Agenda packet, special meeting, first session — Malibu City Council, October 21, 2026 (part 5 of 5)

For example, the follo\1.<mg photogr
adjacent property at 32960 PCH property:

Undoubtedly, given the documented cultural resources on the Property and adjacent properties, the Projec:t- \Vhich involves 2;974.6 cubic yards ofmt and fill grading over 12 603.6 square feet of area (see Civil Plans, sheet C-3.0}-presents a reasonable possibility ofan adverse impact on udtural resources ..

Unsurprisingly, the City all but admits the potential adverse impact of the Project on these resourc.es, requiring the Applicant "[t]o mitigate potentiaJ impacts on unkno,vn archaeological resources to a level ofinsignifi.c.ance" through two pmposedrnitigation measures. (Jd.) The Staff 4DJ'"2 -
Source: Dr. Matthew Boxt Response Letter to Neighbor’s
Opposition (Elkins LLC) dated November 24th, 2025
473
I visited the SCCIC on F1ebruary 232 2023, and No·v1ember 12, 2025, to collect archaeological data about the property at 33008 PCH in Malibu:,· Los Angeles County, and its surrounding areas. My o·~jiectiv1e ,vas to compile a list of Phas.1e I Inventory reports within a quartermile radius of 33008 PCH and to identify archaeological sites listed in the Cali£omia Arc'haeo]ogical Site Record Base. Both visits yi 1elded similar findings: 27 Phase 1 surveys have taken place in this ar1
ea, and eight archaeological sites hav1e been recorded in the Cali£omia Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). T'he subject property, li~e much of its Malibu neighborhood, has not undergone an ,official s.urvey, but hvo nearby parcels- 32960 PCH and 33016 PCH- have been examined, both with ne ative results. No· further arc·haeolol ·ical fieldwork was needed, so a Phase II Evaluation for either parcel was unnecessary.

Unpermitted Guest House on
State Park Property – Open Code
Violation (Case No. 202002009)
Unpermitted
Structure/Shed on State
Park Property
Unpermitted Walkways,
hardscaping, patios, and
landscaping on State Park
Property
474
------- -------
Neighborhood Support
(33020 PCH)
475
Octobe
Dea Malibu
l a Malibu,
Attn: Re
D As I Member
T, a.nd
To Who
I amwri
for t he p
known a
The own
of the o
remain
Plea scenic
restricti
Additio
toward
Ayahlu
ToMem
a
,cons.true
property
seen the
decades.
area.

They pur
willl bet
surround
As I
right to
aging ne
good a,d
Thank y _
i'
IDoug
372.7 S
Septe
DearM
I wish t
tiedroo
Jeranys
contrib
watche
of our
The Jen
intenti
Si meet a
neigh!>
As lorig
have er
lheirli,,
be ago
Th1mk
~ 7103F
Malibu.
310-8-O
DearMernbe Dea r Pla
Weare pie
quarters on t Wea re
Influence rn propose contributing Malibu, I
Malibu f
They purcha
residence. character. Fromwh
regulati
Given their l contribu
proposal an
My wife
Thank you I
Thanky
Sincere!
Jerry an
33344 P
Malibu
Dea
Ith
pro
for
their
inclu
That
prop
discr
bedr
1nm
their
cons,
November 1, 2
Dear Planning
I have been a r
Jane worked si
Jenny was a.cti
community wh11
Ron has share
they have d,esig
this pofnt throu
Furthermore, .I
from building th
same block as
The Jennys sh
Jenny informed
4,OO0-squa~e•-f
tnousa nd .squar
Please conside
Tha.nk you for y
Sincerely,
Joe Matza
~s
Drive Malibu, C
November 23, 202 5
oear Malibu Planning Board ,
We are writing to share our perspecti ve on the ongoing .situa tion i nvolvi ng our friends, Ron and Jane Jenny.

Recently, we l ear ned t hat two neighbors have engaged attorneys to obstruct t he i r 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 Ma l ibu-raising their children her e and cont ributing posit ively to our community .

We beli eve everyone has the right to de,,e lop their property withi n established guidel ines, and it is unfair that these efforts a r e being hindered through l egal threats and character attacks .

We find it troubling that dedicated individuals li ke the Jennys, who have invested so much in Mali bu, are bei ng prevented from enj oying and utilizi ng their property as they have planned.

In our vi ew, such i nterference in.fringes upo n fundamenta l property rights. If the Jennys are unable to proceed wi th t heir project, t hey should be compensated or given t he opportunity for the city to purchase the l and . Ownership righ t s shou ld be protect e d for a l l r esident~.

Thank you for your serious consideration of this matter. ?!c
Fr~~~ula
erely, ~
Brooks
~ ~
5640 Ca lpine Dr . Malibu , CA 90265
Neighborhood Support
476

CONCLUSION
• The project is a modest 18-ft high single-family residence and protects private views of neighbors to the maximum extent possible. • There are no public view impacts from public viewing areas and Pacific Coast Highway.
• Extended Phase I Archaeology Report confirms no significant cultural resources onsite.
• The project complies with all departmental requirements and regulations per the LCP and MMC.
477

THANK YOU
478
479
480
481
Neighborhood
Character
482
33002 Pacific Coast Highway
(Back) – 30 ft height
33006 Pacific Coast Highway –
26 ft height
33016 Pacific Coast Highway
– 23 ft height
33014 Pacific Coast
Highway – 28 ft height
33018 Pacific Coast Highway –
24 ft height
483
Neighborhood Character
Total Development Square Footage (TDSF)
(Source: City of Malibu, CCC)
33002 PCH 4,000 sq ft
33006 PCH 3,100 sq ft
33010 PCH 3,070 sq ft
32960 PCH 4,225 sq ft
33016 PCH 4,162 sq ft
33018 PCH 3,520 sq ft
33020 PCH 3,300 sq ft
33014 PCH 4,203 sq ft
33064 PCH 16,620 sq ft
33088 PCH 1,263 sq ft
33050 PCH 5,200 sq ft
Average 4,787.5 sq ft
Proposed 4,856 s qft
4,787.5 sq ft
Neighborhood Average TDSF
4,856 sq ft
Proposed TDSF
484
Neighborhood
Character
9 out of 12 developed properties (75%)
within 500-ft radius are 18-ft or higher
485
Finding 2. Th,at the project do.es n,of a,dv,ersely affect ne,fghborhoo,d chara,ct,er.

Story poles were placed ,on the .s,ite to, demonstrat,e the project''.s, paitenUal for viiew impacts to the surrounding area. The projiecfs heiiqht and bulk willl not adversely affect neighborh,ood character. The neighborh,ood i.s, devellop,ed with singlle-fa.mii~y residenc,es of varying size and hei,ght and is characteriized by a mix of one and two,-story hom1e.s. The projiect c,omp ies w·iith the r,equired TD,SF an,d iimpermeabl,e coverage standards estalblishedl in the LIP.

Bluff Edge
486

CODE SETBACK
PROPERTY LINE 5'-0"

PROPERTY LINE

DISPERSAL RELD

TRAFFI C RATED
RYON'S METI-10D
C=2JJ00 T=22.87 8
0,=

1.5 MINIMUM RYON'S METHOD DISPERSAL
AREA A=1,694 FT' i,..

DESIGN FOOTPRINT AREA: 1,247 FT' ', \'\
DISPERSAL PERIMETER: 190 FT , \ \.

ADDITIONAL SIDEWALL DEPTI-l: 2.5 FT '\ '
PEREMETER AREA: 475 FT' 1 "-
TOT AL AREA DISPERSAL AREA: 1,722 FT' \ '\
\ \
\ \
·, \
TRANSIT! ON F OM

LANDSCAPE TO DRIVE 'AY
NO FOOTll'JG
\

PROPERTY LINE
-------
...... _[
'1 ! , I
'---■•
-, i
I I
I
i
I
L
D ENCE
\
City o f Malibu
23&!~ Stuart Ra:nm. Rd .• flfalibu, C•llfornl~ CA !llXIJll:S-486.1 (3101451 .1119 FAX (3 1111 451..335& ..,,...,.maBb~cily.DrJ.

ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
TO: City of Malibu Environmental Heath Administrator
FROM: City of Malibu Planning Depamnent REVISED DATE 11112:2/20,24 PR.OJ
1 ECT NUMBER:

JOB ADDRES,S:

APPLICANT .I CONT ACT:

APPLICANT ADDRESS:

APPLICANT PHONE#:

APPLICANT FAX#:

CDP 23-034
33008 PACIFIC COAST
HWY
Arfakhashad Munaim, Sehmitz & Associates, Inc.
2:8230 Agoura Hills
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
(8HI) 338-3636
APPLICANT EMAIL: a:[email protected]
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: new 2-stoiy single, family residence with attached garage, and new driveway ace11ss and
landscapi ng1.

TO: Malibu Planning Departmellit andlor Applicant
FROM: City of Malibu Environmental Health Rev
iewer
Canformane<1 Rsv,iew Complete lor pti:;ect SaUbm ittfilS r8Vie-.ved Mill mspect to me Cily of Malibu Local Coastal Plart/Lot-al Implementation Pli!il'J (LCP/UP) arid Malibu Murlitipal cooe (MMC). The coooi1ions o/ Planning coofonnance review and
plan cheit teYiev, oammenls li!llild oo me allactle(I tf!ll'ie-,,,, sheel(s) tot etse hmldwrlllen belcm) shall be· a.d
dressed prior lO plan check appoval.

Conformance Review lncpmp'le:lll for lhe City ol Ma~bu LCP/LI p an d MMC. The Planning stage t'il'!liew (;(Jmmenls li!llad ,Off die· Ciny of Mialitlu Environmental Health reYiev, stieel(s) !;tial be addressed prior lo coolonnance review L'Dmple1ion.

QWTS PJot PJag, □ NOj BcOlJlflEO
Rj' REQu F!ED
jaltae!,l!d hl!'reto] D REC.ti R!ffi j'ool al!Acliedl
Sig~i
1211912024
!>ate
33008 PCH Archaeology
Concerns
487
Map and Table of
Auger Borings from
Boxt report
488
T.9.bfe l:. Wc1gh·t Il~,1!rll!m.tion. of SulU .ten.ec dl by Auger Ronn Dept (gm) Auger Nlo,. level
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 s 9 10
1 0.5 3.9
2 1.4 3.9 5 3.5 1.5 1.4 3 1.4 0.01 0.2
3 1.7 0.4 1.4 2 1.9
4 1.4 1.9 3,A 9.6 .3.2 1.4 2.7 4 3.9
5 7
6, 1.1 6.5 2.3 "1 .3 0.9 0.1
7 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.5
8 0.1 1 .. 1 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.2 0.9
9 1.2 1.9 11.4 1.1 0.1 0.7
10 0.3 0.2 0 .. 1 0.4 1.5 0.8
11 0, 1 1.3 2.2 4.7 2.5 2.2 0.9 - 12 1.2 1.4 4.9 2.9 0.4 0.2 1,3 , 2.3 0.5 0.7
14 0,91 2.1
15, - - - 16, 0.2 0.1 2 0.4 - 1- 9~ - 17 1.3 0.5 1,3
1,8 0.5 0.4
19 0.8 0.5
20 1.4 1.7 0.3 0.1 OA 0.1

2.1 0.2 ,...
22 0.9
23 0.4 0.3 -s
■-

2.4\ 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 .....
.2S 0.3, -r'
26, 0.6 0,4 1 - 27 0,6 ,Q
28 ,en
29 0.7 0, 5, ·L,.,
.... 30 ,n
- 31 ,a.,
32 -J
T,otalAmount ofS'hcllCollected : 166+11 gram::;
33004 PCH
Auger Sample
In 2000 Gary Stickel conducted a
study at this parcel that involved
excavation of 14 30 cm diameter test
pits for a project at this parcel. Two
fragments of a human skull were
recovered in the 20-30 cm level of
one of the excavations and a distal
end of a human humerous was found
was found in the 0-10 cm level of
another excavation. The bones were
interpreted as indicating the
presence of burials
489
Residue w R 1,~Jdu wt: Residue wt R:et~'ldu •• wt
Al.Igel' 1 Sample" 2m sh 4 1:sh1 8 sh ·116 m h
0-2.4 s S1.02 S2.8S 4 6.!B 59.414

2.4-40 3,.3, 12L19 35.78 25.81 41.:$6
40-56 3,,8 27.51 4 2.32 50 .2'9 68.97
56-66 3,.2 1

65.59 4 S.78 44.22 69.711
66-76 2.9 0 1'9.4 8 27.03 62.39
7'6-88 4 1 (t 17 20. 56 37.1 6 8'11.77
% % % %
R:e:sidue wt Recsldue wt Recsldue wt Residue wt
Auger 1 Lffl lio',ng gms. Cf~ soi wt,,1eingth 2m'-8:ssh 4 mecsh 8 mecsh 16 mesliii 0-24 24 2270 '94.58 2.25 2.33 2.05 2 .. 62
24-40 11
6 1498 '93:.64 8,0'9 2.39 11.72 2.77
40-56 116 172S 107,83: 1.s·9 2AlS 2.92. 4.00
56-66 10 14 S3 145.28 4 .51 3.'l S 3,0,4 4.80
66-76 10 13,17 1 31.66 o.oo '1.418 2.05 4.7'4
7'6-88 12 181 1
6 1 S1 .33 O.S:6 11.13 2.05 4.50
5 mestm
Al.Igel' 1 Mytiflls. Saptif'er 13.arrtiCle Chimn Bone Te,gula, fUliill!!lbrnlis 0-2.4 L07 0 ,06 0,07 0.011 0.11S pc ,grn g1asis _ 1 2g

2.4-40 O.S1
6 40-56 0.18
56-66 0.09
66-7'6
76-88 0.04
16 mesliii
Al.Igel' 1 Mytiflls. Saptrf'iBr Bam1o1e Ttllela? Bone Te,.gulai funebralls 0-2.4 2.1 0.02 0.01 0.'13 0.07 1•

