008 property, but where's the concern for the roadwork? Should you have any questions, I'm happy and eager to talk, to set the record right on my comments. Thank you.

Sincerely,
Julie Tumamait-Stenslie
Chumash
~~
Elder
Native Chumash Consulting
Services
Ronald Jenny
33010 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90264 November 12, 2025
RE – 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu
Ronald Jenny,
At the request of Schmitz & Associates, I visited the property commonly known as 33008 Pacific Coast Highway on November 7, 2025, to determine if a bluff meets the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) definition and to determine the distance of the property from a stream that cuts through 33014 Pacific Coast Highway.

The City of Malibu LCP defines ESHA as “any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem.” ESHA includes native habitats, which contribute to the viability of species protected by the State and Federal endangered species acts or those that are “fully protected” or recognized as “species of special concern” by the State. Any habitats with plant species on list 1B or list 2 of the California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants or habitats that are rare or valuable from a local, regional, or statewide basis including wetlands and streams are ESHA.1 With exception of streams and wetlands, areas within legally existing fuel modification zones, do not meet the ESHA definition.
1 City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan, Local Implementation Plan, Chapter 4.1; City of Malibu Local Coastal Plan, Land Use Plan, Chapter 3.1 ATTACHMENT 6
338
8JOl.0GJCAL CONSULTANTS
10664l"R.ESILURD I SANTA ROSA \:..u.L.EY, CA9Xli1
PHONE (005) 302-- 165 1 F'A.'C: (005) >S2-9J96
\'t'\'t\'t.l'ORDEBIQCl0.\1 1 E.\.LUL:- [email protected]~ The bluff is located within the fuel modification zones of adjacent single-family residencies and non-native vegetation dominates. The bluff does not meet the ESHA definition. I had no legal access to 33014 Pacific Coast Highway. Using a laser hypsometer, I determined that at its closet point to the property the stream is 8 feet wide from top of bank to top of bank and the distance from top of bank to the property line is 104 feet.

Sincerely,
Andrew McGinn Forde, Principal Biologist
Forde Biological Consultants
339
8JOl.0GJCAL CONSULTANTS
10664l"R.ESILURD I SANTA ROSA \:..u.L.EY, CA9Xli1
PHONE (005) 302-- 165 1 F'A.'C: (005) >S2-9J96
\'t'\'t\'t.l'ORDEBIQCl0.\1 1 E.\.LUL:- [email protected]~

VACANT LAND
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
APN: 4473-017-003

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
33010 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
APN: 4473-018-004
( NOT A PART )

PRIVATE ROAD

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
33006 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
APN: 4473-017-008
( NOT A PART )

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
33016 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
APN: 4473-018-003
( NOT A PART )

APPROXIMATE CENTERLINE OF STREAM
2 0'
10'
10'
±108'
±114'
±129'

AERIAL DRONE EXHIBIT
APN: 4473-017-009
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,
MALIBU, CA 90265
PREPARED FOR:
10/29/2025
JOB NO. 25-046
SCALE: 1" = 30'
DATE: OCT, 2025
SHEET: 1 OF 1

RON JENNY
C/O: SCHMITZ AND ASSOCIATES
NOTES:

1. EXISTING STREAM SHOWN HEREON IS BASED ON FIELD
MEASUREMENTS LOCATED ON 10/30/2025.
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY,
MALIBU, CA 90265
LEGEND:

RIGHT OF WAY

PROPERTY LINE

LOT LINE

CENTERLINE

EASEMENT LINE

CENTERLINE OF STREAM
ATTACHMENT 7
340
r
30' 15'
A
o· 15' 30'

GRAPHIC SCALE
SCALE: 1 "=30'
~AS
'Surveying & Mapping
28328 Agoura Rd., Suite 203, Agoura Hills, CA. 91301
P: 818.463.3141 www.CA5Survey.com
60'
'I r
S:\SHARED FOI.DERS\CA5SURVEYJ1LES\PROJECTS\2025\25-046 RON JDINY 33008 PCH MALIBU DRONE SURVEY\PROOUCTION\BOUNOARY a: TOP0\25-048 FROM 23-6817_CJ02LBOUNDARY.DWG (11-01-25 2:29:58PM) Plotted by. Shane 'I
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 Tuesday, February 17, 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. 23-034, MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 25-009, AND CODE VIOLATION NO. 23-047 - An application to construct a new two-story, 18-foot high, 4,856 square foot single-family residence, including a 791 square foot attached garage and a 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 a minor modification for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback
LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 33008 Pacific Coast Hwy / 4473-017-009 / Rural Residential-Two Acre (RR-2) APPLICANT / OWNER: Schmitz & Associates, Inc. / Bluff Top 1 LLC APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) APPLICATION FILED: May 17, 2023
CASE PLANNER: Didier Murillo, Principal Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 342
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding this matter 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.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval directly to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. More information may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling 805-585-1800.

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: February 5, 2026 341
AT T ACHM E NT 8

EXHIBIT E
342
9/8/25, 2:47 PM
E5J&54J
Batch 19790649 Confirmation
This page is part of your document - DO NOT DISCARD
~,ofLOS~Q 20250603609
r~ ~ t la!IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIUll!llrnH~IH Pgs33:
\ ,. Recorded/Filed in Official Records
lit .. ; Recorder's Office, Los Angeles County,
,,_ Jf. California
C;t IFOV.: ~~ 09/04/25 AT 02:05PM

LEADSHEET
202509040150053
00025791811
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111m
015505891
SEQ:
01 SECURE - Daily - Time Sensitive
11111111 !111111111 HI 111111111111111111! 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 ~1111111111111111 I llll llllll lllll llllll llll llll llllll lllll llllll llll lllll llllll lllll llll lllll lllll lllll lllll Ill llll FEES:

TAXES:

OTHER:

PAID:

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00
THIS FORM IS NOT TO BE DUPLICATED E55-20250904.
https://gs.secure-erds.com/Batch/Confirrnation/19790649 1/2
343
9/8/25, 2:47 PM
FOR REFERENCE ONLY:

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:

City of Malibu
Attention: City Clerk
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265

EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE
PER GOVT. CODE§ 27383
Batch 19790649 Confirmation
20250603609
SPACE ABOVE THIS LfNE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE

COVENANT AND AGREEMENT
The undersigned hereby certifies it is the owner of the real property located in the City of Malibu (the "City), County of Los Angeles, State of California, as described and set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto (the "Property")
Site address:

APN:
33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, 90265
4473-017-009
In consideration of the issuance of Conditional Certificate of Compliance No. 29220 by the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, recorded on October 30, 1986, the undersigned hereby promises, covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City of Malibu as successor to the County of Los Angeles, that no buildings, improvements, structures and/or obstructlons of any kind shall be constructed on the Property due to the Property and, or its access being located within the flood•prone area, as show in Exhibit "B." This covenant shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon the undersigned, its successors, heirs or assigns and shall continue in effect until the Planning Department of the City of Malibu approves its termination.

Print Name
I
Exempt from fees pursuant to Governmerrc Code Section 27383 https://gs.secure-erds.com/Batch/Confirmation/19790649 2/2 344

RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED, RETURN TO:

City of Malibu
Attention: City Clerk
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265

EXEMPT FROM RECORDING FEE
PER GOVT. CODE § 27383

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE

COVENANT AND AGREEMENT
The undersigned hereby certifies it is the owner of the real property located in the City of Malibu (the "City), County of Los Angeles, State of California, as described and set forth in Exhibit "A" hereto (the "Property")
Site address:

APN:
33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California, 90265
4473-017-009
In consideration of the issuance of Conditional Certificate of Compliance No. 29220 by the Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning, recorded on October 30, 1986, the undersigned hereby promises, covenants and agrees, for the benefit of the City of Malibu as successor to the County of Los Angeles, that no buildings, improvements, structures and/or obstructions of any kind shall be constructed on the Property due to the Property and, or its access being located within the flood-prone area, as show in Exhibit "B." This covenant shall run with the Property and shall be binding upon the undersigned, its successors, heirs or assigns and shall continue in effect until the Planning Department of the City of Malibu approves its termination.
, 2025
Print Name
Exempt from fees pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 345

ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

State of California
County of tV e.. V
~ n- 1 I before me __ L~--~_1_4~J .... e... _______ , Notary Public, ~ l _, personally appearedolfl a.... Id ~ er.1\:1 who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person'5) whose name(S1 is/ai:e subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/sReltFtey executed the same in his/~r authorized capacity(i~, and that by his/herltheif signature~) on the instrument the person~). or the entity upon behalf of which the person(~ acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
/) - I ,/ r I
'

CITY OF MALIBU
Exempt from fees pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 (Seal)
346
B . _______ ,anda Bundy, MS, PE, CBO, CFCO
mmunity Development Director
Date
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Los Angeles
On 9 j '2 \~'S:" , befo e me,~~ S,DY\ L~wr1c:n~ ,J\~r1:1 City Clerk for the City of Malibu, personally appeared o c..no(.,_ ~"'-v\J , who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person who e name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same in their authorized capacity, and that by their signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
d and official seal.
(SEAL)
Exempt from fees pursuant to Government Code Section 27383 347
1 2
3 4
5 PEARSON
LANO SURVEYING, INC.

EXHIBIT" A"

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

DEED RESTRICTION AREA
APN: 4473-017-009 ADDRESS: 33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MALIBU 6 That portion of Parcel 1 as described in the Grant Deed recorded 12/29/2021 as Instrument 7 No. 20211921968, in the City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, State of California, Official 8 Records of said County, lying southerly of the following described line:
9 10 Beginning at a point on the southeasterly line of said Parcel 1, distant thereon 11 South 27°34'30" West 679.59 feet from the northeast corner of said Parcel; thence 12 South 88°27'29" West 162.98 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of said Parcel, distant 13 thereon South 27°341
30" West 711.71 feet from the northwest corner of said Parcel. 14 15 This Legal Description is described on the accompanying "Exhibit B", is made a part hereof 16 for reference purposes, was prepared as a convenience, and is not intended for the use in 17 the division and/or conveyance of land in violation of the Subdivision Map Act of the State 18 of California.
19 20 Having an area of approximately 7,335 square feet. 21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
31 32
33 34
35 36
- Thomas McDermott, PLS 8555
Pearson Land Surveying, Inc.

Date: e/"J 1~4"-
348
SCALE: 1" = 60'

RON JENNY
----
EXHIBIT •s• SHEET 1 OF 1

LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT

DEED RESTRICTION
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MALIBU

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
APN: 4473-017-009
------ ------
----

RECORD DATA SOURCES
Rl GRANT DffD RECORDED
12/29/2021 AS INSTRUMENT
NO. 20211921968, O.R.

APPROXIMATE AREA
1,335 SQ. FT.

PARCEL 1
GRANT DffD REC'D
12/29/2021 AS
INSTRUMENT NO.
20211921968
..._
Q::
60' 30• o· 60'
SCALE: 1" = 60'
LEGEND
, .•. · ...• , I LEGAL DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY
JOB NO.: 24JEN0101 DA TE: 8/5/2024
Thomas McDermott, PLS 8555
23371 Mulholland Dr. /1330
Woodland Hills, CA 9f364
Phone: (818) 468-9714
[email protected]
From: Jackson D. McNeill
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Yolanda Bundy; Trevor Rusin; Kellan Martz; Marco A. Ornelas Lopez; Kenneth A. Ehrlich; Didier Murillo; Tyler Eaton
Subject: Correspondence re: Item 5A - 33008 PCH - Additional Opposition Letter Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 9:58:38 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Item 5A - 33008 PCH - Key Objections.pdf
Commissioners and City Staff:

Attached, please find an additional letter submitted on behalf of our clients Unknowingly Devolving LLC and Mark and Tamara Mackey objecting to the project at 33008 PCH, agendized for the Planning Commission’s February 17, 2026, meeting as Item 5A. This letter provides a high-level summary of our clients’ key objections (which are discussed in greater detail in separate, prior correspondence).

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Best,
Jackson D. McNeill
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (310) 746-4424 | Fax: (310) 746-4499 | Download VCard Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
10345 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064
www.elkinskalt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments.

EXHIBIT F
349
::( ELIKINS KALT
8058500.1
Jackson D. McNeill
D: (310) 746-4424
[email protected]
Ref: 15289-0001
February 13, 2026

VIA E-MAIL ONLY
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Re: Key Objections to CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Mod. No. 25-009 Address: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California Meeting: February 17, 2026
Item #: 5A
Dear Commissioners:

Our firm represents Unknowingly Devolving LLC and Mark and Tamara Mackey (collectively, our “Clients”), the owners of the real property and single-family residences located at and Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California, respectively. Bluff Top 1 LLC (“Applicant”) requests a Coastal Development Permit (CDP No. 23-034) and Minor Modification (Minor Modification No. 25-009) (together, the “Application”) to construct a new single-family residence and associated development (the “Project”) on a coastal bluff property at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (the “Property”).

We have submitted myriad letters and emails objecting to the Project.1 While staff and the applicant have partially addressed some such objections, many objections remain unresolved. We highlight a handful of our clients’ key, unmet objections here:
• The ESHA analysis relies on an incorrect measurement methodology that understates the required ESHA buffer. The LCP requires a 100-foot ESHA buffer measured from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, not from the edge of the stream. (LIP § 4.6.1(A).) Instead, the Applicant’s biologist “determined that at its closet point the distance from top of bank to the property line is 104 feet.” (Forde Memorandum, November 12, 2025, p. 2, emphasis added.) At the same time, the applicant’s own biological assessment opines that “[a]long the perimeter of the stream various trees and associated riparian areas are present” and that the “ESHA area is a riparian woodland community.” (Moorman Biological Assessment, July 2023, p. 10.) Thus, by measuring from the stream edge rather than from the outer 1 We incorporate and reallege the objections in those letters and in emails by reference. 350
~ ( ELKINS KALT
a...
_j
_j
Q)
"O
V,
t:'.
ro
CJ
C:

Q)
.0
::,
Q)
a::
.0
::,
....,
~
C:

Q)
3:

V,
C:
..>:::
lJ.J
T 310.746.4400 F: 310.746.4499
10345 W. Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064 I elkinskalt.com City of Malibu
February 13, 2026

8058500.1
edge of riparian vegetation, the Applicant’s analysis systematically undermeasures the ESHA buffer. When the buffer is correctly measured, it overlaps the Property and multiple Project components. The Project therefore cannot be approved as proposed and must be revised to account for the properly measured ESHA buffer. • The Project fails to account for Coastal ESHA. Our client’s biologist inspected the coastal bluff along the Property and concluded it qualifies as ESHA, providing a detailed, multi-page analysis. The applicant biologist’s 1.5-page memorandum on November 12, 2025, and applicant’s previous biological assessment predate that analysis and do not rebut it. The presence of coastal bluff ESHA means that the applicant must provide a 100-foot buffer from the top of the bluff, and its request for a 50-foot setback instead cannot be approved. (LIP § 4.6.1(D).) • The extended Phase I study does not resolve (much less eliminate) the reasonable possibility of impacts to tribal resources. It remains undisputed that cultural resources have been found at the Property. (See November 3, 2025, Staff Report, p. 8 [“The cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools….”].) While the extended Phase I did not yet find additional cultural resources, that does not mean they do not exist. Mr. David Paul Dominguez, a Chumash elder, and Chester King, PhD, a professional archaeologist, both opined in letters to the Planning Commission that the Property likely contains additional cultural resources. Our own client has recovered cultural artifacts on his property immediately east of the subject Property, including mortar, pestles, and hand tools. And neighbors report the discovery of cultural resources (including burials) upslope in the late 1990s. The Project’s 2,958 cubic yards of grading, meanwhile, are likely to disturb or destroy these resources. At minimum, the City should require a Phase II archaeological study before proceeding. • The City improperly relies on a categorical exemption from CEQA. The City claims the Project qualifies for a Class 3 exemption from CEQA. While single family homes may sometimes qualify for this exemption, this exemption does not apply here for at least three reasons:
• The City acknowledges potential impacts to tribal cultural resources and then attempts to rely on archaeological monitoring and other conditions of approval to “mitigate” those impacts into a categorical exemption—an approach CEQA flatly prohibits. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1108.) A mitigated negative declaration (“MND”) or EIR must be prepared.
351
City of Malibu
February 13, 2026

8058500.1
• Substantial evidence from a qualified archaeologist and a Chumash elder demonstrates a reasonable possibility of significant impacts to tribal cultural resources exist due to unusual circumstances of the Project, which separately defeats any Class 3 categorical exemption. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2.) Again, an MND or EIR must be prepared.
• Because a Phase I inventory identified significant cultural resources and required extended testing, including subsurface testing, the LCP requires preparation of at least a negative declaration, precluding reliance on any CEQA exemption. (LIP § 11.3(F)(1).)
Our Clients’ do not oppose all development on the Property, however, they request that any approved development comply with the law. The Project, as proposed, does not. Until the biology, archaeology, CEQA, and various other unresolved flaws with the Project are addressed, the Project does not comply with the LIP or with CEQA, and the Commission should respectfully deny the Project. At minimum, a Phase II archaeological study should be required and a mitigated negative declaration or EIR must be prepared.

Very truly yours,
JACKSON D. McNEILL
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
JDM:jdm
cc: Didier Murillo ([email protected])
Tyler Eaton ([email protected])
Trevor Rusin ([email protected])
Kellan Martz ([email protected])
352

OPPOSITION TO
CDP NO. 23-034 AND MM NO. 25-009
1 Jackson D. McNeill, attorney for Mark and Tamara Mackey, Unknowingly Devolving, LLC Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside, LLP
353

INTRODUCTION
• My clients do not oppose all development, even though the Project would impact their bluewater views.
2 354

THE PROJECT
This Project:
• Is located within 100 feet of riparian habitat.
• On a site with documented cultural artifacts.
• On a coastal bluff.
• Requests the maximum (50%) reduction to the coastal
bluff setback.
• And requests a near maximum (37%) reduction to the
front yard setback 3
355

ESHA ISSUES
Applicant’s original plans admitted that part of the Project lies within 100-feet of the steam.
4 356
' ' ' ', ... _
-------------------------------
------------------------
-----
"&
◊ PILASTi;R
~PACJFICCOAST'rf'NV
A.~ ''7Ml17,;):,,tj
--- --------------

ESHA ISSUES
In response to our objections, Applicant now claims the bank of the ESHA stream is at least 104’ from the Property:
5 357
The bluff is locate cl "Within the fuel modification zones of adj ac ent single-family residencies an cl non-native vegetation dominates . The bluff does not me et the ESHA de :fi.ni tion. I had no 1 e gal access to 33014 Paci fie Coast Hi@"<:t.lay. Using a las er hypsomete; I determined that at its closet point to the property the streatn is 8 fe et -;Ji de from top of bank to top of bank and the distance from top of bank to the property line is 104 feet.

ESHA ISSUES
But the LIP requires development to be at least 100 feet from the edge of the riparian vegetation, not the top of the stream bank. The LIP states:

New development shall provide a buffer of no less than 100 feet in width from the outer edge of the canopy of riparian vegetation. Where riparian vegetation is not present, the buffer shall be measured from the outer edge of the bank of the subject stream.
(LIP section 4.6.1(A).)
6 358

ESHA ISSUES
Applicant’s Biology Assessment (which our biologist opines is legally deficient) admits riparian vegetation exists. 7 359
ESHAAREAJS..AJUeARIAN WOODLAND COMMlJNID. EREJS STREAMJHAT_RUNS IROUGJ HE ESHA. DJ)RAI s INTO THE OCEAN . J\Lo G TJIE PERIMETER OFTIIE STREAM VARIOUS TREES AND ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN AREAS ARE PR.ESE T. PLEASE OTE THERE ARE ADDITIO AL DEVELOPED PROPERTlES WITHI THE ESRA THAT ARE OT ILLUSTRATED. ADDITIO ALLY, THERE IS A PAVED ROAD D RESIDENTIAL HOME CREATI G PHYSICAL BARRIERS BETWEE THE ESHA · D PROPERTY AREA. 8 When measured
from the edge of the
riparian vegetation, a
HUGE amount of
ESHA buffer exists
on the Property
BLUE = APPROX.

ESHA BUFFER
AREA
360
Approx. Area of
Riparian Vegetation
Not Measured/
Included by
Applicant
Approx. ESHA Buffer
Area on Property Not
Included by Applicant
(I.E., Area 100 Feet
From Edge of Riparian
Vegetation)

VACANT LAND
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
APN: 4473-017-003
"New development shall
provide a buffer of no less
than 100 feet in width from
the outer edge of the canopy
of riparian vegetation." (LIP§

4.6.1 (A), emphasis added.)

ESHA ISSUES
And yet, Applicant proposes various development in this ESHA buffer area:
9 361
• 00.2
-------------------
~ .r· ""!';-~-·~-r~-·-x_·_--=·~~~~~~~, ~B~ul.:..lff~e rt1i::AL-re_a-4.\, '""'""=•;(• .,
New Stone
Pilasters
New Turnaround \ '

FUEL MODIFICATION
• Fuel modification requirements do NOT affect whether
streams or wetlands are ESHA. (LUP section 3.1.)
• Once ESHA exists, you must provide the required buffer.

Fuel modification requirements do NOT remove or
change the buffer requirement.
• That buffer is measured from the edge of the riparian vegetation.
• Nothing in the LIP or LUP indicates that fuel
modification changes the way the buffer is measured.
10 362

ARCHAEOLOGY
• Cultural artifacts
were found on site.
• Cultural artifacts
were found to the
east.
• Human remains have
been found upslope.
11 363
APPLICANT’S PHASE I STUDY
• The expanded Phase I study failed to find new resources (yet), but it does not mean those resources don’t exist:
• To repeat: It remains undisputed that the site
contains shell and stone tools.
• 2,958 cubic yards of grading and 12,603.6 sq. ft. of
disturbed area create a near-certainty of disturbing
any subsurface resources that a Phase I surface scan
would miss.
12 364

ARCHAEOLOGY
Chumash Elder, former Chumash Cultural Resources
Monitor, and 30-year cultural resources expert David Paul Dominguez opines:
13 365
and mortars, including, mano and metates, as well as, flakes and arrowheads.

And, it is a well known burial area that has been brought to the attention of the city of Malibu, and well known that the area will contain other burials and will be First, and more importantly, this project should not be approved on account of the sacred sensitivity to the Chumash people and undiscovered burials, that, are in no doubt, in the immediate project area.

ARCHAEOLOGY
Chester King, PhD, opines:
14 366
• 33008 PCH lies within the known archaeological site LAN-29 and likely contains intact subsurface cultural deposits and potentially contains a cemetery. • The Phase I assessment prepared by the applicant's archaeologist, Dr. Boxt, remains both incomplete and contradicted by prior documented findings, including human remains at a parcel in the immediate vicinity. • The applicant and City of Malibu's proposed monitoring and mitigation measures emain wholly insufficient.
• The City must require a publicly reviewed Phase 2 subsurface testing program, conducted with a qualified Chumash cultural monitor, before any project approval.

ARCHAEOLOGY
• A Chumash Elder says this site is sacred and not enough has been done to protect the site.
• An archaeologist specializing in Chumash resources says a Phase 2 should be done and the current protections
are not enough.
• Resources found in the immediate area, including human bones.
15 367

CONCLUSION
• The project violates ESHA buffer requirements.
• The project requires a Phase 2 archaeology study.
• The project comes from an applicant with a history of code violations.
• This community deserves better.
• This Commission knows better.
• We respectfully ask this Commission to deny the project. 16 368
QUESTIONS?
17 369
From: Jan Ravlich
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 25200 Pacific Coast Highway
Date: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:49:04 AM
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission, We respectfully oppose the proposed development at 25200 Pacific Coast Highway due to unresolved geologic risks and permanent scenic impacts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Jan Ravlich
Lived in Malibu 15 years
370
From: Jackson D. McNeill
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Tyler Eaton; Didier Murillo; Yolanda Bundy; Trevor Rusin; Kellan Martz Subject: Correspondence re: Item 5A - 33008 PCH - Opposition Letter re CEQA Date: Thursday, February 12, 2026 3:29:59 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Item 5A - 33008 PCH - Opposition Letter re CEQA (2026.02.12).pdf Commissioners and City Staff:

Attached, please find our letter submitted on behalf of our clients Unknowingly Devolving LLC and Mark and Tamara Mackey objecting to the project at 33008 PCH, agendized for the Planning Commission’s February 17, 2026 meeting as Item 5A, on the basis that the Project fails to comply with CEQA. As discussed therein, the Project impermissibly relies on a categorical exemption from CEQA for three independent legal reasons. For these reasons, the City must prepare a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report before the Planning Commission may consider or approve the Project. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Best,
Jackson D. McNeill
[email protected]
Direct Dial: (310) 746-4424 | Fax: (310) 746-4499 | Download VCard Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
10345 W. Olympic Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90064
www.elkinskalt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message and any attachments are confidential and may be attorney-client privileged. Dissemination, distribution or copying of this message or attachments without proper authorization is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP immediately by telephone or by e-mail, and permanently delete the original, and destroy all copies, of this message and all attachments.
371
::( ELIKINS KALT

8012086.3
Jackson D. McNeill
D: (310) 746-4424
[email protected]
Ref: 15289-0001
February 12, 2026

VIA E-MAIL ONLY
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Re: CEQA Objections to CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Modification No. 25-009
Address: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California Meeting: February 17, 2026
Item #: 5A
Dear Commissioners:

Our firm represents Unknowingly Devolving LLC and Mark and Tamara Mackey (collectively, our “Clients”), the owners of the real property and single-family residences located at and Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California, respectively. Bluff Top 1 LLC (“Applicant”) requests a Coastal Development Permit (CDP No. 23-034) and Minor Modification (Minor Modification No. 25-009) (together, the “Application”) to construct a new single-family residence and associated development (the “Project”) on a coastal bluff property at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (the “Property”).

Although the applicant has conducted an extended Phase I archaeological study, this, by itself, does not mean the Project complies the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”):

Among other issues:
 The City impermissibly relies upon mitigation measures in order to qualify the Project for a categorical exemption;
 The unusual circumstances exception applies, making the Project ineligible for a categorical exemption; and
 The LCP independently requires additional CEQA review.

Because the Project fails to qualify for a categorical exemption, the City must prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) or Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) before the Planning Commission (or any other discretionary decision making body) may consider the Project. 372
::( ELKINS KALT
a..
__J
__J
(])
-0
V)
-.....
ro
C,
C
(])
_a
:l
(])
c::
_a
:l
ro
.....
-C
(])
:s:
ro
::x:::

V)
C
..:.:::

L1.J
- -
310.746.4400 310.746.4499
10345 W. Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064 I elkinskalt.com City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
Further, given the continued risk to cultural resources, the City should require the applicant to conduct a Phase II archaeological study before bringing the Project to a hearing.

I. The City Improperly Relies Upon Mitigation Measures to Support a Categorical Exemption from CEQA.

City staff asserts that the Project qualifies for a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA.

The Class 3 exemption generally applies to minor new construction, including single family homes. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15303; see also February 17, 2026 Staff Report, p. 23 [“the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e)”]; Draft Resolution No. 26-10, p. 2 [stating a Class 3 exemption applies].) The Class 3 categorical exemption does not apply here. Importantly, “[a]n agency may not evade CEQA by adopting mitigation measures simply to qualify a project for a categorical exemption.” (Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771, 789; see also Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199–1200.) That is exactly what the City does in this case.

A. The Record Demonstrates that the Property Contains Tribal Cultural Resources.

The record incontrovertibly shows that tribal cultural resources exist at the Property. The November 3, 2025, Staff Report, for example, explicitly acknowledges that the Applicant discovered Chumash tools and shells on the Property. (November 3, 2025, Staff Report, p. 8 [“The cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools….”].) The City’s original Archaeology Review Sheet, likewise, also states “that potential cultural resources are located on the project site.” We attach the Archaeology Review letter as Exhibit A.

Further, Mr. David Paul Dominguez, a Chumash elder, and Chester King, PhD, a professional archaeologist, both opine that the Property likely contains human remains. They base this upon the original Phase I archaeology report prepared for the Property, the artifacts found in the immediate vicinity (including human remains), the discovery of certain beads that are consistent with Chumash burials and trading, among various other facts. We attach Dr. King’s November 20, 2025, Archaeology Opinion as Exhibit B, and we attach Chumash elder David P.

Dominguez’ letter as Exhibit C.

The testimony of neighbors confirms this result and is legally relevant. (See Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 932 [relevant personal observations by area residents are properly considered in order to determine whether a reasonable possibility exists that a project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment]; see also Bowman 373
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 583 [“[s]tatements of area residents who are not environmental experts may qualify as substantial evidence if they are based on relevant personal observations or involve ‘nontechnical’ issues”].)
Specifically, our client, Unknowingly Devolving, LLC, has recovered cultural artifacts on his own property at PCH—which lies immediately east of the subject Property—including mortar, pestles, and hand tools. We attach photos of these artifacts as Exhibit D. Neighbors also report that human remains have been found upslope of the Project at 33004 PCH. (Indeed, given the cultural resources found in the late 1990s, 33004 PCH remains undeveloped to this day.) This further demonstrates that tribal cultural resources exist at the Property.

B. The Project Presents the Reasonable Possibility of an Adverse Impact on Cultural Resources; the Extended Phase I Does Not Change this Conclusion.

Given the documented cultural resources on the Property, the Project—which involves approximately 2,974.6 cubic yards of cut and fill grading over 12,603.6 square feet of area (see Civil Plans, sheet C-3.0)—presents a reasonable possibility of adverse environmental impacts and, specifically, adverse impact on tribal cultural resources. Put differently, the tribal artifacts exist at or near the surface of the Property, but the Project proposes to scrape about two feet of topsoil away for the majority of the buildable area.