2.4-40 0.1
67 0.01 0.01 o,.os 0.01 1 diel't flake .01g
40-56 0.07 0.04 0.01
56-66 0.09
66-76 o.os
76-88 0.0·3
· = 1 chalood,ony flake .o 1 91 11 ohallcemr1iy 'Ra k .0·11 '!l, 1 pl C ,glass .01 g Boxt’s Report Introduction
• Archaeological fieldwork at the parcel began in 2022, when Robert J. Wlodarski, M.A., reconnoitered 33008 PCH and observed an “archaeological site” with minimal subsurface disturbance. The cultural resources identified during his surface inspection included marine shell, lithic flakes, fire-affected rock, and stone tools such as hammerstones, manos, scrapers, and core fragments, which were widespread across the property. Beginning in March 2023, in response to a request from Mr. Ron Jenny to further assess Wlodarski’s findings, I surveyed 33008 PCH for archaeological resources. I observed crushed shells and artifacts but determined that this “site” was not the same as those detailed by Wlodarski (2023), King (2025), or Dominguez (2025). At the time, I noted a curious phenomenon along the northeast portion of the property: an assortment of what I suspected were redeposited shell, stone tools, and natural stream cobbles, all intermixed with modern discards (e.g., cow bones) and intrusive surface deposits of imported garden soil containing shell and decomposed granite. Based on surface indications, none retained much, if any, scientific integrity. • In my estimation, this did not represent an intact archaeological site or even a severely disturbed midden deposit. It appeared to be something else—a pseudo-site composed of displaced midden constituents brought to the surface from nearby buried deposits by natural processes (e.g., gravity, mudslides) or artificial agency (e.g., trucks or heavy earth-moving machinery) and inadvertently left here. I wondered whether 33008 PCH had, within the past 50 years, served as the staging area for a construction project at 33006 PCH (pool?), which abuts the parcel to the north, and whether that project unearthed and scattered the small collection of cultural resources I and others observed on the property. Subsurface testing, such as that described herein, could answer the question: Is 33008 PCH a bona fide archaeological site and an extension of CA-LAN-29, or merely a pseudo-site, a location claimed to have archaeological significance yet lacking the rigorous, evidence-based, peer-reviewed methods used to define archaeological sites in academic archaeology? 490
Statement in my review of Boxt’s earlier report
• 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 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.
491
Excavations at Pitas Point
492
~." - ~--·· •• ----
"'·v !~'.;.~. Bulldozed (u
()
0 LJ
.
• Ovens
0 Midden filled pits
,~ Reddened Earth and Ash
,,, Fire Reddened Pits
• Postholes
0 5 10
···meters ;'
N
Large Curves Indicate Observed House Depressions,
Dashed Lines indicate Hypothesized Houses.
c.:-.:::.:i Backhoe Trenches
Area 1
west wall
493
Area 3
at 10
cm
494
Area 3
at 20cm
495
Area 3
at 80
cm
496
Area 2
west
497
Area 2
west
oven
feature
498
Coastal Development Permit No. 23 -034
Minor Modification No. 25 -009
33008 Pacific Coast Highway
Planning Commission
Item 5A
February 17, 2026
499
Vicinity Map
500
Project Background
• Previous Regular Planning Commission hearings (continued) • October 6, 2025 (re-noticed)
• October 20, 2025 (date certain)
• November 3, 2025 (date certain)
• December 1, 2025 (date uncertain)
501
Concerns Raised
• Comment 1 – State Lands Commission, LIP §§ 13.6.2(B) & 10.5(C): The applicant failed to obtain a written determination from the State Lands Commission for the subject project.
• Comment 2 – Co-Applicant, LIP § 13.6.2(C): No such invitation has been extended to the adjacent neighbor who has a shared easement over the property, including over areas proposed for development. 502
Concerns Raised
• Comment 3 – ESHA and Bluff EHSA: The project is proposing development within the required 100-foot buffer from a mapped blue line stream. • Comment 4 – Unpermitted Coastal Bluff Development: The project includes unpermitted development on the coastal bluff which includes; unpermitted trees, erosion controls (fencing and straw wattle). These were not reflected on the project plans.
503
Concerns Raised
• Comment 5 – Archaeology Buffer: The Archaeology Review for this project expressly prohibits “geologic trenching, soil borings, ground clearance, grading, equipment placement, or similar surface-disturbing impacts” within 30 feet of the northern property boundary to protect potential Chumash artifacts.
• Additional Correspondence – Cultural Resources: Improper mitigation measures, defeating the use of the Class 3 exemption.
504
Project Description
The proposed scope of work is as follows:
• Construction of a 4,856 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, 18 feet in height, including a 791 square foot attached two-car garage;
• 824 square foot, ADU above the garage;
• Construction of outdoor decks;
• Installation of new landscaping and hardscape;
• Grading;
• Construction of a new OWTS;
• Vehicular access gate; and
• Fire department turnaround area.
• Discretionary Request:
• MM No. 25-009 for up to 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback (approximately 37 percent proposed)
505
Site Plan
506
...
~
Site Plan
T.O.B
507
...
~
Site Plan
T.O.B
F.Y.S.B (MM)
508
...
~
Site Plan
T.O.B
F.Y.S.B (MM)
SFR
509
Site Plan
SFR
ADU
T.O.B
F.Y.S.B (MM)
2nd Floor
510
Site Plan
OWTS
T.O.B
F.Y.S.B (MM)
SFR
ADU 2nd Floor
511
Site Plan
Fire Department
Turnaround Area T.O.B
F.Y.S.B (MM)
SFR
ADU 2nd Floor
OWTS
512
Floor Plans

FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR
513
r--~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

L----- I
I
I
I
I
: •&-
' I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
.

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1.------,
j
'
1 "----------, I
I
I
I
I
I
I

1.. ------
' L-, j
1 I ., _____ ,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.. ......... ... -
I
I
I
r
I L--------- ---... I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ~-----, I
J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ·------.. ' • ' ' • ' ' I
' ' ' ' L
' • l ~,
' ' ' '
=====
r------------
r
•---- I • I
I
I _-.:., I
I
f
776 sq ft
2ND FLOOR
I ~ i
I
-.
'
r.-----""-"i- '
'-----~--- --
:.. [ I
I I
r--:
l '
I I
I I
r
I
I
[
: '--- ~-- ·------4-1' r-· I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Elevations
18’ max
18’ max
514
-
I~ no
~ -=-~-:.t'"Ji,#_ ... !!'!' __ ------ -:.-_-::- - -- -~. - - - J.-=-. -.:I: - - - - - - - - _ · - - - - - - - ·- --- ------~------
...

SOUTH ELEVATION
Elevations
18’ max
18’ max
515
aa.JlCiiW!MC K~
----·- -------- L ...., __ _
-= --
"P-'""HlP'J --
t"s1-"~KWm~I
..._,_ ..,.. .,. __ _ _ r - - --- - __ ___ __ ..., ___ ,. __ _ EAST ELEVATION 01 .SCN..m.: ,w. ~·-a"
'..::il.-..---,--- - =-:-::;-:cc--=-= =-=:-----,---"!!.~ ~ = C-=-:::-::::-::-:::.....:_::~_~..:....~_~_~_a.+t:_~_~_liS.!_~_~~, ..=,_::t.r""~ -L::=--.-.rnTm::-:-l-""ll'C"-=-;l"TITT~~~~~rrrrr~ -.- oana,~~:!~P ":,Gat. if -- ------ r """"""'..., .. , ------- ----
,
4 :.._------"'-------<:--!f'I- ~~-~ :'11: ~lll -
--- ~ !lr~ ~ .....
.... i
WEST ELEVATION -02 ~11'(' - l"-P
Recommendation
Planning Commission Adopt Resolution No. 26-10 determining the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, and approving CDP No. 23-034; including MM No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback located in the RR-2 zoning district at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway
516
Coastal Development Permit No. 23 -034
Minor Modification No. 25 -009
33008 Pacific Coast Highway
Planning Commission
Item 5A
February 17, 2026
517
From: Tammy Mackey
To: Planning Commission
Subject: New Build at 33008
Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 10:34:10 AM
Hello,
My neighbor is trying to
build a second home next to his original home (different lot) at 33008 PCH.

I have many concerns about this build adding to the already difficult fire safety situation.

On paper it may look fine, but in reality there are many concerns.

There are still two homes down our street of 9 original homes that burned in the Woosly fire and have not even been rebuilt yet.

There is a planning commission meeting for this property on Feb 17th.

I am requesting that someone from planning come out before this meeting to meet with me and look at the situation in person.

Thank you,
Tammy Mackey
518
From: Tammy Mackey
To: Planning Commission; Jackson D. McNeill; Brandt Andersen; Didier Murillo; Mark Subject: Fwd: New Build at 33008
Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 12:07:38 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
Photos of the bluff after the Woosley Fire, 33008 and 33010 properties.

What is the stability of the bluff after a severe burn. 33010 is proposing to build very close to the bluffs edge.

Photo of the bluff in front of 33010, with 33012 burned out house in the background Fire descending on our neighborhood with 33010 house in the foreground. Fire trucks sat on street and would not come down. Also did not come down in the fire around 2004 Fire Trucks refused to come down. Is adding another house the mix a good idea? In reality the "turn around on the 33008 lot is useless.

Thank you for your time and reading this.

Tammy and Mark Mackey
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Tammy Mackey <
Date: Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 10:33 AM
Subject: New Build at 33008
To: <[email protected]>
Hello,
My neighbor is trying to
build a second home next to his original home (different lot) at 33008 PCH.

I have many concerns about this build adding to the already difficult fire safety situation.

On paper it may look fine, but in reality there are many concerns.

There are still two homes down our street of 9 original homes that burned in the Woosly fire and have not even been rebuilt yet.

There is a planning commission meeting for this property on Feb 17th.

I am requesting that someone from planning come out before this meeting to meet with me and look at the situation in person.

Thank you,
Tammy Mackey
519
520
521
522
523
524
From: Chris Deleau
To: Didier Murillo
Cc: Tyler Eaton; Don Schmitz; Catherine A. Lambert; Planning Commission; AK Munaim; Scott Hoeft Subject: Item 5.A. - 2026.2.18 Planning Commission Hearing - 33008 Pacific Coast Hwy - Response to Neighbor Comment Letters
Date: Thursday, February 12, 2026 5:06:54 PM
Attachments: 2026.2.11 Applicant Response to Neighbor Letter re Violations - Item 5.A. 33008 PCH.pdf 2026.2.12 Brandt Anderson Violations.pdf
Importance: High
Didier, please find attached the applicant's response to recent comment letters received by the city from the neighbor's and their legal counsel.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Principal Planner, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
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.
525
1 February 11, 2026
City of Malibu
Attn: Chair Riddick & Vice Chair Mazza
& Planning Commissioners
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd.