Archaeologist Chester King, PhD, meanwhile—who previously served the City’s archaeologist from 1993 to 2000, did his PhD dissertation on the Chumash tribe, and has conducted and inspected various excavations in Malibu and Southern California—opines that “[t]he construction of the house as planned is expected to cause substantial damage to suspected site deposits.” He states:

Project plans indicate from sections of the house, that much of the area covered by the proposed house area will be excavated to two to three feet below the present ground surface before construction of the house. Utility trenches will also be excavated, and a septic tank will also be placed in a deep excavation. Observations of site deposits on mesa surfaces similar to those at the project site indicate that site deposits are usually less than two or three feet deep except in areas where house pits or other features such as earth ovens were excavated into subsoil. The construction of the house as planned is expected to cause substantial damage to suspected site deposits.
(King, Archaeology Opinion, Exh. B, p. 6, emphasis added.) 374
-
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
Chumash Elder and former cultural resources monitor David P. Dominguez describes this as a “sacred area” and likewise opines that:
[T]his proposed project will have extreme damage to unknown archeological and cultural resources and more than likely, will hit and discover unknown burials, that are consistent in the immediate bluff area.
(Dominguez, Exh. C, p. 1.)
Clearly, Dr. King and Mr. Dominguez’ statements represent “expert opinion supported by facts” that each constitute substantial evidence of an adverse environmental impact under CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (f)(5) [substantial evidence of adverse environmental impacts includes expert opinion supported by facts].)
Moreover, it does not matter that the Applicant has refused to let them access the Property directly: Expert opinion may qualify as substantial evidence under CEQA if supported by facts, even if not based on specific observations as to the site under review. (Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1036; Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [expert opinion qualifies as substantial evidence “even if not based on specific observations as to the site under review”].) We understand, of course, that the applicant prepared an extended Phase I archaeology report. According to the staff report, “[t]he extended study concluded that the subsurface soils within the project area are ‘archaeologically sterile’ meaning that the project site does not contain intact or significant cultural resources.” (Staff Report, p. 5.) This matters little. We expect Dr. King and/or Mr. Dominguez to testify at the hearing and disagree with the expended Phase I’s conclusions. In any event, to the to the extent the applicant’s Phase I archaeology report or extended Phase I contradicts Dr. King or Mr. Dominguez’ conclusions, the City must err on the side of preparing an EIR. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (g) [“in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR”]; see also Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1607 [expert testimony indicated that there would be a significant impact upon views and even though this was contradicted expert testimony, city was required to prepare EIR]; Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [“Where such expert opinions clash, an EIR should be done.”].)
375
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
C. The City Unlawfully Attempts to Mitigate Impacts to Cultural Resources in Order to Utilize a Categorical Exemption from CEQA.

Unsurprisingly, the City all but admits the potential adverse impact of the Project on these tribal resources by requiring the Applicant “[t]o mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance” through two proposed mitigation measures. (See Archaeology Review Letter, Exh. A, p. 1.) The previous, December 1, 2025, Staff Report likewise stated that in light of the shells and tools, “a condition of approval has been added … that requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist for all earthmoving activities….” (December 1, 2025, Staff Report, p. 8.) The December 1, 2025, Staff Report further acknowledges that “Staff has included the recommendations of the archeologist as conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 12-17) addressing cultural resources.” (Id. at 3.) The updated, February 17, 2026, staff report makes similar changes to the conditions of approval in light of archaeological concerns. (See February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 12 [“archaeological monitoring was recommended for all earthmoving activities. Accordingly, a condition of approval has been added to Resolution No. 26- 10 that requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist for all earthmoving activities, which include gradings, trenching, potholing, shoveling, and soil core boring.”].) In other words, the City does exactly what it is not supposed to do: It acknowledges that the Project presents potential environmental impacts and then attempts to evade CEQA by adopting project-related measures to mitigate those impacts, both in the Archaeology Review letter1 and through the conditions of approval.

A court will agree the City has unlawfully used mitigation measures to evade CEQA:
 In Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, a county acknowledged that a residential construction project may have potential adverse impacts on adjacent stream habitat. It then adopted conditions of approval (e.g., requiring a riparian protection plan) designed to mitigate the potential adverse impacts and thereby qualify 1 Our Clients assert that the Archaeology Review letter’s requirement to avoid ground disturbing activities within a certain distance of the northern property boundary constitutes one such mitigation measures. City staff states that this measure only applies to the geologic excavation permit, not the Project itself. It matters little: There are a number of conditions of approval in the draft Planning Commission resolution as well as other mitigation measures in the Archaeology Review letter that indisputably apply to the project.
376
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
the project for a Class 3 categorical exemption. (Id. at 1104.) The court of appeal stated that mitigation measures under CEQA are only proper at later stages of the process, and the County unlawfully evaded that process by adopting mitigation measures to rely upon a categorical exemption. (Id. at 1107-08.) Here, just like in Salmon Protection, a court would reject the City’s attempt to rely upon archaeological mitigation measures to obtain a Class 3 exemption.
 Similarly, in Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, an agency authorized the continued disposal of municipal waste at a landfill and declared the project categorically exempt from CEQA as the operation or minor alteration of an existing facility. (Id. at 1193.) In granting the categorical exemption, the agency in Azusa had acknowledged that pollutants were leaking from the landfill but had relied upon evidence that mitigation measures could prevent further pollution. (Id. at 1198.) The appellate court concluded this violated CEQA, stating that “proposed mitigation measures cannot be used to support a categorical exemption; they must be considered under the standards that apply to a mitigated negative declaration.” (Id. at 1199.) Here too, the City cannot rely upon mitigation measures to avoid potentially significant effects on cultural resources.
 Additional support for this conclusion is found in Architectural Heritage Ass’n v. County of Monterey (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, where the court held that even after an initial study and a mitigated negative declaration were prepared for demolition of an historic jail, documentation-type mitigation (photographs, monograph, salvage, and retention of plans) could not reduce the loss of an historic resource to a less-than-significant impact, and an EIR was required under the fair-argument standard. (Id. at 1122.) There, the County had at least prepared an MND; here, the City has done even less by invoking a Class 3 categorical exemption and relying solely on monitoring and conditions of approval to address significant risks to tribal cultural resources. (Id. at 1107; Staff Report, p. 23; Draft Resolution No. 26-10, p. 2.) If a mitigated negative declaration with extensive historicresource mitigation was inadequate in Architectural Heritage, a categorical exemption propped up by similar “after-the-fact” mitigation is equally inadequate in this case.
377
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
Given the potentially adverse impacts to cultural resources, the City must prepare a mitigated negative declaration or EIR instead. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1108 [“Reliance upon mitigation measures (whether included in the application or later adopted) … must be conducted under established CEQA standards and procedures for EIRs or negative declarations.”].) Until then, the Application must be denied.

II. The Unusual Circumstances Exception Independently Precludes the Utilization of the Class 3 Categorical Exemption.

Even assuming, arguendo, the Project would normally qualify for a Class 3 categorical exemption (which our Clients dispute), at least one exception to the categorical exemption applies. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2 [listing exceptions].) The most commonly raised exception is the “unusual circumstances” exception. (World Business Academy v. California State Lands Commission (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 476, 491.) That exception provides that a categorical exemption may not be used “where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.” (Id.; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15300.2, subd. (c).)
The party advocating for the application of the unusual circumstances exception bears the burden of demonstrating that the project falls within the exception. (World Business Academy, supra, 24 Cal.App.5th at 491.) That typically requires a two-part showing: (1) that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class—i.e., that there is something unusual about the project—such as its size or location and (2) that there is “a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to that unusual circumstance.” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1105; Respect Life South San Francisco v. City of South San Francisco (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 449, 456.) Alternatively, the party advocating for application of the unusual circumstances exception may make a heightened, oneelement showing: that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105.)
A. The Project Will Have a Significant Environmental Effect.

Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that the Project will have a significant environmental effect. Notably, as previously discussed, Mr. Dominguez’ expert opinion—based upon the Phase I archaeology study, prior excavations and resources found in the immediate vicinity, his knowledge as a Chumash elder, and various other facts—concludes that “this proposed project will have extreme damage to unknown archeological and cultural resources and more than likely, will hit and discover unknown burials, that are consistent in the immediate bluff area.” (Dominguez, Exh. C, p. 1, emphasis added). Likewise, Dr. King’s expert opinion, 378
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
based upon the plans, excavations in the immediate area, his academic specialty in Chumash culture and history, and his decades-long experience with tribal excavations in Southern California—similarly concludes that “[t]he construction of the house as planned is expected to cause substantial damage to suspected site [tribal resource] deposits.” (King, Archaeology Opinion, Exh. B, p. 6, emphasis added.) This constitutes substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. (See Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (f)(5) [substantial evidence of adverse environmental impacts includes expert opinion supported by facts].)
Because substantial evidence exists that the Project will have a significant adverse environmental effect, the unusual circumstances exception applies without further analysis, and the City cannot rely upon the class 3 categorical exemption. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643; see also Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 820 [“In other words, a showing by substantial evidence that a project will have a significant effect on the environment satisfies both prongs of the unusual circumstances exception under the second method of establishing the exception.”].)
B. Alternatively, Features of the Project Create Unusual Circumstances and the Project Presents the Reasonable Possibility of an Adverse Environmental Impact.

1. Unusual Circumstances Exist.

Even if the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that the Project will have a significant adverse environmental impact, the unusual circumstances exception still applies if the opponents “show evidence (1) the project is unusual because it ‘has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location’; and (2) there is ‘a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance.’” (Protect Tustin Ranch v. City of Tustin (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 951, 961.)
As to the first prong, “[a]n unusual circumstance refers to some feature of the project that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class. In other words, ‘whether a circumstance is ‘unusual’ is judged relative to the typical circumstances related to an otherwise typically exempt project.” (Voices for Rural Living v. El Dorado Irrigation Dist. (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 1096, 1109, citations and punctuation omitted.)
Here, several features distinguish the Project from other projects in the exempt class.

Among other things:
379
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
 First and foremost, unlike other projects in the exempt class, the Project contains identified tribal cultural resources and lies within a “sacred” Chumash area. (See Dominguez, Exh. C, p. 2.)
 Unlike other projects in the exempt class, the Project site is not consistent with the applicable land use regulations in that the Project indisputably requires a Minor Modification to the front yard setback in order to build the Project. (See October 9, 2025, Staff Report, p. 9 [“A minor modification is proposed for a 37 percent reduction in the required front yard setback to allow a 28.75-foot setback where a 47-foot setback is required.”]; see also Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v.

State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 586 [in determining whether unusual circumstances exist, courts may look at whether project is consistent with zoning regulations].)
These conditions constitute “unusual circumstances.”

2. The Project Presents the Reasonable Possibility of Significant Effect on the Environment Due to Unusual Circumstances.

These unusual circumstances create the reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. Importantly, the fact that the site is “sacred” and contains existing cultural resources means that the Project—which involves 2,974.6 cubic yards of cut and fill grading over 12,603.6 square feet of area (see Civil Plans, sheet C-3.0)—will disturb and damage those resources. It does not matter if the extended Phase I did not yet uncover additional cultural resources. All that matters is that a reasonable possibility of a significant impact exists. Here, such a possibility certainly does.

The Minor Modification also results in the reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. But for the Minor Modification, a significant portion of the front yard setback would remain undeveloped with structures; this is precisely the area in which the Archaeology Review letter prohibited excavation in order to protect cultural resources. Thus development in the front yard setback poses special risk to tribal resources.

Because the reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, the City cannot rely on the Class 3 categorical exemption. An MND or EIR must be prepared. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643.) 380
381
City of Malibu
Februaiy 12, 2026

III. The LCP Independently Requires Additional CEQA Review.

The LCP also prohibits utilizing a CEQA exemption. LIP section l 1.3(F)(l) states that, "[i]f on the basis of the Phase I Invento1y described above, one or more significant cultural resources is found, a Phase I Invento1y may be required to include: 1. An evaluation of limited shovel test pits to detennine whether a subsurface deposit is present and a negative declaration shall be prepared." (LIP § l l .3(F)(l ), emphasis added.) Here, the applicant's ai·chaeologist prepared a Phase I invent01y that found one or significant cultural resources. This is beyond reasonable dispute. To reiterate: The November 3, 2025, Staff Report stated that "cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools .... " The City's original Archaeology Review Sheet, likewise, also stated "that potential cultural resources ai-e located on the project site." These resources were significant. Notably, the City's prior Archaeology Review Letter imposed conditions on earthmoving activities in order "[t]o Initigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance. (Archaeology Review Letter, p. 1 [emphasis added].) Similarly, the applicant's own memorandum offered "mitigation measures" in order to "1nitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance." We attach this memorandum as Exhibit E. Why would the City and the applicant need to Initigate impacts to a "level of insignificance" if the potential impacts weren't significant to begin with? Given the existence of significant resources, the City ordered an extended Phase I study.

This included subsurface testing, such as shovel test pits. (See Februaiy 17, 2026, Staff Repo1i, p. 5 ["This extended study incmporated subsurface testing, including auger borings, laborato1y analysis, and Native American monitoring by Chumas representatives."].) According to the plain language of the LIP, once an applicant must prepare an extended Phase I study and subsurface testing occurs, "a negative declaration shall be prepared." (LIP § l 1.3(F)(l).) It does not matter if the extended Phase I study ultimately does not detennine any additional resources exist. The plain language requires a negative declai·ation, and City cannot ignore this provision and rely upon a CEQA exemption.

IV. Conclusion.

This is not a case of neighbors merely providing unsuppo1ted lay opinion in order to force an applicant or owner to prepai·e an MND or EIR. Here, a Chumash elder (with decades of experience as a fonner cultural resources monitor) and a professional archaeologist with unequaled experience in Malibu and Chumash cultural histo1y have independently opined that the Project will damage important tribal resources. This is coIToborated by the resources ah-eady found on site and in the immediate area.
8012086.3
City of Malibu
February 12, 2026

8012086.3
Perhaps recognizing these issues, the City tries to avoid them by imposing project-related mitigation measures to eliminate potential archaeological impacts. While presumably wellmeaning, CEQA does not allow the City to rely on mitigation measures to utilize a categorical exemption. Even if it did, the Project’s unusual circumstances—and the reasonable possibility of adverse environmental impacts presented by those circumstances—independently preclude the application of the categorical exemption. Further, LCP independently requires additional CEQA review.

Put simply: an ND, MND or EIR must be prepared.2 Until that occurs, the Planning Commission cannot consider the Project and should not approve it Very truly yours,
JACKSON D. McNEILL
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
JDM:jdm
cc: Yolanda Bundy ([email protected])
Didier Murillo ([email protected])
Tyler Eaton ([email protected])
Trevor Rusin ([email protected])
Kellan Martz ([email protected])
2 This letter does not provide a comprehensive list of our clients’ CEQA objections to the Project.

We reallege all previous objections and reincorporate them by reference here. Among other objections, our clients also assert that the Project creates significant impacts on biological resources due the Project’s proximity to an ESHA stream and coastal bluff ESHA and that such impacts preclude the use of an exemption.
382

EXHIBIT A
383
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org June 26, 2023
Arfakhashad Munaim
EPD Consultants, Inc
Carson, CA 90745
Reference: ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW (ARC) NO. 23-014
33008 Pacific Coast Highway
Archaeology Review Phase I
Dear Mr. Munaim:

On May 2, 2023, the application listed above was submitted to the City of Malibu Planning Department for processing. Planning Department staff has completed a review of the Phase I Archaeological Study, dated March 20, 2023, prepared by Matthew A. Boxt Ph.D., Consulting Archaeologist for Blufftop 1, LLC for the subject site at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (APN 4473-017-009). The study indicates that potential cultural resources are located on the project site.

To mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance, Blufftop 1, LLC will implement the following mitigation measures:

1. Prior to beginning any ground-disturbing activities, all involved construction personnel will be informed about the potential for discovery of archaeological resources and/or human remains, and the appropriate measures to be taken should such resources be uncovered.

2. A qualified archaeologist will be on-site during all ground disturbing construction activities with the authority to suspend work in the event that potentially important archaeological resources are discovered. If such an event occurs, all construction activities in the vicinity of the affected area will be suspended, and a qualified Chumash cultural resources monitor will be contracted by the applicant. An appropriate buffer area shall be established by the Project Archaeologist and Native American monitor around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue. Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area. By following these recommendations, Blufftop 1, LLC will ensure the preservation of these fragile and non-renewable cultural resources.

Based on the information submitted, the applicant may proceed with obtaining an excavation permit through City Geotechnical Staff with the conditions listed above. In addition, no geologic trenching, soil borings, ground clearance, grading, equipment placement, or similar surface-disturbing impacts shall be allowed within 30 feet of the northern property boundary. When completed, please submit a report describing the archaeologist’s findings.

In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or any other activity, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning Director can review this information. Where, as a result of 384
this evaluation, the Director determines that the project may have an adverse impact on cultural resources; a Phase II Evaluation of cultural resources shall be required pursuant to Malibu Municipal Code Section 17.54.040(D).

If a human bone or any other human remains are discovered, the procedures described in Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 must be followed. The property owner or his/her representatives (i.e., architect, contractor, etc.) must notify the Los Angeles County coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant must notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours.

Following notification of that organization, the procedures described in Public Resources Code Sections 5097.94 - 5097.98 must be followed.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me at (310) 456-2489, extension 295.

Sincerely,
Coli Turner
Planning Technician
cc: Native American Heritage Commission
385
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
June 26, 2023
Native American Heritage Commission
1550 Harbor Blvd. Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
Reference: ARCHAEOLOGY REVIEW (ARC) NO. 23-014
3308 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
Archaeology Review Phase I
To whom it may concern:

Please find the enclosed cultural resource clearance for your review and comment pursuant to City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan Section 11.3.

If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please contact our office at (310) 456-2489.

Sincerely,
Coli Turner
Planning Technician
386

EXHIBIT B
387
1 Archaeological Opinion Related to
33008 Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California
by Chester King, PhD
Topanga Anthropological Consultants
November 20, 2025
I. Executive Summary.

This summarizes my professional archaeological opinion concerning the potential cultural resources located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway in Malibu, California, as further detailed below:
• 33008 PCH lies within the known archaeological site LAN-29 and likely contains intact subsurface cultural deposits and potentially contains a cemetery. • The Phase I assessment prepared by the applicant’s archaeologist, Dr. Boxt, remains both incomplete and contradicted by prior documented findings, including human remains at a parcel in the immediate vicinity. • The applicant and City of Malibu’s proposed monitoring and mitigation measures remain wholly insufficient.
• The City must require a publicly reviewed Phase 2 subsurface testing program, conducted with a qualified Chumash cultural monitor, before any project approval.
• Further, alternative project designs should be considered to avoid or minimize excavation.

II. Qualifications and Background.

I began studies of archaeological sites related to Chumash history in the Santa Monica Mountains in 1960. My first involvement was excavating at the Tank Site (LAN-1) in Topanga when I started studying anthropology at Santa Monica City College. Later that year I worked with Thomas Blackburn and Earnest Chandonet at UCLA sponsored excavations at the Century Ranch site LAN-227, now part of Malibu Creek State Park. I worked at other Century Ranch sites LAN225 and LAN-229 in 1961, 1962 and 1963. I was the senior author of the report on excavations at the Century Ranch sites LAN-227, 229, and 225 in 1968. The Parker Mesa (now Sunset Mesa) site at the mouth of Topanga Creek (LAN-215) was excavated in 1961 The report on these excavations in 1962 was my first publication concerning an archaeological site. I participated in excavations at Paradise Cove (LAN-222) in 1962. I worked at UCLA sponsored excavations at the site of the historic period site (LAN-264) of Humaliwo (Malibu) at the mouth of Malibu Creek in 1964 and 1965 and participated in excavations at the historic period cemetery site in 1972. In 1966, I participated in the excavation of the Medea Creek cemetery (LAN-243) in Agoura Hills. I participated in excavations at Puerco Canyon (LAN-19) and San Nicolas Canyon in 1967 related 388
2 to a planned Highway 1 freeway. I directed excavations at Talepop (LAn-229) in 1980-1981, for California State Parks related to the widening of Las Virgenes Road.

I worked under two five year time and material contracts for the Santa Monica National Recreation area between 2000 and 2012. I conducted surveys of many reas and I directed NPS studies at King Gillette Ranch as parts of these contracts.

I served as Malibu City Archaeologist between 1993 and 2000. I conducted many surveys and reviews of studies. As City Archaeologist, I prepared a sensitivity map that included assessment of all parcels in the city. Preparation of the map involved consideration of the locations of all sites recorded at the time. Knowledge of the types of locations chosen for sites by the Chumash and surrounding groups was used to identify other parcels that included areas where sites were most likely to be found. I walked areas of the coast where houses were built over the beach on pilings and did not include soils and used knowledge of other parcels not known to contain sites and determined that many parcels would not require Phase 1 studies. I believe the sensitivity map continues to be used.

I have visited and participated in many other Malibu area excavations, and conducted many archaeological surveys in Malibu. In addition to my work in the Santa Monica Mountains I have also conducted many studies and participated in many excavations in Santa Barbara and Northwestern Ventura County.

While working for the Santa Monica National Recreation Area I prepared "Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains: Draft 10-2011" The overview synthesizes much of the information I have learned studying the archaeology and history of the Chumash. It is available on line at Academia.edu and has been viewed by many people.

My doctoral dissertation Evolution of Chumash Society involved studying museum collections from Santa Barbara County and the Santa Barbara Channel Islands stored at UC Berkeley and the Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. The dissertation involved establishing a detailed temporal sequence of beads and other artifacts that were found with burials. The dissertation was published in The Evolution of North American Indians, a 31-Volume series of outstanding dissertations. My dissertation was the only one chosen from California.

In sum, I have more experience studying Chumash archaeological sites in the Malibu area than any other person.

III. Evidence of Archaeological Sites.

Evidence of archaeological sites usually found on surfaces that have not been buried varies depending on many variables. Two of the most important variables are the length of time sites were inhabited and their age. Sites inhabited for shorter periods of time contain fewer artifacts than those inhabited for longer periods of time. Sites that were occupied earlier in time have lost many of the shells and bones originally deposited due to dissolution by acidic soil conditions and gopher burrowing. The dissolution of shellfish near the surface of sites usually results in less shellfish remains on the surface of early sites than at depths and a higher ratio of thick shells such as clam shells on the surface. In addition to the dissolution of shells and bones, other organic material also 389
3 decrease over time and soils slowly revert to the characteristics that existed before human occupation. Decrease in the presence of forms of evidence of human activity in archaeological sites over time does not preclude the ability of archaeologists to study older sites.

Chumash area settlement sites contain the remains of house structures, cemeteries, earth ovens, and other features. These features can usually only be identified with certain through excavations.

In his report for 33008 PCH, Matthew Boxt notes:

Visible in clearings adjacent to the modern road and chain link boundary fence, were found lithic artifacts and shell, primarily trampled and pulverized pieces of abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), Pismo clam (Tivela stultorum), scallop (Pecten sp.), and mussel (Mytilus californianus) (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The currently available evidence regarding these materials is somewhat ambiguous and is not complete enough to evaluate the true nature of the finds (Figure 8 to Figure 12). The crucial question, of course, is the likelihood that the artifacts and shell were originally deposited here, representing the activities of some ancient people, or were they moved here by disturbance processes, including road construction, residential development, dumping, burrowing animals, and/or erosion.

Matthew Boxt observed the presence of objects he considered probable artifacts and shellfish remains. At a nearby parcel at 33004 Pacific Coast Highway referenced by Boxt, I observed a few artifacts and shellfish remains similar to the observations made by Boxt (King 1999). I recommended Phase 2 testing. Gary Stickel conducted what he described as initial Phase 2 testing involving holes one foot in diameter excavated with a shovel (Stickel 2000). The testing program resulted in discoveries of human bones which were probably parts of burials. Stickel then recommended additional Phase 2 testing. From my experience the burial remains discovered by Stickel probably indicate the presence of a cemetery or cemeteries in the area he tested. Boxt interpreted his findings at 33008 PCH in the most negative way possible.

IV. Previous Disturbance of Site LAN-29.

In his report for 33008 PCH, Matthew Boxt concluded:

The archaeological resources of the Blufftop 1, LLC parcel were assessed following a careful review of maps and archival information housed at the SCCIC. The fragments of shell and stone tools observed during the survey do not appear to represent an intact, continuous midden deposit of any density; no large pieces of shell or any other indication of decomposing organic materials from human habitation (e.g., dark greasy soils) were never observed. In my professional opinion, these cultural remains were brought to the surface of archaeological sites LAN-28 or LAN-29 by natural and cultural disturbance processes and distributed on the study parcel as secondary refuse. In general, this relatively isolated Malibu community has been developed and landscaped, and at times in the recent past, particularly during house construction, was subjected to grading, gravelling, and filling.

Specifically, the degradation and likely destruction of archaeological sites LAN-28 and LAN-29 is attributed to these and other factors, such as building and maintaining critical infrastructure, disking to create fire breaks, heavy rain, erosion, construction and maintenance of the Theodore Roosevelt Highway and California State Route 1, and development of each property in this community. It should nevertheless be remembered that the survey was limited to surface contexts and that no examinations were made of the subsurface where it was not immediately visible. This point is noted because of the possibility that buried cultural deposits, though unlikely, might still be in existence on the parcel, and be obscured at present from ready visibility.

Archaeological studies at redevelopment sites in the centers of modern cities have resulted in significant discoveries. If Boxt’s negative attitude were to be accepted there would be no reason to conduct archaeological studies in Malibu or other cities in California; studies at sites 390
4 LAN-264 (the site of the Malibu settlement) and most other sites I have studied in Malibu would not have produced significant information concerning Chumash history.

V. Evidence concerning site LAN-29.

The LAN-29 site covers an area on the east side of Lachusa Canyon and south of the Pacific Coast Highway. Studies concerning the parcel at 33004 north of the project site document the presence of archaeological deposits on the parcel. Limited Phase 2 excavations by Gary Stickel documented the presence of human bones. It is probable that a cemetery is present in the area because most human bones found in Malibu area settlement sites have been found in cemeteries.

Evidence of settlement site deposits have been recorded south of the Pacific Coast Highway adjacent to both Lachusa and Los Alisos Canyons. These deposits may represent the remains of one large settlement or settlements occupied at different times.

My present assessment of LAN-29 including the project area at 33008 PCH is that it is the remains of a settlement occupied during a relatively short time (compared with many settlement sites in Malibu) of only a few hundred years. Settlements used for short periods of time are of value to archaeologists because the organization of features used at roughly the same time is more easily recognized than at sites occupied over thousands of years which have features of different time periods mixed together.

The geology at the mouth of Lachusa Canyon contain deposits of the only chlorite schist (commonly known as steatite) known by geologists to be present in the Malibu area. At the site of Malibu (LAN-264), the lower levels of the deposit (dating around 1500-2200 years ago) contain chlorite schist disc beads and chlorite schist disc beads in stages of manufacture (King 2011:190- 191). The beads from Malibu are visually distinctive from stone beads from other sources used in the same general time period as a result of mineral inclusions. These beads have been found in contexts dating around 1500-2200 years ago at Castaic Reservoir, Vasquez Rocks, Oro Grande on the Mojave River, and in sites near Cajon Pass. It appears that the distinctive beads from Malibu were important in the trade systems from the same time period. It is probable that the people who lived at Lachusa Canyon quarried the material used for these beads. The condition of the shellfish remains and the types of artifacts that have been observed at LAN-29 are consistent with the dating of these beads.

VI. Limitations of this Review Related to Denial of Independent Assessment of the Site in the Project Area.

On November 17 I requested access from the project developers to aid in assessment the conclusions of archaeologist Matthew Boxt hired by the developers I was denied access. Note the following emails:

Dear Schmitz and Associates,
I am reviewing the "Phase 1 Inventory and Archaeological Survey for the Blufftop 1, LLC Project, 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California” prepared by Matthew Boxt and submitted on March 22. 2023 for an upcoming meeting of the Malibu City Planning Commission. I would like to have permission to conduct a 391
5 walkover survey of the parcel at 33008 PCH to make in independent evaluation of the potential project impacts. I would like to have David Paul Dominguez, Chumash cultural resource consultant accompany me. It would be helpful if someone planning the project would accompany me on my visit. I would appreciate a timely response to my request in order to plan my schedule.

Sincerely,
Chester King, Topanga Anthropological Consultants
They replied on November 17, 2025:

Mr. King,
Thank you for reaching out to us. Our client has already retained the services of a professional archeologist to conduct a Phase I study to look for the presence of any significant cultural resources onsite. This study was conducted by Dr. Matthew Boxt. Dr.

Boxt's study found no evidence of en situ cultural resources on the applicant's property. Dr.

Boxt and the City have found that no further study is required at this time as no impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. That said, the project will have standard monitoring conditions.

With respect to your colleague, David Paul Dominguez, we have received correspondence from Joe Drummond (attached for reference), a project opponent, advising that Mr.

Dominguez has already visited the property [and adjacent area] without our client's permission. This is unlawful and unprofessional. Please advise Mr. Dominguez that the owner has security cameras installed, and any further trespasses will be reported to the Lost Hills Sherriff's Department.

Thank you for your interest. Let me know if you have any questions.

Best Regards,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
The exclusion of my ability to independently field check the observations of Matthew Boxt indicates that the project managers are not comfortable with the quality of the archaeological study they commissioned.

VII. Problems With Monitoring in Archaeological Sites During Development.

Matthew Boxt recommends monitoring of excavations during project development. When monitoring is adopted as a mitigation measure without knowledge of what is present under the surface, the public has little input because the period where review occurs that is enabled by the California Environmental Quality Act and the California Coastal Act has expired. During review it is possible to decide to preserve site areas through purchase or project redesign. After the public review period is over, it is impossible to propose adequate mitigation through data collection, avoidance of most impacts, or determine that the loss caused by project development can’t be mitigated.

Monitoring can also result in unpredictable costs to the developer that include:

1. Down time once development has begun.

2. Costs of designing programs for avoidance of disturbance of sensitive archaeological deposits through project redesign once development has begun. 392
6 Reduction of disturbance of intact soil can involve placement of fill to cap deposits or use of caisson foundations to reduce the area of soil disturbance for foundations.

3. Expensive mitigation programs including possible removal of whole cemeteries such as occurred at the Playa Vista project in the vicinity of Westchester. It is possible that such mitigation could exceed the cost of project construction.

VIII. Damage to Archaeological Site LAN-29 by the Proposed Project.

Project plans indicate from sections of the house, that much of the area covered by the proposed house area will be excavated to two to three feet below the present ground surface before construction of the house. Utility trenches will also be excavated, and a septic tank will also be placed in a deep excavation. Observations of site deposits on mesa surfaces similar to those at the project site indicate that site deposits are usually less than two or three feet deep except in areas where house pits or other features such as earth ovens were excavated into subsoil. The construction of the house as planned is expected to cause substantial damage to suspected site deposits. It appears that the excavations are to reduce the height of the finished house to comply with restrictions on the height of the structure. Knowledge of the significance of suspected site deposits may result in redesign to reduce the extent of excavation. Alternatives such as waiving limitations on the height of the house might be considered to reduce the extent of earth disturbance.

IX. Recommendations.

A subsurface testing program (Phase 2 study) should be conducted subject to public review by the Malibu Planning Commission and the City Council before project approval. The Phase 2 program should include monitoring by a qualified Chumash cultural consultant. 393
7 Bibliography
Boxt, Matthew, 2023, "Phase 1 Inventory and Archaeological Survey for the Blufftop 1, LLC Project, 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California” King, Chester, 1962, "Excavations at Parker Mesa (LAn-215)." UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1961-1962.

University of California, Los Angeles.
1967 , "The Sweetwater Mesa Site (LAn-267) and its Place in Southern California Prehistory. "UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1967, Vol. 9. University of California, Los Angeles. 1967 , “Archaeological Investigations at Big Sycamore Canyon, 4-Ven-89, Ventura County, California.” On file with California Department of Parks and Recreation.
1968, with Thomas Blackburn and Earnest Chandonet. "The Archaeological Investigation of Three Sites on the Century Ranch, Western Los Angeles County, California." UCLA Archaeological Survey Annual Report 1968: 12-107. University of California, Los Angeles.
1982, "Chapter 1: Introduction," "Chapter 2: Field and Laboratory Procedures," with C. Pierce and J. Hammett, "Chapter 3:

Summary and Integration of Research at Talepop," "Chapter 6: Beads, Ornaments, and Other Artifacts Used to Maintain Social Relationships," and "Chapter 11 Mammal Reptile and Bird Remains," with T. Kemperman. In Archaeological Investigations at Talepop (LAn-229) (Draft Report) by Chester King et.al. Report. submitted to the California Department of Parks and Recreation by the Office of Public Archaeology, University of California, Santa Barbara. 1986, “Oakbrook Park Cultural Resource Management Plan”. Prepared for Ventura Co. Archaeological Society. 1987, “An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Site of the Sherwood Towne Master Plan, Westlake California.” Prepared for McClelland Engineers, Inc
1989, “Oakbrook Regional Park Archaeological Resource Assessment.” Prepared for Jordan Gilbert Landscape Architects, Ventura.
1990, Evolution of Chumash Society: A Comparative Study of Artifacts Used for Social System Maintenance in the Santa Barbara Channel Region before A.D 1804. Revised Ph.D. dissertation, with a new preface and updated bibliography. In The Evolution of North American Indians, a 31-Volume series of outstanding dissertations edited by David Hurst Thomas and published by Garland Publishing, New York
1990, “Oak Park Zone 3, Phase I Archaeological Resource Assessment”. Ms. on file at the UCLA Archaeological Center and Ventura County Resource Management Agency.
1991, with others: “Oak Park Zone 3 Phase II Archaeological Resource Assessment.” Ms on file at the UCLA Archaeological Center and Ventura County Resource Management Agency.
1992, “Review of Cultural Resource Element of Ahmanson Ranch EIR.” Submitted to Steve Craig, Santa Barbara. 1992, “Native American Placenames in the Vicinity of the Santa Monica Mountains”. for the National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
1994, “Prehistoric Native American Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains.” Submitted to Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation and Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. 1996, “Appendix I: Beads and Ornaments from Cemetery Excavations at Humaliwo (CA-LAN-264).” Prepared for UCLA Native American Studies.
1997, with Lynn Gamble “Chapter 5: Middle Holocene Adaptations in the Santa Monica Mountains.” In Archaeology of the California Coast During the Middle Holocene. Edited by Jon Erlandson and Michael Glassow. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 4, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles. 1999, “Archaeological Reconnaissance and Recommendations for a Phase 2 Study at 33004 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu California.”
394
8 2000, Native American Indian Cultural Sites in the Santa Monica Mountains prepared for the SMMNRA. 2000, with Jeff Parsons “Malu’liwini, Archaeological record of settlement and Activity in the Simi Hills.” Prepared by Topanga Anthropological Consultants for Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation and National Park Service Santa Monica Mountains National Recreational Area Cooperative Agreement No. LA 8540-94-003 2001, “Small Archaeological Tests at Lower Solstice Canyon Sites.” prepared for the SMMNRA. 2002, “Significance of Ahmanson Ranch Archaeological Sites.” Prepared for City of Calabasas, April 28, 2002, New Edition May 14, 2002.
2002, Archaeological Tests at Three Lower Solstice Canyon Sites. Prepared for National Park Service. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area on March 28, 2002.
2004, “Archaeological Surveys in the Vicinity of Castro Crest in 2001-2003.” Prepared for National Park Service. Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area on September 5, 2004 2005, “Cultural Resources in the Ormond Beach Wetlands; Restoration Area.” Prepared for Wishtoyo Foundation. 2006, “Archaeological Assessment of Areas Burned by the Topanga Fire, Ventura and Los Angeles Counties, California”.

Prepared for the National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Thousand Oaks, California under Purchase Order 854806002 and the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, 5810 Ramirez Canyon Road, Malibu, CA 90265 under MRCA contract 149/06. October 2006.
2006, “Archaeological Assessment of King Gillette Ranch, Los Angeles County, California” June 2006. Prepared for Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority, 5810 Ramirez Canyon Road, Malibu, CA 90265 under contract MRCA 163/06. 2008, with Jeff Parsons, “Archeological Investigations at Solstice Canyon: Presentation and Synthesis of Archeological Information Obtained from Solstice Canyon” with sections by Tom Wake, Virginia Popper, Jacqueline Eng and Phillip Walker.

Prepared for the National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area. Thousand Oaks, California under Contracts C8540000007 and C8540060020. October 1, 2008. 2011, "Overview of the History of American Indians in the Santa Monica Mountains: Draft 10-2011." Online pdf at Academia.edu
2012, with Jeff Parsons, Archeological Excavations at Talepop (LAN-229), in 2010 and 2011: A Chumash Village in the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Los Angeles County, California (Draft). July 2012. Prepared by Topanga Anthropological Consultants for the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, California. Contract C8548060020, Purchase Order T2011101273.

Stickel, Gary, 2000, “Memorandum Regarding the Burial Site at 33004 Pacific Coast Highway, City of Malibu,” October 2, 2000. Letter in file 99-120 at Planning Department, City of Malibu. 395

EXHIBIT C
396
33008 PCH
Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034/33008 PCH
Haku, my name is David Paul Dominguez, I am a Chumash Elder from the Santa Ynez Chumash Reservation, as well as, Yokut and Tongva, and a former and parttime current resident of Malibu and I have been working in cultural resources for over 30 years and currently retired from my reservation as a monitor and cultural resource manager and a strong advocate for the protection of sacred sites while working along with qualified archeologists, and, very familiar with the prehistoric Chumash and Tonvga native Americans inhabiting the proposed development area.

I was asked on behalf of the neighbors along, 33008 PCH, to consult on this proposed development, and add my expert advice, as well as, view the current sight. I met with neighbors Mark and Tammy, whom also informed me that they viewed a reinterment done on an adjacent property at 33004. During my visit, I also noticed numerous suspected burial artifacts and obvious midden and dark organic soil consistent with Chumash habitation lasting for over 8,000 years documented in the local archeological and cultural resource records and also noticed, the obvious and preferred village living area adjacent to fresh water during the prehistoric times of my Chumash relatives and this proposed project will have extreme damage to unknown archeological and cultural resources and more than likely, will hit and discover unknown burials, that are consistent in the immediate bluff area.

On, Saturday November 1st 2025, I had personal communiqué with former City of Malibu, archaeologist, Chester King, and he informed me that he worked on an adjacent property and found and discovered that there is a certain kind of steatite/soapstone bead that is only found in that part of Malibu and adjacent creek area and it is well documented that Chumash burial sites include a vast array of bead offerings as well as personal possessions, such as killed pestles and mortars, including, mano and metates, as well as, flakes and arrowheads.

And, it is a well known burial area that has been brought to the attention of the city of Malibu, and well known that the area will contain other burials and will be wide spread given the minimal 8,000 years of prehistoric habitation by Chumash David Paul Dominguez
397
tribal families and that he prepared a document that should be in the records that reference the extent of the sacredness of the area as far as burials are concerned.

On the same day, I had personal communiqué with Julie Tumamait, former Chairperson of the Ventareño/Barbareño Chumash Tribe, and she further verified that there are multiple burials on the proposed project bluff area and re-burials in the immediate vicinity.

Recommendations
First, and more importantly, this project should not be approved on account of the sacred sensitivity to the Chumash people and undiscovered burials, that, are in no doubt, in the immediate project area.

Postpone this hearing until all previous reports of the lot and nearby lots in the vicinity are presented by the city of Malibu and all other pertinent information properly presented.

Do a phase 2 and 3 archeological report since it has been brought to my attention there was a minimal phase 1 survey done in the past and artifacts were discovered on the immediate top soil.

Also, CEQA requirements should NOT be exempt for this application and a proper EIS/EIR be completed with consideration to geological adjacent cliff area in which erosion should be taken into account, and also, it is a sensitive creek area leading in and out of the foothills and once was a prior steel head tributary. There is also a female California black bear in the area with 3 cubs whom, might be using the area due to its unique access to shoreline food and carcasses.

The city of Malibu needs to move and adapt into the current technology available and use GPR ground penetrating radar to find any anomalies below the surface, to prevent any destruction to known Chumash burials and/or house and ceremonial ground impressions, including hearths and yucca ovens.

Protect the project area and allow for open space usage for Native American ceremonies and park for the residents of the gated community, with owners approval, of course, and use pavers over the open space to allow large fire trucks to use as a turnaround during emergencies and/or fire, by the property owner as previously recommended by said, property owner…
David Paul Dominguez
398

EXHIBIT D
399
400
401

EXHIBIT E
402
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
May 12th, 2023
Via Hand Delivery
Attn: Richard Mollica
Planning Department
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4804
RE: Coastal Development Permit application for proposed two-story, single-family residence with attached garage, basement, and new driveway, and new landscaping for the property located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
Dear Mr. Mollica,
On behalf of the property owner, Blufftop1 LLC, Schmitz and Associates, Inc. submit to you the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application for the property located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265.

The parcel is currently vacant. The CDP application seeks to propose a new two-story singlefamily residence that is 18-feet in height. The first floor is 2,457 square feet, the second floor is 814 square feet, and the garage is 918 square feet. The total TDSF is 4,207 square feet. The maximum allowed TDSF is 6,020 square feet. The total impermeable area is 3,866 square feet.

There is one discretionary request for a Minor Modification for the front yard setback of 50%.

The subject property has received a Notice of Violation (NOV) on November 28th, 2022 for an unpermitted fence and gate with electrical power, landscape and drainage, and DG on Chumash designated land. The Coastal Development Permit application will work to resolve all three items as stated in the NOV.

Unpermitted fence and gate with electrical power
The architectural plans are designed to replace the existing, unpermitted fence and gate with a proposed new electrical gate with a new 24’ x 6’ rolling fence. Additionally, a new 36-inch solid wall with a 30” fence on top with a maximum height of 5’-5” on the northern property line, and a new 6’ wooden fence on the western property line is proposed that will comply with the regulations of the MMC and LCP. 403
Landscape and Drainage
The landscape (rocks and tree planters located in the plant box; not planted in the ground) and drainage will be resolved by proposing the landscape design as indicated in the landscape plan to be consistent with the provisions of the Malibu Ordinance 461.

DG on Chumash Designated Land
A Phase I Archaeological Report was conducted by archaeologist, Matthew Boxt. Dr. Matthew A. Boxt examined the subject property on February 28, 2023, at which time the fieldwork was completed. The objective of this procedure was to visually detect evidence of past human activities, including prehistoric and ethnohistoric Native American settlement, historic-era archaeological sites, historic buildings, and elements or areas of the natural landscape imbued with traditional cultural significance (State of California, Native American Heritage Commission 2023). The archaeological resources of the Blufftop 1, LLC parcel were assessed following a careful review of maps and archival information housed at the SCCIC. The fragments of shell and stone tools observed during the survey do not appear to represent an intact, continuous midden deposit of any density; no large pieces of shell or any other indication of decomposing organic materials from human habitation (e.g., dark greasy soils) were never observed. It should nevertheless be remembered that the survey was limited to surface contexts and that no examinations were made of the subsurface where it was not immediately visible.

In the report, Boxt noted that if any further development as a result of grading indicates any presence of known archaeological sites in the vicinity would employ two mitigation measures as outlined below for the identification and treatment of unanticipated discoveries during construction. To mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance, Blufftop 1, LLC will implement the following mitigation measures:

1. Prior to beginning any ground-disturbing activities, all involved construction personnel will be informed about the potential for discovery of archaeological resources and/or human remains, and the appropriate measures to be taken should such resources be uncovered.

2. A qualified archaeologist will be on-site during all ground disturbing construction activities with the authority to suspend work in the event that potentially important archaeological resources are discovered. If such an event occurs, all construction activities in the vicinity of the affected area will be suspended, and a qualified Chumash cultural resources monitor will be contracted by the applicant. An appropriate buffer area shall be established by the Project Archaeologist and Native American monitor around the find where construction activities shall not be allowed to continue.Work shall be allowed to continue outside of the buffer area.8 By following these recommendations, Blufftop 1, LLC will ensure the preservation of these fragile and non-renewable cultural resources.

Please find the following items for the Coastal Development Permit application:

1. Submittal Checklist

2. Uniform Application

3. Proof of Ownership

4. Letter of Authorization

5. Declaration regarding previous issued CDPs and Deed Restrictions 404

6. Architectural Plan Set (including Site Survey, Slope Analysis Map, Grading and Drainage Plan, and Landscape/Irrigation Plans)

7. OWTS Design Report, including OWTS Plot Plan and Fixture unit worksheet

8. OWTS Percolation Test Report

9. Soils and Geologic Report

10. Geotechnical report

11. Reduction in Setback Letter from Structural Engineer

12. Biological Assessment

13. Public Beach Access Locations/Information

14. Coastal Engineer Report

15. Notice of Violation (copy)
Thank you for your time and attention to our client’s project. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best Regards,
Arfakhashad Munaim
Schmitz and Associates, Inc.
405
Planning Commission Hearing (Item #5A)
33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
February 17th, 2026
406
Sideyard
Setbacks
Required FY
Setback = 47.2’
Minor Mod =
28’-9” (40%)
Proposed
SFR
Toe of Bluff

9.7’ MSL
Top of Coastal Bluff 50-ft Bluff Setback

66.5’ MSL
407
. ... 0
_....:."'-- ---- --- - ---
mRr
... , ~c,~
'Ji4-<,_'Q'?'
x" 'Q\,,\J
"(,,9 ·
•W
......
""""' ffi
Jla9Rt,:n::caaTMwt.
.............