Malibu, CA 90265
Re: 33008 PCH - Item 5.A. – February 17, 2026, Planning Commission Hearing (CDP No. 23- 034). BluƯtop 1, LLC (Applicant) – Applicant Response to Neighbor Comments Re Code Violations
Honorable Chair Riddick, Vice Chair Mazza, and Esteemed Planning Commissioners, This correspondence addresses specific statements raised by the applicant’s neighbors with respect to the applicant’s code enforcement violation.

In the neighbor’s attorney’s letter dated October 17, 2025, the neighbors refer to the project applicant as a “Bad Actor.” (Page 30) They further allege that the applicant is involved in “ongoing code violations.” (Page 32) The statements made by the neighbor’s legal counsel are extremely inaccurate, reckless, and intended only to attack the applicant’s character.

This correspondence is responsive to these claims.

I. Neighbor Statements Regarding Project & Code Violations The applicant concedes that the following work was done without permits, for which afterthe-fact approval is now being sought as part of this Coastal Development Permit Application: 1. Replacement of an existing vehicular access gate, 2. Replacement of an existing chain link fence with a new wood fence along the property line, 3. Importing dirt for landscaping.

Since receiving the notice of violation, the city required the applicant to permit the work after-the-fact as is required by the California Coastal Act and the city’s Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the applicant has done so. Contrary to the neighbors’ attorney’s comments, the permit process is the appropriate and necessary path to remedy a code violation.
526
2 The characterization of the applicant as a ‘bad actor’ is inaccurate, disparaging, and inappropriate. In the legal context, a bad actor is someone who ‘knowingly’ violates the law.

The applicant did not know that replacing an existing fence and gate in like kind required a permit, nor did he know that doing minor landscaping required a permit; in most cities permits for these items are not required. These are minor code violations not warranting the title of a ‘bad actor.’
The Neighbors have further alleged that Significant Native American Cultural Resources are located on the applicant’s property and provide photos of a mortar and pestle they allege to have found on their own property ( Pacific Coast Highway Property Owned by Brandt Andersen). Where these items came from, whether they are indeed Chumash artifacts and whether the neighbor found them on his property remains completely speculative and unsubstantiated as these items were not found by or reported to an archeologist or a Chumash monitor at the time they were allegedly discovered.

The neighbors and their consultants also allege the presence of burials on the applicant’s property, again without anything other than speculation to support these claims.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence; however, none have been provided.

The applicant, after receiving these allegations, conducted an Extended Phase I Archeology Study. The Study confirmed the project archeologist’s prior findings that there are no burials on the property or significant cultural resources.

Serious allegations have been levied against the applicant and his project, and these allegations merit an inspection of the credibility of the neighbor making them. The applicant will demonstrate that the ‘Bad actor’ here is not the applicant but his neighbor, Brandt Andersen.

II. Code Violations on Adjacent Property Owned by Brandt Andersen at PCH
Whenever assessing the validity of information, one should first consider its source. In the instant case, we evaluate the credibility of Brandt Andersen as it is Mr. Andersen and his legal counsel who have characterized the applicant as a bad actor, misrepresented violations on the applicant’s property, and who have feigned concern over impacts to cultural resources. 527
-
-
3 Brandt Andersen is a serial code violator. This is undisputed and is a matter of public record. Mr. Andersen acquired his adjacent property in June of 2013 per Assessor Records.

From that time on, Mr. Andersen has engaged in a series of significant code violations. The first of these recorded1 violations occurred in March 2015. This violation was for the unpermitted construction of a new deck, grading, and retaining walls on a coastal bluƯ.

The second of these violations (Stop Work Orders) occurred on April 26, 2019, when Mr.

Andersen, without permits, reconstructed all the development from the first violation (subject to an ongoing stop work order) when it was lost during the Woolsey Fire, again without permits. He also, without permits, constructed Beach access stairs, a surf shack/enclosure, and a concrete pad on the beach, thought to be within the intertidal zone.

None of this development is consistent with the LCP and other state law and it cannot be approved after-the-fact as it is located on a Coastal BluƯ and likely on public trust lands that the State of California asserts a Sovereign interest in; All of it must be removed and restored to natural conditions.
1 There is significant unpermitted development on the Andersen property which have not yet been identified by code enforcement, which this letter will detail, explain, and support with evidence. 528
4 Photo of unpermitted large concrete pad, surf shed, and stairs leading up to unpermitted deck. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files)
Photo of Crane on the Subject Property (33008 PCH) used by Mr. Andersen to Supply Materials to the Beach to construct new beach access stairway along the coastal bluƯ. Other 529
5 heavy equipment was also used (concrete truck). Damage was done to the subject property by Mr. Andersen’s heavy equipment.

Photo of Deck before violation. Small Deck with No retaining walls. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files)
New Deck Under Construction in 2015 with New Foundations, Grading and New Retaining Walls on the Coastal BluƯ. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files) 530
~'7'_ / ~ 'A ~ T_,. S , -/ ;./
.. "r-': -...
/ I \ ~.L- 1 1
6 Photos of unpermitted Deck and Retaining walls on the Coastal BluƯ. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files)
531
. , ;, , . . -
► ·: ;;,- . ~ ::- ,.(~ cl! ....
- .... lrft4illi~ -~-
, --~ .. l ..
1'-&
-~_ .... ".....,,_..-.~
~ - ~ 03~0/2': li 1 ;,:l6 ~ 4JJ3 . ~
7 The last of the City’s Acknowledged Code Violation actions was the unpermitted construction of a new Guest House with retaining walls and landscaping on State Park Lands - El Pescador State Beach Park, and rows of new Olive Trees along the driveway, again on State Park Lands.

If it were not enough that Mr. Andersen had already been given one stop work order for extensive unpermitted development in 2015, immediately thereafter from 2015-6 he went ahead and constructed an entire guest house, retaining walls and landscaping without permits. Worse yet, he did it on State Park Property with imputed knowledge of that fact.

Surveys of his property from 2006 and 2015, which presumably he had possession of and reviewed; both clearly show his property lines relative to State Park Property. He then received a second stop work order (April 2019) for the reconstruction of the same deck which was subject to the first stop work order in 2015. These are all knowing and intentional violations of the Coastal Act, LCP, and Municipal Code undertaken by Mr. Brandt.

Photo of Unpermitted Guest House, Retaining walls and Landscaping on State Park Owned Land – Referenced in the 2019 stop work order and the 2025 Recorded Notice of Violation. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files)
532
8 III. Additional Unpermitted Development not yet Subject to Code Enforcement Action
In addition to the unpermitted development that has already been identified through open code enforcement actions, It appears that Mr. Andersen undertook additional unpermitted development, all of which is illustrated in the exhibit below as follows: 1.

An unpermitted accessory structure was constructed or placed on State Parkland to the east of his home on the Coastal BluƯ, 2. There are several walkways, landscaping and what appear to be patios that have been constructed near the accessory structure to the east, some of which appear to have occurred after the stop work orders were issued, 3.

A new Visually Impermeable approximately 7’ tall Entry Gate and walls were Constructed without permits that do not meet City Codes.