Total Development Square Footage (TDSF)
Proposed TDSF 4,856 sq ft
(685 sq ft less than maximum TDSF)
Maximum TDSF 5,541 sq ft
408
-,._ I
\ •
\
\
'
......
""""' ffi
\ ::- \ ------~--------
.>
\
\ L EOl' 50BlUFFTOPS
,,.,.,.,.._,,...,, .., """"""'
Proposed development is located
on an existing flat pad area
409
--. ... :'°''-._ '-..,~.... • • ~, ~ ", -.,;,
~- '~~~ ."
.,,
...
' \
9/CHUARK \ S' A.\~ avHTY ~ lf'O. Dt?!1f1.J7
t«JH//'I .19•~.-~ ' lST•ll!'.t fl.N>III ' ~ MJ 6.~· it,"V {)lrJYF jlt,I. ,i,;o{/)INi,Pdt.<iT M "'' f',57)
VR~ rcw:S NOTES \ 'lf,'£' SC!.'P.: - 'lR-"S Sl.t.'r'i£Y {X£! 1','0T)'t,:CUJ[1£ .i , ~; IJ.£. .:,,:- ' RR 1H£.PINJP£elY.9ft;Wllf::-~ MJ Armvirr. •• I( 8r 1M 5'./lt>l,7fllr • ' 5-Uc-lloN ' &~ a,.,_~= =m•!' co= ~rs & .wr orr FA C m.,, r Al'f' .1,a:t§?i4T£ .t.'M(J CtJ/iRE,11r E " M{;ltT t<S,:'.! ol J'J,
-
I
\
\
\
\
.,,
----·-~------------
- --~ ____ -21!. ,_· ________ _ __ .... _ -..
• I
-,
Impermeable Coverage (sq ft)
Allowed 8,591 sq ft
Proposed 4,331 sq ft (50.4%)
410
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \ •• \ I '
\ If
\
'\,..

EASEMENT AREA
{E) PAVIING MATERIAL

NO CHANGES PROPOSED
t:IJl6Hiin
---- ------------
1R1m~•S-1J1tll!O:
15~1D,OA(IMIJQ.t
11'l£C.M.Dlli3I~)
Landscape Plans (MAWA)
Maximum Applied Water
Allowance
47,037 gallons
Estimated Total Water Use 22,077 gallons (47%)
411
--.. _..,J·-----""
North Elevation
Bluff Edge
412
~

PROJECTED PLANE
PARALLEL TO GRADE'\
18'
......_
-
South Elevation
33006 PCH
(Neighboring
Property)
33010 PCH
(Neighboring
Property)
Bluff Edge
413
414
1972
Subject
Property
The proposed development is in an
area that was previously disturbed
for over 50 years.
415
416
AHTHONY C. MARRON!=
f lRE Ctllf.f
FORESTER & F\Rf WAAC~N
~d Ptoncron or LJt•.

Ella E.PJmtlrnlMn[. mlJ Proptltl:lyWednesday. May 28. 2025 Dear Applicant:

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT
FUEL MODlFlCATIOl'I Ui'IJT
COO NORrn ANGELENO AVENUE AZUSA. CA g 1702
(626) --=
~trvfuehxxifie.¥sn:mtn!d30Dmt'I-P www fil'l1Jaco.mty.qovlfcrmY:dillisiorw'ftftS!Y:fu!t moaificmoo1

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
JANJCc: HAHN, CHAJR
FOUP. Tl1 DISTRICT

HILDA L SOUS
FlRST C>tSTRICT
U !>SEY ~. HOOll-',TI1
THIRDOISTR.CT
HOt l.Y J. MJTCHl!U.

SECON'.D OISTfUCT
""™R>S BMGER FlfTt.4 DISTRICT
FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN-33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MALIBU PARCEL# 4473-017-009 - FM PROJECT# 12066 - FFFM# 202500121 The Final Fuel Modification Plan has been reviewed and approved. Occupancy is subject to onsile inspection and approval of required fuel modification. Inspections are lo be perfom1ed by Forestry Division personnel. \
Questions regarding this response should be directed to the Fuel Modification Unit Office hours are Monday through Thursday, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Plan checkers are available 8:00 a.m. lo 10:00 a.m. and by appointmenl The Fuel Modification Unit may best be reached by email using our office email ([email protected]).

Very truly yours,
THERON CHEATHAM. ACTING ASSISTANT CHIEF. FORESTRY DIVISION

PREVENTIO SERVICES BUREAU
TC:RD
Enclosures
SERVING TI-IE 1.J'lli'ICORPORA TED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ANDTI-IE Cl 12066

COUNTY OFLOSANOELES

FIRE DEPARTMENT
PREVENTION SERVICES SURF.AU

PRELIMINARY

FUEL MODIFICATION PLAN
RESUBMIT ~ Dll~t, ~ c, ~~
- - 0 ' ;;·...._, ... ~~"""·'"" ... :._-- ~ ~~1lS'J. OIJ e ~ .

By I Dattt~~, 14"4:!>-DTI:O

FUEL MODJFICATION UNIT
-..HUJ! """""" EL MONTE INGlEWOOO .......,,._. ..

The 1tamping of this plan and spedficatiom
SHALL NOT be held to permit or to be an
approval of the violation of any provisi0ot al - any County/City or State law OEllRITO> a.- IRWlWDAU:. LOWffA - ~ ,,_ LA CA.~-ft.JNll;lOGE
IIAUI\Wi ...... """""'°" - Hii'u\'.A.IAH~ IA HABRA ........ •eu C<MlA -· LAMIRAOA MAl"'NOOO "ila.L~~ =- MER_p,1()3,,\ilEI\CH" IA"'ENTE
""'-"'-"'A'£R OIAI.IOHOIIAA t«XN!::HHn...Ul '-""""""" . '""""""' ......,,.__. """'""'lll' ~
OIIAATE H,Jt,mtfGJON"PARJf. ~ p 00 ve;:0E3 Eflil\T'i::I NIUJTRY ·-
--
=
UII, ::· --
,..,_..,.. ..,..,_.,.,_ ,...,._u!IIIIJ1 --~- ~ . _. .,,... ..., ....... ~ . ., ....... ~ ~ .. =-- .... ..-. ............. ------- --- FMl.01
Overlapping Fuel Modification Exhibit
417
Based on the documented fuel modification areas for the surrounding development, the proposed house will not require off- site fuel modification, now or in the future.