Source: Landvision©/ Lightbox GIS Aerial Photo w/Georeferenced Property Lines 533
Un permitted
Exterior Deck -
Open Code
Violation
Unpermitted Stairs to
Beach with Concrete
Pad and Enclosure on
State Owned
Tidelands - Open
Code Violation
and
in and
ent
mitted Guest
on State Park
y-Open
iolation
Unpermitted Accessory
Structure (on state park
land)
ermitted Drainage
rsion from Driveway
each (across state
Unpermitted Walkways,
hardscaping, patios, and
Landscaping (on state
park land)
9 First Stop Work Order from March of 2015 for the Unpermitted Construction of a New Deck, grading and retaining walls on a Coastal BluƯ. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files) 534
r 'f r,
e

CITY OF MALILJ
0 ~--Sllf£1Y""""""' Z3$1$S1\.IAR'f~RC t w,lJOU,C,1.~l
(310) <156-2489
,
NOTICE
NOTICE IS t-EREBY GIVEN 1WAT TliE FOLLOWINO VKX.ATION(S) ™ER~
Of THE MAUOU MUNICIPAL CODE ~VE BF..E.N •DC.tffiflEO ON ~ ~ALL WORK!cau!c®JOCOOOSCCTIOH ,o...,,
D PERMITS REQUIREtl
"\ Malibu Bu,ldong Code section 106.1 . 106.4, 1
,6, Building O Plumbing O E:lectrical
0 Mechanical □ Grading
0 Malibu Building Code C~apter 99
SUBSTANOARO BUILDING /CONOIT>ONSJPROPERTY
Cl Malibu Plumbing COde 5eciion 303.0
DISFOSAI. OF UOUIO WASTE
~ Maliou Zoning Cooe Seclion 17.62.020
OEVE~OPMEN'T WITHOUT PERMITS OR APPROVALS
..... . ~ .O.M.I~ t' . .. .. 0 -~ __ -/1.1,1/.~ ••••••
. ::-Xl!f:-..~ff!f:,,-,_{, __ .. ~--: ~~ ... . ...
.. •·• .: .. ::::·::: :·::: ... :.: :·::::i~ :~:::~::::::
...... G~ "-~ .':: ..... A!:.Ct. ~-~ - ........... ..
•
t
I
10 2
nd Stop Work Order (2019): Mr. Andersen rebuilt the unpermitted deck that was already the subject of a code enforcement action and stop work order. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files)
535
CITY OF MA LfflU
ENW10NMEIIITAL S,JST~IUl)' DEF'AR<
%lft25 STI..IP.Fl'T RPtNCt-1 FIO. • MAIJBU. CA~
INSPECTION REOUEST {310) 456-2'1119 • EXT. 312
WWW.I •Ill bu,llv.orsi
NOTICE
Address J Locatlon·~
Owner.

NOTICE IS 1-!~Fll:BY GIVEN THA.TTHE FOLLO\IYING VIOV\TION(S) Of THE. 1.IBU MU ICIPAL CODE H~WE B I\J IDE.Nl'JFtEO ON FEREl'IICED ?ROPERTV.
. TOP ALL WORK! (8.t.NLC G COOESECTJON 104 31

ERMITS REQU RED
M~uilding Code Seotkln 106.1, i06.4.1
/ ~U•ldlng Plumbing O Electrical
□ Mecharncal Grading _D Septic
Manbu BuRdmg Code Chapter 99
UBSTANOARD BUILDING l'CONDITIONSIPROPERTY
Malibu Plumbin9 Code Section 303.0

DISPOSAL OF LIOUIC WAST
Malibu Municipal Code SecUoo 17.62.020
ElOFIMENT WITHOUT ~ERMITS
Faime lo m-rpy v.ih 1h1a NDoce is a misdemearO" and I:!;; P4Jl'll!illable by (111 °' im risonm 111. bocJ1 rn:l 1s a separate ofiense ror eadlday In vlolalion tMMC Section 16 010)
~i \." ~ h-{ch,r-- TE \ I' PECTOR ' OFFIC.EP
0 --------..

CIT OF MALJBU
ENVli=tet'lMl:NT L SUST AINA8l IT'f OEPARU
2382!i Sll/AflT RANCH RO. - MALIBU, CA 002!15-&1
J,ISf'ECT]O'\I REOIJE'.ST(S10)~ • 00. J1)'
',/IJWW imahlluCJly org i~
NOTICE
Addr&Ss I Location
Owr,er;
OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT E FOLLOWING VIOl.ATION( )
OF THE M,UBU MUNICIPAL CODE HAVE EIEEN IoeNT1FIE;D ON
Tl-IE REFERENCED PROPERTY.
iTOP ALL.WORK!(SIJIJJI, GCOOESECTI N1.0,,.~J
. ITS REQUIRED
b lldlng Code Section 106.1, 106.4 1
lld[ng □ Prumbing Electrical
□ Mechan,cal O G din{l 1::J Septtc
1bu Building Code Chapter 99

SUBSTANDARD BUILDING /CONDITIONS/PROPERTY
0 Malibu Plumbing Gode Section 303.0
o,sPOSAL OF LIQUID WASTE
M.J tlbu Municipal Code Section ~762.020
~ VELOP.M.ENT WITHO. UT PERMi,
~~Orn ti:1<>-~
.,+ ~ ~~i r - • •
'~ --\v :p 6.Y\11.0 C>c.w..Y'-
Dk,m.;"1 ~ \' ~M ls t z-1.5
Falh.ire to cx,mpy wrtn inls !\kJiw ls a insd<!!mEWlCI' afid I,,; punl5hable by a fine, « Im riS()nmen1, or bolh no Is a separate offense for each day in v1ofalion. (MMC Section 1 16.010).

C\ ~
11 Photo of unpermitted front entry gate from PCH with concrete wall and intercom. Note unpermitted olive trees along the driveway in the background. (Source Malibu City Code Enforcement Files).
536
02 . 11 .2020
12 Photo of property driveway from 2016 courtesy of Google Earth. Note that the front driveway gate and olive trees were not present at this time.
537
13 Conclusion
To this day, according to available public records, Mr. Brandt has not abided by Code Enforcement’s successive orders to process applications to remove or permit these developments after-the-fact. He has ignored these violations going back over 10 years. This ultimately led the city to record a Notice of Violation (NOV) against title to his property on April 6, 2025. For over 10 years Mr. Brandt has, in bad faith, continuously developed his property without obtaining permits, even after he received numerous visits and correspondence from code enforcement, as well as 2 Stop Work Orders and a recorded Notice of Violation. He also knowingly constructed a guest house, a separate accessory structure, and other development on State Parklands and possibly other state trust lands (Tidelands). He did not obtain review and approval from either the State Lands Commission or the Army Corps of Engineers for the improvements undertaken on the beach. It is noted that these improvements are not the same, nor are they located in the same place as they had previously existed and therefore Mr. Brandt does not have vested rights to reconstruct them and cannot permit these improvements after-the-fact but must remove them completely2. He has, to date, done nothing substantive to correct any of these violations despite involvement from the Coastal Commission, the City, and State Parks.

He has made it clear that he believes that the rules do not apply to him, only to his neighbor who intends to legitimately utilize the permit process and build a home on his private land.

Unlike Mr. Andersen, the applicant has worked with code enforcement to remedy a minor violation. It is clear who the ‘Bad actor’ is in this equation. If Mr. Andersen were truly concerned about potential impacts on cultural or environmental resources, he would not have undertaken so much development on his property and state parklands, without permits.

City records and Cal State Fullerton records show no cultural resources having been found on Mr. Andersen’s property, yet he produces photos of supposed artifacts on a table, claiming that he found them on his property. It may be that he removed these artifacts from his land while he was undertaking one of the many projects that he has completed without permits, or it may be that he has provided a stock photo from Google. The nature and origins of these supposed artifacts remain unverifiable. What is verifiable is that Mr. Andersen does not practice what he preaches. He has repeatedly promised code enforcement that he was resolving the violations on his property and has not done so; rather, he has continued to undertake development without permits, while stringing the city along. His actions have 2 Referring to the Deck, Stairs to the Beach and the new Surf Shack 538
14 been unlawful, dishonest, and unethical. The credibility of his statements against the applicant, through his attorneys, must be viewed through the prism of his own actions.

The numerous allegations made by Mr. Andersen regarding cultural resource impacts, violations by the applicant, lack both evidentiary support and any credibility. Mr. Andersen has hired and paid attorneys and other consultants to support his baseless allegations.

These consultants have not provided any reports, written evidence, physical evidence, or other credible information in support of their exceptional claims. In fact, these claims have been conclusively disproven by the applicant’s archeologist in an extended Phase I archeology report as well as by the applicant’s biologist with respect to ESHA setback claims.

It is important to note that the applicant has the support of all his neighbors except for the two immediately adjacent neighbors who stand to have their views impaired (Mr. Andersen and the Mackeys).

The applicant asks that the Commission please consider the testimony of Mr. Andersen and his attorneys in the context of his own actions and complete lack of credibility.

Sincerely,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.

Donald W. Schmitz, II, AICP
President
539
Note on 1972 Aerial that Stairs to Beach
are not in their current configuration &
location. The current stairs were rebuilt
without permits in violation of the Coastal
Act and the City’s LCP/ Zoning Code (see
slides).
540
1972
541
2002
542
2008
2011
543
2013
544
2014
545
2015
546
2016
547
2018
548
2018
549
2019
550
2019
551
2021
552
2023
553
554
32960 Pacific Coast HighWay mafibu,CA 90 Q,
lndude Area 0
Site Address
Parcel No (APN)
LightBox Parcel 10
Land Use
Bu~dlngs
Budding Area
Lot Area
AdJ_ Lois Owned
Year Suitt
Owner (Assessor)
Owner Address
(Assessor)
Last Marke Sale
Total Assd Value
Opportunity Zone
Hazards
Add to List
Zoning
Tum Layer On/Off
Zoning Code: POS
Strucwres
Tum Layer On/Off
Repons
4473-017-900
020561 RZ5ITEZ7990RS938 "

MISCELLANEOUS

GOVERNMENTAL, PUBLIC
None
275,765 F 16,33 ACRE }
2 {7 .35 TOTAL ACRES)

TATE OF CALIF
1 CAPITOL MALL STE 410
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
4'14f78
$532,515
No
214 PresenI
Full Property Detail "More
Click here for PZR Zoning Report
► View Details
" Results al this Location I 1
Q au [::] C
Characteristics 0 Last Market Sale 0 Ownership 0 Property Value 0 Debt 0 Location 0 Zoning Code (LightBox) 0 Zoning Category (LightBox) 0 555
32960 Pacific Coast Highway malibu.CA 90 0.
lndude Area 0 ExdudeArea 0 Property Type 0
L_ PACIRC COAST HWY, MALIBU, CA 9026!> 8 @ X
Site Address
Parcel No. (APN)
Ugh\Box Parcel ID
Land Use
Bu1l<fmgs
Bulldlng Area
Loi Area
AdJ Lois Owned
Year Bui
Owner (Assessor)
Owner Address
(Assessor)
Last Markel Sale
Total Assd. Value
Opportunity Zone
Hazards
Add to Lisi
Zoning
Turn Layer On/Off
Zoning Code. POS
Zoning Code· RR2
Structures
Tum Layer On/Off
~ ACIFIC COAST HWY MALIBU,
CA90265
4473-017-025
0204UFZ5LENDKG68PW2YQ9 •

RESIDENTIAL

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
1 Bulldmg
3,194 SF
18,723 F (0.43 ACRES)
NONE
1961

ANDERSEN, JAMES BRANOT
6J11/13 rorS7,175,071
$8,835,491
No
4 Present
run Property Detail "More
V
CHck here for PZR Zoning Report
► View Details
• View Details
V
" Results at this Location I 1
Q ·-·-
Characteristics 0
(1lJ
Last Market Sale 0 Ownership 0
G) C
Property Value D Debt 0 Location D Zoning Code (UghlBox) 0 Zoning Category (LlghlBo> Unpermitted Guest
House on State Park
Property – Open
Code Violation
Possible Unpermitted Drainage
Diversion from Driveway to
Beach ( on Coastal Bluff &
Across State Park Property)
Unpermitted Accessory
Structure (on Coastal Bluff
& State Park Property)
Unpermitted Walkways,
hardscaping, patios, and
Landscaping (on Coastal
Bluff & State Park land)
PCH
Property Line
Unpermitted
Exterior Deck –
Open Code
Violation
Unpermitted Stairs
to Beach with
Concrete Pad and
Enclosure, Likely
Located on State
Owned Tidelands –
Open Code
Violation
Unpermitted Olive Trees, Access
Gate and other development both
in and outside of access easement –
on State Park Property
556
557
City of Malibu
23 25 Stuan Ranch Rd., .alibu, alifomfa 90265 0
(310) 456-24 9 fax (310) 45 .7 0
March 27, 2015
St Katherine Private Trust LLC
23838 Pacific Coast Hwy #2872
libu, CA 90265-1463

FIRST CLASS MAIL

NOTICE OF VIOLATION
Re: Pacifc Coast Malibu APN 4473-017-D25 - Una roved and Un -nniHed Deck and retaining wall on the Bluff.

Dear Property ONner:

This letter serves to inform you that the City of Malibu has an open code enforcement case regarding unapproved construction for the property referenced above.

On March 30, 2015 City of Malibu staff conducted a inspection of the property and verified the unpermitted construction did In fact take place. A search of City records by staff indicates that no approvals and/or permits for this construction have been issued by the City of Malibu. A Stop Work Order was issued.

Please be advised that development and/or construction without approv Is and/or permits is a Violatlon of Malibu MunlclpaJ Code Chapter 15.04 and Malibu Municipal Code SectJon

17.04.030, and as such may be prosecuted as a misdemeanor. In an effort to correct the violation(s) you are directed to submit an application to the City's Planning and Building Safety Departments obtaining all necessary pennilS lo bring lhe property into complianca wilh stale and local laws. Faflure to oomplete this directive and contact me within fourteen (10) days or by Arpil 10, 2015, may result in further enforcement action.

In addition, a Notice of Intent lo Record a Notice of Violation is attached. This Notice of Intent gives you the required 45 days Notice that the Cily of Malibu will file a Notice of Violation against tiUe to your property with respect to the Building and/or Municipal Code violations that exist on your property. Please take notice that recordation of a Notice of Vlolation can affect title to your property and may prevent or Interfere with your ability to sell or refinance this property. Once the Notice of Violation has been recorded, it will be released upon oorrection of the violations payment of administrative fees, and payment of a $16 filing fee.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE FOLLOWING VIOLATION( ,; OF THE MALIBU MUNICIPAL C00E HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED ON :

THER~ROPERIV. ~ . :
~-:ALLWO~fco1NGcooe SECTION 10- .j
6 PERMITS REQUIRED :
'- Malibu Building Code Section 106.1 , 106.4.1
e,...Building Plumbing □ Electrical
□ Mechanical □ Grading
D Malibu Building Code Chapter 99
SUBSTANDARD BUILDING /CONDITIONS/PROPERl
Malibu Plumbing Code Section 303.0

DISPOSAL OF LIQUID WASTE
Malibu Zoning Code Section 17 .62.020
DEVELOPMENT WITHOUT PERMITS OR APPROVAl
---------~ 0. ~ !-_~ ~ -------(! -~ ---D. L,JI.. --------- __ --~Jti!fv l'(Uif"t-~ ____ --•~-·"'' c.. --- __ -- - --.. - • ---------------------------- -------------------------- . ______ ( ~~ -~--::_ ~ ---·----P-e:C(:~-~ ------------ 558
559
560
561
562
From: ronald jenny
To: Didier Murillo; Tyler Eaton; malibu planning; Planning Commission Cc: Don Schmitz; Chris Deleau; Jane Jenny; Scott Hoeft; Munaim AK Subject: Re: In response to Tammy Mackey"s letter to the planning commission Date: Friday, February 13, 2026 6:00:29 PM
Ron Jenny
Dear Planning Commission, I hope this finds you well. I realized I originally sent my letter to the wrong address. My apologies for the mix-up. I’m forwarding it here to ensure it reaches you properly. Thank you for your understanding On Feb 14, 2026, at 1:52 PM, Ronald Jenny wrote:

Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
My name is Ronald Jenny, and I am writing on behalf of my wife Jane and myself in response to Tammy Mackey’s recent letter concerning fire access on our shared 10-property easement.

First and foremost, our intent is simple and heartfelt: to improve safety for everyone who uses this easement. To that end, we are voluntarily funding and installing a fire department turnaround on our property at our own expense.

We believe this improvement will provide clearer, safer access for emergency vehicles and reduce the very real risk of blocked access or vehicles getting stuck.

During the 2018 Woolsey Fire, Mark Mackey observed that the fire department likely did not proceed down the driveway because there was no turnaround.