Overlapping Fuel Modification Exhibit
418
419
Fite De~R1'1ENT flOTU
~~~~lt-=£1
=IDJIIID'CIIF#IU.~QIIC'lil5~~1fN&a.illll&~
111 -~~IICll,i-.it11~1.wni111,Mll'a¥il • "'°"'lall
M!(lm,alllolfl'~~ ~ ~d!tlll!ill.._...MI
;IIJIIDlll(ll~~~OMlt~NanC&CltlWIOlllilllil,lll ~~=:u.-:..-,.,-:-:.:.~:'U: ... ~,: 5!.S:r..::.~.:S-E6~~ ,~~wawa~~:=~-=----= --IMai.l.
~~
llllll ~mlll~ IM'lil'IMll~,ty't.tll,IIJiMl,,a ..
~Oll ......... ~IIIIOlllllfll-•...,...NA._.
1-::.:...~, ... ... Olfllll ~=-:.~
3:1_~=-=«-=-=...,.N---WMA~
~~"===..-.cu~,:::.,.';'"""'"--
:a.~-==---:e'L,--:-DIIIO~-=~-= ~l'Clil1J;~Jllrl0Alll9i:llrl'UUCIIIII.-IIIUOCCII~ .... ~~aa,,.::,.a,;lii,l,.- ~Wlltl~~ ~ilillllla..Jl:.~lillid..UU~--'NI =i:'-E-~-,;~~-=~u-=- =r:::;;::ma. -----=='~'°='-==~= Ull'IIIIOIIIIHWiW!IMD.wldill&MiCll.'11>.~ a-ilNliloi::.;.-.,.u.llJlllllo11111,1..tt.7
~:"lft~'IQ.1W1""'1iOCUM,1.1.~-.
a:.-i::=nlltl~-=•'=1~-==-
....

FiltE:FI.OWAVA.iL.ADll.m'
==--~~=~i.!.5~=:l=
f'WN:Oi' liO -.iUINI Mie"W
.. OIL'l.tll~ -Ul.llt
llllllr~9CJIII.YIOllll~\ATIQl!IMM.,,...
l fPIC"PrM M ! N•fN•WP!ft!Uil M::te, 'IVlillLnll'IIUM".I!~ ~ =
FStEnCIHTEJt 'WAt.KWfO A CCEJ I
HOIE P\A..1. OHTANCE
AREDEP't..LE.ODID
A - A1 • 1CKI'
e - e.1 - 1l9"
BUILDNO A.REA IM0al;
MOR.ll.ONTAL l"ROJECTNJN
3,,M!!iQ.Ff.

ROAtJ DET.NL (TYJ')
r----,
L..--- _,.J
........ ~ ........
·
,..,.,..
--
.... _ ... tt .... ~
_,. ............ ........
~r-
.~:::=-
_,.__
~:: :.--~o.°":.

APPROVED fl!l!E ~ IJX),JD Oli&,l
-
TO:

FROM:

City of Malibu ZJS25 S1 uat'I RllJ>t:b Rd .. M al[bu. CallfOfflll! 90265-dB(U (jIO) t56-?All9 tAX (:IIO) •156-16~0

FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
Los Angeles County Flre Department
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 05117/2023
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 23-034 --------------------------- JOB ADDRESS: 33008 PACIFIC COAST HWY APPLICANT / CONT ACT:

APPLICANT ADDRESS:

Arfakhashad Munalm, Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
28230 Agoura HIiis
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
APPLICANT PHONE#: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: now 2•story slnglo famlly resldonco w ith atlachod gar ago, basoment kand now drlvewar accoss and land sea Ing. WA EK & ACCESS ON Y F PC2 23 18 TO:

FROM:

Malibu Planning Department and/or Appfoant
Fire Prevention Eoglnooring Assistant
Compliance with the conditions chocked below is required prior to Fire Departm1mt approval.

The project DOES require Fire Department Plan Review and Developer Fee payment The· project DOES NOT require Fire Department Plan Review The required fire flow for this project Is 1 250 gallons per minute al 20 pounds per squar inch for a 1 hour duration. (Provide flow lnfw maUoo from the water dept.) The project Is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system.

Final Fuol ModlflcaUon Plan Approval Is required prior to Fire Department Approval ✓
✓
Conditions below marked "not approved" shall be corrected on the site plan and resubmitted for Eire Department approval
Required Fire Department vehicular access (Including width and grade ¼} as shown from the publ c street to the proposed project.

Required and/or proposed Fire Department Vehicular Turnaround Required 5 fool wide Fire Department Wl'l lking Acces.s (including grade%) Width of proposed driveway/access roooway gates
App'd Nlapp'd
~
•county of Los Angeles Fire DeparlmenlAppcoval Expires with City Planning pe,-mil:s. expiration, revisions ID the County ol Los Angeles Fire Code or r8Vi:siorn; to Fire Department regulations and staridards.

Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provid8d such changes achieve substantially th8 same re!iUIIS and the project maintains compliance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the lime revised plans are submitted. Applicable review fees shell be required. ,/21,,..pt....::::> 0412 4/2025

SIGNATURE DATE
AddiUorllll requrcmffl.ts.lconditiorur-mi!)' be imposed upcn review cf competa llrClhiLeGlartlil pbns.

Tm, Fin, ,,_I., ~""'Yb,, c:r,,,t,,,c/t,c/byphom,IJI (818/86().(13'1/or <!I""',,_.., Oq,,,rlmen/ Coin/"" 26600Ag_,, llood. S..ile 110. C 1-sas. CA91302: Hour.,: Mcind:>y • Tlwl'Sl:by belWffn 7:001'M ond 11;00 AM -04/21/\0f!Y
Access
Easement

NO IMPROVEMENTS

IN ANY ACCESS EASEMENTS
420
71JID
' IPAVERS
\
DEPT
=<ouN-p
viAX \
'\.
33006 PACIFIC OOAS,T HWY~
APN: 44 73-017--008
,i Ill -- ._ .!! - •
A
City of Malibu, Planning Commission Staff Report, Item 5A, Pp 2-3. 421
Commission Agenda Report
Plntmi:ng Com1nissioo
MetLin,g
Q_.l 7-2b
Item

5.A.

To: Ctiair Riddick and Members of the Plannin Commission i
y
s
Comment 2- Co-AppNcant, LIP§ 13.6.2(C): No such invitation has been extended to the adjacent neighb·or who has a shared easem·ent over the prop·erly, including over areas proposed for development.
staff Response: Ib@ sybiect prqject does Pl prpppse agy deye19pmegt wjithin the shared private access easement with other properties. Revised plans have been submitted to further clariify that no development will be proposed wiithiin the portion of the shared easement. See partial screen shot below (Fiigure 1) of the area within the easement which will remain as is. The prior versiion of the plans erroneously stated that the area was exiistiing pavement to remaiin but confirmed to be existiing decomposed graniite (DG1) to " remaI1n.
a
and -------------------.....------------------------ Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) provisions, and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the proposed project is consistent with the LCP and MMC.

SFR
50-ft Bluff Setback
Top of Coastal Bluff
422
100-Year 8'u" -
(16.1 MIIII From G
Location of 1. 5 Geotechnl
Factor of Sa •
{G
Pro "Future" L&1ch -
Surlicia/Faifilre---
- -~hs
---- TP-2 - ~- Log Summary
0-4.5' Qs

4.S'-7.S' Qtn
No Groundwater
Tela/ Deptll = 7 -5'
TP-1
Log Summary
~Qs
5'-7' Qm
No Grouoowafer
T oral Depth = r
TP-3
Log Summary
0-4.S'Qs

4.S'-15.5'Qtn
No Grouoowafer
Tot.ii Deptll = 6.5'
Location of 1 5 Geoter:h •
F;u;tor of Sidety une rs::~~;
8_1 {GFSL)
Log Summary
0-4'Q•
4'-JO'Qtn
30'-J9' Qtm
Probable rt@Jll' -i:...io.ie
Tola/Depth = 39•
Looking West
423
Source: Geologic Report #2, LandPhases, Inc., August 4th, 2023. 424
City of Malibu
2382.S Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, C, liforni• 90265-4S6I (310) 456-2489 • f ax (310) 456-3356 • www_ma!ibucity.ore

GEOTECHNICAL REVIIEW SHEET
Project lnfonnation
Date : December 13, 2024 Re,iew Log #: 5079
Site Addi·eo;s: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway
Lot/Tract/Pl\f #: Planning #: CDP 23-034
Applicao P5 t!Con,_ _____________________ .._ _____________________________________ _ Contact Phoue
P1·oject Type:
. _·.'' l ·. I, ,
Consul.tant(s) /
Date(s):
(CUTTetll submitted • - _ to . l u f 1 - y _ · :_ , b
d . I .,
an it- , . -a.tm
:n .
iD
bl·u h
d
-
' t "" '. I
th
. . -. b. •·o . · . - h ' . · r1 ,on t .1 a c
t .P , .fblu
:n th. . atlta :h: :d
[21 The development project is ACCEPTABLE from a geotechnical perspective, with the following oomrueuls to be addressed prior to building plan check stage completion.

D The development project is l'iOT ACCEPTABLE from a geotechni.c.al perspective. The listed 'Revi ew Comments' shall be addressed prior t.o acceptance.

Building Plan-Check Stage Review
[21 Awaitin!! Building plan check submittal.
pre -1 nt
d . .
-i .ld ob .-
r .p1an y
ctions-1 tb • top,
r :ti
.- h
··i -h •. · util
annotat ·d
.aphic Uf : •
d
p .f
-and 'th . _· ti Id
50Top of Coastal Bluff -ft Bluff Setback
425
Biology Coastal
Engineering
Environmental
Health
Public
Works
Fire
Department Geotechnical Waterworks
District

ALL DEPARTMENTAL REVIEWS

ARE APPROVED
426
T
F
TO:

FROM:

Signature
Add!tional r
Conta".t In
Courtney!.

R..v05/2!1/20l~
Dato: a. y 6. 2025
Sit• Addr._.., 33
Lol/J'racl/PM #:

Applicant, A_K
Planning Stage
[81 This projea is A
oonclilians listed.
prior to Building
0 This project is A -
lisled Pl;i.nning
a rrovat.
~
The referenced plans and
to the requirements of the
• Cily ofMa lb□ L
ancl LCP-Ll P)
TO: City of Malibu E
F:ROM: City of Mali bu Pl
PROJECT NUMBER:

JOB AOORESS:

QWT§ Plot flan,
Rev UIOO!I
TO: Public Wo
FROM: City of Mali

PROJECT NUMBER
JOB ADDRESS:

Public
Rev 1209~0
TO: Los Angeles Co
FROM: City of Malibu P
PROJECT NUMBER:

JOB ADDRESS:

APPLICANT I CONTACT:

APPLICANT ADDRESS:

Required 5 fool wide Finl Depa
Width of proposed driveway/acoes
•·County of Los Angeles fin:, Oepar
rmtisions LO the County of Lo;; Ang
ttP!iflinor changes may be approYed
achieve substanlially the same n:,
Ar)Eleles Finl Code valid at Ille time
Wt-...::>

SIGNATURE
rn,,r,,.,,,,.,_,tia,Fngino Additiar1ii.l -~
26600 Agour.1 Rood,. Stille 110.

Re\/Gl"21MOII'<
Date: December 13. 2024
SI le Address: 33008
Lot/TractfPM ii:

AppllcantfCootaot: AKM
Previous Reviews:

Planning Review
D
The development proj
comments to be addres
The dc'velopment proj
'Review CommenL\. sl
of Malibu

LOS ANGELES COUNTY WATERWORKS DISTRICTS REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
FROM: City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 05117/2023 PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 23-034 ------------------ JOB ADDRESS: 33008 PACIFIC COAST HWY APPLICANT/ CONTACT: Arfakhashad Munalm, Schmitz & Associates, Inc.

APPLICANT EMAIL: amunalm schmluandassoclates.net
The pt,iject DOES require pMvate contract watet system lmprovem,ints for domesUc and/()( lil'll now condiUons X
The requjred fire now rot this project set by Iha Fire Department Is 1250 gallons pet m111ute at 20 pounds pa, square inch for a _1 __ hour duration Scope of wall!t system improvements required:

To be delermined by lhe Waterworks Plan Check Unit after applicant has submined a complete Waler Syslem lmP{ovement application,
Not•. LD• AnQe.~• COlllllj, w,,-, Dio/na No. 19, U.fibu app,,,.,.I •"J'ln!• "'°" lh• .. ~~,to/ tlto ~ : I/ 7\1,o J"8I' ,..., m. a•re o1 m;, foim,• it ¥•""" aare 01 a,,; c;,1 PISf>lliog ~""''(•), or 3) D.,• COu<>ly """"' GJtang,a ro a,,; """11y 01 Lot Angel,, F .. Cod~.,,-~ .. '"7' lo oppli re"· o.p,,.,tm,0/ ··-·"" .,...,.,.r<t, (ti/k~ q. ').fJ"LoZ3

SIGNATURE DATE
AL1!ttu0i'I t!q.Jifl!llfn!i'll!/COOdllJon!; May b& impM~ Ul'.l(ltl ~iew or cottiplel.e af(;l'll~ct.lJ1'81 ph1n~. looAngeleOC<l"1lyWat"""'ru D&tl'd No. 29. Mellllu ... , bo oantaotod bypoane "1{:l10) 3\1-1:1119 c,at,ne Wa/.e-ko Plllllic COIJMI!< 23533 Civic Calb!lt Wa~. M8ltiu CA 90265. Houts: Moftdav,-ThLJ'tday 8.00am - 12-il0pm Subject Property
Beyond Tree Line
No Impact to Public Views
El Pescador State Beach
427
No Impact to Public Views Subject Property
■ Looking Up from El Pescador Beach
428
•ill!!P------------------------------~---- ~-....... .,......, -------..--:-:;'._. -~
.Jr.------~:~ -.t·
,,.. --- --~-- -- ,., ---~ ~
429
Pacific Coast Highway
104.5’ Subject Property
71’
430
431
Table 3 - Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/ Required Proposed Comments SETBACKS (ft.)
Front Yard I 47 ft. (min.) 28 ft. 9 in. MM No. 25-009 I Rear Yard 36 ft. 5 in. (min.) 92 ft, 6 in Complies
Side Yard (Minimum 10%) 14 ft. 2 in. (min.) 14 ft. 3 in. Complies Side Yard 21 ft. 4 in. (min.) 21 ft. 4 in. Complies
Total Side Yard (Cumulative 25%) 43 ft. 3 in. 43 ft, 6 in Comolies 100 ft. from bluff 50 ft. with City
edge; or 50 ft. with geotechnical
Bluff Edge City geotechnical consultant Com~lies
consultant reviewer reviewer
aooroval approval

PARKING SPACES
Enclosed (10 ft. x 18 ft.) 2 2 Comolies
Unenclosed ( 1 0 ft. x 18 ft.) 3 3 Complies
Total Development Square Footage (TDSF) (sq. ft.)
TDSF 5,580 (max.) 4,856 Complies
Single-Family Residence 3,241
Attached Garage 400 776
Second Unit 900 824 Comolies
HEIGHT (ft.)
Single-Family Residence 18 18 Complies
IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE (sq.ft.) 8,707 4,331 Comolies
NON-EXEMPT GRADING (cu.yd.) 1,000 691 Comolies
CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES 4 to 1 and flatter 4 to 1 and Complies flatter

FENCES/WALLS/HEDGES
Retaining Walls 6 ft. max. 12 ft. 6 ft. max. 12 ft. Com~lies cumulative cumulative
Front Yard
Impermeable 42 in. 42 in. Comolies
Permeable 6 6 Comolies
Rear & Side Yard 6 6 r'nmnlii:>Q
33002 Pacific Coast Highway
FY Setback = 18’
(Source: LA County GISNet)
432
33006 Pacific Coast Highway
FY Setback = 33’
(Source: LA County GISNet)
433
32960 Pacific Coast Highway
FY Setback = 14’-6”
(Source: LA County GISNet)
434
33010 Pacific Coast Highway
FY Setback = 6’
(Source: LA County GISNet)
435
33016 Pacific Coast Highway
FY Setback = 11.5’
(Source: LA County GISNet)
436
33018 Pacific Coast Highway
FY Setback = 19’
(Source: LA County GISNet)
437
33020 Pacific Coast Highway
FY Setback = 13’-6”
(Source: LA County GISNet)
438
Neighborhood Front Yard Setbacks
33002 PCH 18’
33006 PCH 33’
33010 PCH 6’
32960 PCH 14’-6”
33016 PCH 11’-6”
33018 PCH 19’
33020 PCH 13’-6”
Average 16’-6”
Proposed 28’-9”
439

THANK YOU
440
Overlapping Fuel Modification Exhibit
LUP 3.1
Existing, legally established agricultural uses, confined animal facilities, and fuel modification areas required by the Los Angeles County Fire Department for
existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA.
441
Source: City GIS, 2024
442
Source: City GIS, 2024
The stream
runs through
the house
443
Boundary of
Stream
Based on City
GIS (2024)
444
----
- __ .... ____ _ ..
- ... --: -----
•• - ---- -- -- ------- - ---~ -- :....: ::-:::.. -··- ··--- '
L. --- I
106’
117’
123’
Stream per
City GIS
Source: Stream Survey Delineation by Forde Biologists, Inc. 445
AERIAi. DRONE EXHIBIT
t.3DPM:IR::CD.I.SJH&flll::i
""-IIU,C,U:0:5, '
RON JENNY Ci'O: ~Mm:Arll A~OClATES
:la:KJFl.aFC~Hl":BV..l.'r',
IU.UIU,Cll!:mii5.
.D! Kl ?Wt.
~ l- -I"
Ql.._~O:..:C~
~ 1-r1

VACA ND
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
A N.: 4473-017-003,
Source: Stream Survey Delineation by Forde Biologists, Inc. 446
The b]uff is located witliin the fuel modification zones of adjacent single-famil residencies and non-native vegetation clorninales- The bluff does not meet the ESH~A defi1liti011. I had no legal access to the stream, ,vhich .ru 1s through pri ~ate pt:ope.rty. Coast Highwa_. Using a laser h_Tpso1neter I detet:mined that at its closet point to the property the stream is :a.pproxitnately 8.5 feet '\.vide frorn top of bank to top of bank at the point closest to the 'subject property and the distance from top of bank to the closest po nt of the sub· ect proper1> is 106 feet "\Vhich is consistent ,vifh the surveyors findings. Please see attached exhibit.

Source: Stream Survey Delineation by Forde Biologists, Inc. 447
City of Malibu, Planning Commission Staff Report, Item 5A, Pp 3-4. 448
Revie
Appr
Date
Subje
DISC
anal
Commission Agenda Report
Plntmi:ng Com1n issioo
MetLin,g
Q_.l 7-2b
Item

5.A.

Comment 3 - ESHA and Bluff EHSA:: The project is proposing development wiithin the required 1I00-foot buffer from a mapped blue liine stream.

Staff IResgonse:: The project"s diistance from the stream is in conformance with LIP Chapter 4 as demonstrated by addiitional materials submiitted by the applicant includiing a letter from Ford Biiological Consulting ,(Attachment 6) and a drone exhibit (Attachment 7). These iitems were reviewed by the City''s Biiologist to confirm that the development iis approximately 104 feet away from the mapped blue lliine stream to the west Further, it was confirmed that the project area and blutf are !located within the ex11sting fuel modiifiication zones of adjacent siingle-fami ly resiidences. Bluff vegetation is dominated by non-native species and not found to include any speciies in support of Environm1entally Sensitive Habiitat Area ,(IESHA); therefore, the bluff is not consiidered ESHA. and , l'!!!'!!l!!~!!!!!!'!!!'!!!'"'l""!!!'!ll!""!'ll'll'll~!!!!'!!!!!'!!l!!l!'!!!"""!!!'!ll""!!!!'!'!!'!!!l!!!!'!!!'!!!'!!!l!!l!'""!l!P. ev~1ew"!'!""!p!!'!"!'!l' u s!!!'!'!!!l u l!'!!!'P'P.!!' o _...,... _____________________ ___.

CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the proposed project is consistent with the LCP and MMC.

Applicant Response – The Landscape Architect
REMOVED trees (taller than 18 ft).

Opponent Claim – The Project proposes trees that can
grow taller than 18-ft height and block the neighbor’s view corridor.
449
Removal of Big Cherry
Manzanitas and Island Oak
Trees to assuage neighbor’s
concerns
Landscape Plan Area
450
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ \
\
\
\
\
\
I
,.

V~..il',,o"'11 \
o ,D<:Ci,"'.l:C \ ~ , ,
r : .,.Alm,.
0 I ~--
City of Malibu, Planning Commission Staff Report, Item 5A, Pg 2. 451
Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Riddick and Members of the Planning Commission Pre ared b : Didier Murillo, Senior Planner
P1ann,ing ommi.5.'S.it10
12-0l-2j
Item

4.A.

Co1mme·nt 1 •- Stat:e Lan,ds Com,mission·, LIP§§ "13. ,6.2'(B) & 101 • • 5(C).~ The applioant failed