Had such a turnaround existed then, it is likely the fire crews could have accessed the easement more easily and may have prevented the tragic loss of two homes on our road. For the safety of our community, we feel strongly that preventing a repeat of that outcome is paramount.
563
We have sought and received support letters from the neighbors who currently live on the easement; regrettably, the Mackeys are the only household that has not joined in support. While Tammy Mackey indicated the proposed turnaround will not help our neighborhood, our neighbors and we believe this practical measure will improve emergency access and reduce risk for all.

Jane and I have lived in Malibu for more than 50 years. We love this community and wish to remain here peacefully and safely for the rest of our lives. Our decision to build a more accessible home is driven by that desire and by our commitment to contributing to the safety and well-being of our neighbors.

We respectfully ask the Commission to consider this safety improvement favorably. Thank you for your time and for your dedication to protecting our community.

Sincerely, Ronald and Jane Jenny
564

OPPOSITION TO
CDP NO. 23-034 AND MM NO. 25-009
1 Marco Ornelas Lopez, attorney for Mark and Tamara Mackey, Unknowingly Devolving, LLC Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside, LLP
565

THE PROJECT MUST UNDERGO

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
2 566

THE PROJECT

CIRCUMVENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL
REVIEW
The City’s reliance on environmental review
exemption fails for two independent reasons:
1) The CEQA Class 3 Exemption does not
apply.
2) The Local Coastal Program (LCP)
independently requires CEQA review.
3 Resolution No. 26-10
567
SE I lON ~- En irunmenlal R , i ~ . .

Pi.l.rSuanl to lhe m.nhoril. WJ.d crite:cia I!Oliitained in the California En inmm nta:1 Qu.alit A1:t t CEQA ., I.he Ptanning Conmtti ·ion has arui.lY2ed lhe prup00ed prujei:,t. The Pl ruilirtg Commission rm.100 t.hat tlti pni ec.t is listed an·ion•• tne classes of prnj '--ts lhat ha. •e bee..11 d.elenni:ned 1101 10 ha e a si1rtti ficant .a:d ers.e e.ff~-t on the en. •ironmeot Therefore the pro· eci. is cate roricall , rnp,t from lhe pru isiom,uf CEQA purSUarnt lo Sei::tiom l5303(a end (e)- N Consut1ct1m1. The Planning Commj siion has rurthei: det rmined that nooe uf lhe :si. e cep1iom to the us ol' a , att: ·•o:rii::al excrnptio:n apply 1.0 Ibis project CEQA Guidelines Section a. 5300.2 :.

CULTURAL

RESOURCES

EXIST ON SITE
• November 3, 2025, Staff Report:
• “Subsistence shell and stone tools” discovered.
• City Archaeology Review Sheet:
• “Potential cultural resources are located on the project site.” • City required:
• Archaeological monitoring.
• Subsurface testing.
• Expanded Phase I.
4 568
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 P-Otential cultural esources are located on the r.roject site.
fI o mitigate potential impacts on unknown arcnaeological 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.

EXPERT EVIDENCE OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Dr. Chester King (former City archaeologist):

Project expected to cause “substantial damage.”
Chumash Elder David P. Dominguez:

Project will cause “extreme damage.”
5 569

SIGNIFICANCE OF EXPERT
OPINION CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(5):

Expert opinion supported by facts =
substantial evidence.

When experts disagree, CEQA
requires an EIR.
6 570
Finding that expert testim.ony indicated that ther,e would be a sig;nificanf impact upon views and ,even though this was ,oonfradicted ,a'J)ert itiestimony, city was reqllllir,ed fo pr,epare EIR.

Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. l-1. Ci{v of Encinitas, (1994) 29 CaLApp-4th 1597, 1607
"\V.h.ere such expert opinions clash, a:n EIR should. be done." Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928

HOTBED OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
• Neighbor to the east has found cultural resources near Project site • Property upslope contains cultural resources, including human remains 7 571
"Statements of a:rea residents w h.o are not enviro:nnie:nfal experts may ql!11alify as substantial ,evidence if tll1ey are based. on relevant personal observations or involve 'u.outechnicaJ' issues." Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 583 • Applicant to secure a contract with a qualified archaeologist and train all staff on discovery protocols before any earthmoving begins. • An archaeologist must oversee all ground disturbances until cleared and submit a final compliance report upon completion.
• If artifacts or remains are found, stop work immediately for expert evaluation and mandatory notification of authorities.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL NO. 12-17 REQUIRE:
8 RESOLUTION NO. 26-10 INCLUDES

MITIGATION MEASURES
572
CEQA
9 Why does that matter?
The project relies on a Class 3
“categorical exemption” from
CEQA.

But you cannot use projectrelated mitigation measures to eliminate potential impacts and
obtain a categorical exemption.

Yet that’s what the City does
here.
573
"An agency may not evade CEQA by aeopting mitiga1tion
measures :sunp~ to quatify a proj,ect fo:r a ,categorical exemption." Szoiflower Alliance. . Department o/Conservation (2024) 105 Cail.App.5th 771, 789.I
"l.fitigatioo measures may support a neg;ative dedar:dion bot not a cat.egorical eXJemption. '' Salmon Protection & Watershed ]\letwork . County of .!.~arin (2004) 125 Cail.App.4th 1098, 1102.

UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES

EXCEPTION
Under CEQA Guidelines § 15300.2(c):
• A categorical exemption cannot apply where:
• There is a reasonable possibility of significant effect due to unusual circumstances.
10 574

THIS PROJECT IS UNUSUAL
Unlike typical Class 3 homes:
• Located in a sacred Chumash area.
• Tribal artifacts already identified.
• Requires 2,958 cubic yards of grading.
• Requires a 37% front yard setback reduction.
11 Total Grading Yardage Verification
Certificate
575
Exempt Nan- Remedial Total
R&R Understruct11re Safety I Exempt
Out i1!14..2'CU. YD. 3G$.4 CULYD. 0.3'CU.YD. 97.1 CU.YD. OCU.YD. 164B CU.YD.

Fill 1184.2 CU. YD. 0.1 CU.VD. 70.1 CU.YD. 66.2 CU.YD. OCU,YD, 1310.6 CU.YD.

Tota1 2368.4 CU ID. 368.6 CU.VD. 70.A CU.YD. 153.3 DU. YD. OCU.YD, 295!1.8 CU.VD. lmcmt ~~00.'tO.

Export 368.3 CU.VD. 4011 CU.YD. :!137A CU.YD.

REASONABLE POSSIBILITY OF

SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
• Excavation removes 2–3 feet of soil.
• Utility trenches and septic excavation.
• Cultural resources lie at or near surface.
• Expert evidence confirms risk of burial disturbance.
12 576

THE LCP INDEPENDENTLY REQUIRES

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Local Coastal Program (LIP § 11.5(F)):
13 Shall is mandatory
577
F. If on the basis of the Phase I I ventory described above~ one or more significant cultural resources is found~ a Phase I lnv,entory may be required to include:

1. An ,evaluation of limited shovel test pirs to determine whether a subsurface deposit is present and a negative dee ar:ation shall be prepared;

2. R oommendations for Phase II. Evaluations. and a negative dedarafon~ mitigated negat1iv,e declaration> focius,ed environmental impact r port or an ,environmental impact report shall b prepar,ed; or

3. Manito ing p ograms pursuant to Section 11.3 (F)(4)(b) of the Mallibu LIP and a mitigated negativ declaration shall be pre par,ed..

THE EXACT LCP TRIGGER

OCCURRED
Here:
• Phase I identified cultural resources.
• City required extended Phase I.
• Subsurface testing performed.
• Monitoring imposed.
• Mitigation imposed.

The LCP directive was triggered.
14 578

CODE VIOLATIONS
The Applicant has performed
unpermitted development.

Applicant admits:
“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.”
(Letter to City, May 12, 2023.)
Code Violation No. 23-047
15 579

RECORD OF UNPERMITTED WORK
16 The Staff Report acknowledges unpermitted development of the bluff; the approval does nothing to directly resolve the violations.
( February 17, 2026 Staff Report: Page 4)
580
St aff Response: Following the Woolsey Fiire, much of th e vegetation on the property burned.