to obtain· a written ,d·et1erminatio.n fro1m .the State Lands Co1mmission .for th'e subje1ct prQj:ect.

Staff Re,sponse: The, requiremen·t to obtain writte,n determination fro1m th1e State Lands.

C1
ommis.sion is only a.ppllicable to1 be,achfront propertie,s. Whil 1e the .subj1e1ct property is. 1 orilented ·toward the ocean, a ste·e,p bluff iis locat1ed between the propo.sed buildiln19 pad and the ocean. The pro1po1sedl d1evelopme,nt ·further ilnoorp1ora.tes the bllufftop s.etba.ck r1
equiir1eme·nts of LIP Section 10.4(0). IB,eilng setback far from ·the m1ean high tid1e lin1e and the b1ea1ch b1ellow th1e bluff, th1ere ils no indi1catio1n that the propose,d deve·lopme,nt w1ouldl 1 encroach iint10 State La.nd.s. Further, there, is no dlev1ellopm11ent pr1op10-sed alo1ng the sh1oreliine 1 0r bluff, nor d101e.s the pr1ojiect prop10.se .a shoreline .stabil iiza.tio1n d1evice 10r other dlev1ell 1 opment
.a ong the blluff s.uch .a.s dlr.ailnage d1
evice·s or beach acce.ss ..
u r r , . , u 1n
Commission meeting the Commission was not able to open the public hearing for the item

Source: California Coastline Aerial Project, 2024
452

NO DEVELOPMENT

PROPOSED IN DEED

RESTRICTED

AREA/FLOOD ZONE
453
RECO INO RE.QUESTED BY AND
WHBN RECORDED, RETURN TO;
City ofMalib11
ft¢ntiot1; City Clork
23825 S,uart Rauch Rood
Malibu, Califomia 90265
EXEM?T FflOM Rt;.OORDlNG F
P R GO,\fT. CO § .2.7363
The undersigned here
"OM. County of los Angel ~Prope.rty')
Sil.e address:

AfN:

In consideration of ihe
County Departmenl of Regio
cove11 ants and agrees, tor t
bl:lildings, improvemo-nts, stru
the Pmperty and, or iis aoc;es
This covenant shall ru
heirs or assigns arnd snal co
terrnlMtlon.

Dated thl$ 2 ~ day cf ..-------

8. I ff ?_,r,9~ t LL • •
~ .

El•~ll\PL fr~m f= ptl['5'J2!!1(" to Go,c:mm<'llt C(J(le Se<:tlo" 2n g3 SCALE: 1" = 60'

RON JENNY
EXHIBIT "8"

LEGAL DESCRIPTION EXHIBIT

DEED RESTRICTION
33008 PACIFIC OOAST HIGHWAY, MALIBU
COUNTY or LOS ANGEL£S, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AP,N; 447:5-017-009
L£CEND
SHEET 1 or 1

TF AREA
o· 60'
" = 60'
LJ l.£CAl DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY
JOB NO.; 24JEN0101

PEARSON
LAND SU~VEYING,JNC.

DATE: 8/5/2024
Thomotl l.tcOermotl, PLS 855,5
23371 ~ulholand Df. #330
Woodland Hil~, CA 9fJ64
P~one, (818) 461!- 9714
infoOpea=land,yrveyfng.ccni
Phase I Archaeological Report
March 22, 2023
454
or.

Bluffi.op I, LLC
33008. Pacific Coast Highv ay
Malibu. CA 90265
March 22 , 20_3
RE.S ULT : .RCH EOLOGI ' L co 'TR cno 10NITORI ~ FOR THE PROP() ED THE BL ~"FTOP l, LL PROJECT .IS RECO 1 1E DED 455
June 26. _02
Arfakhashad Munaim
EPD onsultants. In
ar on. 90745
City of Malibu
23 25 Stuan Ranch Road • Malibu. California • 9Q_G)-4S6 1 Phone (310)456-2489 • ax (3 10)456--3.>56 • \ .malibu 11 v.or!! Reference: AR H EOLO , R IE\ (AR ) NO. 23-014
3300 Pa ific Coast Highway
Archaeology Rel•iel<' Phase I
thr G.eotechni
borings, ground cleara c ading
.
' -----~-• · ~ ·---~~,.,.
. qmp ac
allowed within 30 feet of the orth n prop r bou da
d cribing th archa ologi t fmding.
activities in the vicinit of the affected area will be suspended, and a qualified humasb cultural resources monitor will be cootrJcted by the applicant. n appropriate buffer area shall be established b the Project Arcbaeologi t and , 'ative American monitor around the find where ronstrnclion acmities ball not be allowed to continue. Work shall be aUowed to rootinue outside of the buffer area. By following the:o;e recommendations Blufftop J, LL "'ill emmre the preservation ofth.e e fragile and non-renewable cuJlurJI resources.

Based on the infonno.tion submined. Lhe applicant may proceed wil h obtaining an e cnntion pern1it through itJ Geotechnical taff with the conditions Ii ted abo e. In addition. no g ologic trenching, oil borio ground cl aranc grndi11.g, equipment placement or imil.ur urface-di~turbin.g impact'l hall be allowed "ithin 30 feet of the northern prope boundary. When completed. please submit a repon describing the arohaeolog.ist • findings.
fn th evel'lt that po1en1ia1Jy i,nponam cultural resourc are folltld in the cour of geologic testing or any oth r a tivity, work hall immedicuely cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an eVl!luarion of the narure and i nificance of tJ1 re ources and until the Planmng Direct r can review this infonnatioo. Where. as a re uh of In addition no geologic trenching, soil
ilar r ace-disturbing impact hall be
n compl d pl a ubmit a r port
Supplemental Report
November 1st, 2025
No cultural strata were
identified in the sidewalls
of excavations.
456
C,,2,
M- I 0
0,,2
I
lAl ,
DESIDI
ArlOI
OTA!.

SCALE" 1 • •lO'-or
Extended Phase I Archaeological Report
January 2, 2026
32 auger borings were excavated to a depth of 3 feet
below the ground surface across the property
457
RESULT
Fig,,re· ,S. Dre· struly sit.e at 13008 Pad.ft· Cons.t HigltwtrJ.t 458
The i-iew fu,e, west, ,_,ith S. Rfoa:s, G. Alfaro, aJtd Om111asJ1 elder J. n,mm,wit-Stensh~· cree1 ing and recordilig dat.afrontAnger Bore 3. 459
Figure 9. The study site at 33008 Pacific Co11st Highway. The view faces east, with C. Marquez,. E. Gonzales, G. Alfaro, and S. Rivas drilling at Auger Bores 21 and 16, respectively. 460
Figure 10. The study site at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway. The view faces southeast, with E. Gonzales and ,C. Marquez screening excavated soil fro,n Auger Bore 18.
461
Figure 5. Modern cou, rib (A, C, D, F) and 1narro1v bones (B, E) processed ,vith a 111etal po•ver sa,v; (G), 1nillsection of a coJv rib bone. Arrou1s highlight sharp, clean-cut edges produce<! bJ durable~ high-speed 111etal power saJevs. 462
January 12, 2026
Schmitz & Associates. Inc
o Arfukhashad :Munaim
28230 Agoura Road
Agoura Hills. CA 91301
City of Malibu
23825 Stoart Ranch Road · Malibu California • 90265-4861 Pbooe (3 10) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.01,.-uibucity.ore:

Refe1·enct>: .-\RCIL-U:OLOGY RE\ 1£"\Y (.-\R NO. 26-001 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, M:iliou. CA 90265
Extended Phase I ,lrcl,aeology Review
The second study an Extended Phase I Archaeological Study dated January 2, 2026 included a more intensive evaluation of the sa1ne project area. Thi study incorporated ubsurface testing including auger borings laboratory analysis and Nati e American monitoring. The extended investigation concluded that the ubsurface oil within the project area are archaeologically terile and that the site does not contain intact or significant cultural resources. The report characterize the site as a pseudo- ite and confirms that the propo ed develop1nent would not adver ely affect cultural re ource Based on review of both studie.s, Pl.amJ.ing staff concurs with tile conclusion that the prOJecl area does not COlltwl significant archaeological resoorces. and that lhe proposed development would not result in adv=e impacts to known cultural l'!'Sourres. Any modificatioo to the area sur..-eyed as pa11 of these studies would o.ot advernely affect cultural resources.

In the event that potentially important culiural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or any other activity. wod.: shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an. evaluation of the nature aud sigoificance of the resources and lllltil the Comm.uoity Development Director ca.u review this iufommtiOll. \\/here, as a result of this evaluatiOIJ., the Director determines that lhe project way have au adverse impa.c:t on culrural resources; a Phase II E valuatiOll of cultural resources s1lllll be required puc=t to Malibu Municipal Code {Ma.MC.) Sec:tioo 17.54.040(D).

If .i lmm:m boue or any other huwan remains are disco rered, the pr~ described in Heallh and Safety Code Section 7050.5 must be follo,,."ed. The property ovrner or hil..lhe!' representatives (i.e., architect coolr:lctot, etc.) mus-t notify the Los Angeles Qiunty coronet. If the coroner detemlines th.11 the remains are those of a Native American. lhe applicant must notify the Native American Heritage Commissioo by phooe Neighboring Archeology Studies & Findings
32960 PCH
Prepared by Rob
Wlodarski (2004)
33016 PCH
Prepared by Rob
Wlodarski (2008)
463
......_ . . .. - - _ ..., . . ·, ,.
33016 PCH
Phase I Report - 33016 PCH
Prepared by Rob Wlodarski (2008)
The survey yielded NO EVIDENCE of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the project boundaries. Any proposed improvements or modifications within the parcel will have no adverse impacts on known cultural resources.
(Source: Phase I Archaeological Study for 33016 Pacific Coast Highway, Page iii). 464
32960
PCH
The results of the field survey yielded NO EVIDENCE of
prehistoric or historic archaeological resources within the project area. Any proposed improvements or modifications within the parcel will have no adverse impacts on known cultural resources.
(Source: Phase I Archaeological Study for 32960 Pacific Coast Highway, Page iii).

Phase I Report - 32960 PCH
Prepared by Rob Wlodarski (2004)
465
:

I
32960 PCH
CDP No. 08-053
466
Comm:ission Agenda Report
To: F1nd1ng A3m Th'e project _S the east e,.

Pre
Gu~de•lines Section 153101 - , .
signifi 1cant adver~e e·ffechi, ,on -
are· no furthe.r ·feasible .a .e
enviro me - Th p_1oject ,.
envronm1e •
Application Filing Date: June 24, 2008
e
Applicant: Robbin Hayne AIA- Tidepool Architeds
Owner: Alexandra Falk
Location: 32960 Pacific Coast Highway, within the
appea .ab'la coastal zone
APNs 4473-017-025
Zoning: Rural Residential - Two Acres (RR-2)
es
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution INo. 09-73 (Attachment 1) approving Coastal Deve'lopment Permit (CDP) No. 08-053, Site Plan verse
-· - •·.·· • I ···EQA
.. . .. . wUI no: resu t in
e . . . ing of CEQA, and -here
e. red.r oe ·a·r.y "mpacts 10n th1e
1es I i· . carat ad erse impacts. o •• I ··e
32960
PCH
Phase I Report - 32960 PCH
Prepared by Rob Wlodarski (2004)
Source: Planning Commission December 15th
467
, 2009, Planning Staff Report, CDP 08-053, Page 8
, ... ,, .• .. - ·e u · a
qualified . '. . . . . : : : . #liil"llli.... _m,!11,, II l!"lii~I ca nee O - the resources an·.-. u .. , 1 the P •• ·~-- age· can1 ire .. e s i · fo . 32960 PCH
CDPA No. 10-001
468
Commission Agenda Report
The Planning ,Commission has found that the proposed amendment 1s lis ed among the classes of projects that hav . been determined no,t to have a significant ad:v -rs . • ffect o-n th1e env~ r0lll11:ent,, and ther1efore,., is exemp1 . from the_provisions ofCE,QA .. Accor1dingly;. a CA'TEGORICALE.XE-MPTION wi 1 be prepared and issued for the ame.ndment pursuant to CEQ1
A G idelines Section 1.5 310 l (~) - Additions to _ -xisting ~tructures. The P'lanning Commission has further- determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical 1exe.mp-tion applies to this project (CEQA Guidelines, ·section 15300 .. 2) Applies: 10n
Applicant:

Owner:

Location;
APiN:

Zoning:
e ruary ,
Robbin Hayne AIA - Tidepool Architects
Alexandra Falk
32960 Pacific Coast Highway, within the
appealable coastal .zone
4473-017-0125
Rural Residential • Two Acres (RR-2)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resol11tion No. 10-22 (Attachment 1), approving Coastal Devetopmer,t Pe11mit Amendment (CDPA) No. 10-0011 to amend Planning Commission Resolution No. 09-73 (Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 08-{153) for ar, 868 square foot expansion and interior reconfiguration of the previously approved basement of tile existing single-family residenoe with an additional 250 cubic yar:ds of understrvoture exempt grading1 loca~ed at 32960 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).

DISCUSSION: The issue before tile Planning Commission is whether to allow the applicant to amend the project plans associated with previously approved CDP No. 08- 053 for an 868 square foot expansion and interiior reconfiguration of the previouS<1y Pa!)e 1 of 12 Agenda Item # 6.A.
32960 PCH
469
California Environmental Quality Act
Pursuant to1 the authority and criteri~ contained in the ,California Enviironmentall 10uality Act (CEQA)1, the Planning IDirect,or has analy.zed the proposal as d1es.cribed abov1e. The P'lanning Director has found that this project is listed ;among the classes o,f projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse ~1~~~~~:::t~~~i ~ therefore, shall be exempt from the provisio_ns ~f CEQA •. Acc~rdingly, a . • _ , . • . . •.. .. :'- • •. - . • J I has been prepared pursuant to CEQA Gu1dehnes S,ect1on 15301 (e)- Existing1 Facilities. The Planning Dir1ector has, further determined that none of the six exceptions t,o the use of a ,categoriieal exemption applies to this prqjed (CEQA Guidellines SecUon 15300.2).

City's Aroperty Development and Design standards.

Pro.posed Project
1ihe subject APR includes !he following:
• Remove the existing roof and replaoe it.with a new no~reflective, non-glossy meuil roof, • Convert 600 square feet on lhe southeast portion of the roof to a seCQ11d story decks with, rai lings; • Interior remodel to include:
o Remove second Aoor kitchen:
o Convert a second floor bedroom into an office;
o Convert a second floor bedroom into a master bathroom; o Convert the second floor Jiving room into a.master bedroom; o Enclose 119 square feet of e'.ldsting covers:! patio to expand the great room; o New radiant floor heat system;
o Reconfigure the first floor kitchen: bathroom a!'ld two bedrooms;. o New fireplace in the great room;
o Expand the seoond floor living room to oreate a master bedroom, o New doors and windows throughrut;
o New sky light
• New 344 square foot open trellis to extend from the south roof over the existing patio areaand; • New copper gutters treated with an oxtdized appearanCE:

Project Background
Previous Approvals
" Coastal! Dev~lopmenl Permit 08-053
Site Plan Review 08-029 - Height over 1 a feet
Minor Modification 08-016-Setback reduction
32960 PCH
470
NOT
beh
resid
32960 .Pacinc· Coast Hig:h . a ·• ..

APR 12:..018
June 2·1, 2012

7. Jin lhe event that polentiiaUy i:miportant 1cultur,al re·sources ,are ·fuund in · he· ic-ourse of geologic testing, work shall im1m1ediiate1y· cease until ;a ,qua med arohaeo1 ogist can pm,o,vide an evaluation ,of the· nature and significance of the resources and until the Planning1 IDirect10,r· can r-;e·view· his information.

Where, as a result: of this eval'uation the :P an1nrng· D rect1or determi • es ·tha.t ·11he p11ojeot 1may have an adverse i.mpact on 1c1d ural resources, .a Phase Evaluaf on of cultural fiesourroes shall be required pursuant to IM M.C S,ection 17~54.O4O(D)1(4J(b),
a. llf human bone is, discovered, the· procedures desre1111 bed 1n Section 7050.5 of h1e Cahfiornia HeaHh and ,Safety Code shaH be follo ·ed. These pr~cedures. requ·i;re not1ficat11on of the coroner. If the coroner determilnes, tha ·the r:emains ;a,re 1, ose of a NatiVJe .American,, the· appiricant shaH notify the Native American He,riitage Co:mmiss10n by ph10ne • ••. h'"n 24 hours. Following notification o,f the Nlative Am1ericani Herta.ge Commissio,n, ·the, proced res desc ·~bed in Seoli1on :5097 .'94 and Sect1ion 5097 .98 of the 1
California Pub ire Resources 1Code .shaD be fol1fo ed.

Project Background
Previous Approvals
" Coastal! Dev~lopmenl Permit 08-053
Site Plan Review 08-029 - Height over 1 a feet
Minor Modification 08-016- Setback reduction
Opponent Claim – CEQA review is required because
mitigation measures are proposed.

Applicant Response: The City does not anticipate
impacts to cultural resources thus the CEQA categorical exemption is appropriate. The archaeology Conditions of Approval are not “mitigation measures.”
Archaeologist Recommendations & Standard Conditions of
Approval

1. Prior to beginning any ground-disturbing activities, all involved construction personnel will be informed about the potential for discovery of archaeological resources and/or human remains, and the appropriate measures to be taken should such resources be uncovered.

2. A qualified archaeologist will be on-site during all ground disturbing construction activities with the authority to suspend work in the event that potentially important archaeological resources are discovered.
471
Exteoded Phas,e I Anhaeological Survey Report of Findmgs for 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, 1\'.lalibu, Los AogeJes County. Califonna
I
RE
32960 PCH
Opposition Letter from 32960 PCH Neighbor
Further, our other Client, Unknowingly Devolving, LLC,
has recovered cultural artifacts on his own property at 32960 PCH—which lies immediately east of the
subject Property—including mortar, pestles, and hand
tools. We attach photos of these as Exhibit E.
472
City of Malibu
Ptarming Commission
October 17 2025