The loss of veget ation covering the property from the fire resulted in conditions making the bluff susceptible to erosion. The owner sought t o protect the"r property and prevent erosion.

Prior to installing erosion cont rol! measures,. the owner inquired with the City to verify if perm its were needed to implement the erosion cont rol measures .. In oonsultation with tne Bui llding Safet y Division, t he Public Works Department advised the owner that t emporary erosion control measures oould be placed on the property to prevent further erosion. Temporary measure installed incl uded sandbags, j ute netting, straw waddles and silt fencing oriented in a manner to protect the bluff. The owner has also confirmed that the trees in referen ce exist ed prior to th fire and were not replant ed. Staff review ed historical aerial photographs from several sources but was unable t o confirm the origins of these trees.

CONCLUSION
17 The project is not exempt from environmental review.

This project violates substantive safeguards in the LIP.

This is a property with a history of code violations,
including new violations not considered by this application.

This Commission should not reward this applicant or this project with a CDP or minor modification.
581
QUESTIONS?
18 582
From: Leticia Aloi
To: Planning Commission
Cc:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully,
Leticia Aloi
Lived in Malibu 26__ years
583
•
•
From:

To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Hello,
Tammy Mackey
Raneika Brooks
Property at 33008 PCH
Thursday, August 28, 2025 10:32:17 AM
IMG 0308.mp4
IMG 0307.mp4
May name is Tarmny Mackey, I
Live at-Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA 90265. Sto1y pools went up in front of my house I� deviating our view. I am sending photos and video in two separate emails due to size.

Please advise what I can do about this. I thought I had upstairs view protection also.

I appreciate your input and help
Thank you,
Tarmny Mackey
584
585
586
587
588

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001-2801
VOICE (805) 585-1800
October 3, 2025
City of Malibu
Attn: Raneika Brooks, Principal Planner
Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Dear Ms. Brooks and Ms. Bundy,
We have reviewed the staff reports for the coastal development permits that will be considered by the City of Malibu Planning Commission on October 6, 2025 and would like to offer the following comment regarding the following project:

Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 (33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Bluff Top 1 LLC) The subject permit application includes the construction of a new two-story, 18-foot high, 4,856 square foot single family residence, 791 square foot attached garage, 824 square foot secondstory unit, landscaping, hardscape, grading, fire department turnaround, vehicular access gate, and onsite wastewater treatment system at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

Malibu Land Use Plan (LUP) Policy 4.27 and Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 10.4(D) require that new development on a blufftop be set back from the bluff edge at a sufficient distance to ensure that it will not be endangered or threatened by erosion or slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure, and in no case be less than 100 feet. A reduced setback of no less than 50 feet may be implemented only if one of the bluff stability criteria set forth in Section 10.4(D)(1) or (2) can be met with a setback that is less than 100 feet but no less than 50 feet.

In the case of the subject CDP, the City’s staff report states that the proposed development will provide a 50 foot bluff setback. However, staff report findings do not include details or analysis to demonstrate that the site meets the requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D) for reducing the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet based on site-specific evidence regarding the factor of safety and bluff retreat rate. Because the findings do not address the site-specific evidence, it is not clear if the project is consistent with the requirements of LUP Policy 4.27 and LIP Section 10.4. Further, it is unclear whether the effects of sea level rise were adequately considered in the bluff retreat analysis for the project based on the limited information in the City’s staff report. With sea level rise, waves would be expected to strike the bluff toe more frequently and with greater force, driving increased rates of bluff erosion above those observed historically. In particular, if wave attack more frequently reaches the marine terrace deposits above the lower bedrock layer, bluff erosion and retreat could accelerate significantly. 589
2 To ensure consistency with the relevant policies and provisions of the LCP, we recommend that the City include a more detailed discussion of the site-specific analysis required by the LCP for a reduction in the 100-foot bluff setback standard in the subject staff report findings.

Our comment letter of May 23, 2019, regarding site-specific analysis required by the LCP for any reductions in the 100 foot bluff setback standard in the staff report findings for blufftop projects is also attached.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. Please feel free to contact me if you have questions.

Sincerely,
Gabriella Gough
Coastal Program Analyst
590
591
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 4189 square foot single-family residence at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, known as the Jenny Residence.

The owner, Mr. Jenny, has though fully coordinated the siting of the home to preserve views of the ocean from the street and to ensure that second-floor vi ews-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 , /
I
Aya hlusl:li ll)IGeJachew
592
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 positively 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 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
593
594
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
595
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..

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
596
1111
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:
597
“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 598
599
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
33008 PCH Archaeology
Concerns
600
Map and Table of
Auger Borings from
Boxt report
601
T.9.bfe l:. Wc1gh·t Il~,1!rll!m.tion. of SulU .ten.ec dl by Auger Ronn Dept (gm) Auger Nlo,. level
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 s 9 10
1 0.5 3.9
2 1.4 3.9 5 3.5 1.5 1.4 3 1.4 0.01 0.2
3 1.7 0.4 1.4 2 1.9
4 1.4 1.9 3,A 9.6 .3.2 1.4 2.7 4 3.9
5 7
6, 1.1 6.5 2.3 "1 .3 0.9 0.1
7 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.5
8 0.1 1 .. 1 2.7 2.7 2.6 1.2 0.9
9 1.2 1.9 11.4 1.1 0.1 0.7
10 0.3 0.2 0 .. 1 0.4 1.5 0.8
11 0, 1 1.3 2.2 4.7 2.5 2.2 0.9 - 12 1.2 1.4 4.9 2.9 0.4 0.2 1,3 , 2.3 0.5 0.7
14 0,91 2.1
15, - - - 16, 0.2 0.1 2 0.4 - 1- 9~ - 17 1.3 0.5 1,3
1,8 0.5 0.4
19 0.8 0.5
20 1.4 1.7 0.3 0.1 OA 0.1

2.1 0.2 ,...
22 0.9
23 0.4 0.3 -s
■-

2.4\ 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.1 .....
.2S 0.3, -r'
26, 0.6 0,4 1 - 27 0,6 ,Q
28 ,en
29 0.7 0, 5, ·L,.,
.... 30 ,n
- 31 ,a.,
32 -J
T,otalAmount ofS'hcllCollected : 166+11 gram::;
33004 PCH
Auger Sample
In 2000 Gary Stickel conducted a
study at this parcel that involved
excavation of 14 30 cm diameter test
pits for a project at this parcel. Two
fragments of a human skull were
recovered in the 20-30 cm level of
one of the excavations and a distal
end of a human humerous was found
was found in the 0-10 cm level of
another excavation. The bones were
interpreted as indicating the
presence of burials
602
Residue w R 1,~Jdu wt: Residue wt R:et~'ldu •• wt
Al.Igel' 1 Sample" 2m sh 4 1:sh1 8 sh ·116 m h
0-2.4 s S1.02 S2.8S 4 6.!B 59.414

2.4-40 3,.3, 12L19 35.78 25.81 41.:$6
40-56 3,,8 27.51 4 2.32 50 .2'9 68.97
56-66 3,.2 1

2.4-40 O.S1
6 40-56 0.18
56-66 0.09
66-7'6
76-88 0.04
16 mesliii
Al.Igel' 1 Mytiflls. Saptrf'iBr Bam1o1e Ttllela? Bone Te,.gulai funebralls 0-2.4 2.1 0.02 0.01 0.'13 0.07 1•

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.
612
::( 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 613
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 614
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 615
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 616
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. 617
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. 618
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.”
619
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. 620
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
621
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
622
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.
623
::{ 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:

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. 624
::( 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

Page 2 ends

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. 625
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

Page 3 ends

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:
626
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

Page 4 ends

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:
627
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

Page 5 ends

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 628
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

Page 6 ends

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.
629
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

Page 7 ends

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. 630
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
November 25, 2025

Page 8 ends

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
631

EXHIBIT A
632
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. 633
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
634
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

635
33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

FLORISTIC COMPOSITION OF BLUFF

PHOTO DOCUMENTATION
October 20, 2025
636
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. 637
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. 638
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. 639

EXHIBIT B
640
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 641
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
642
5737953.1
Jackson D. McNeill
D: (310) 746-4424
[email protected]
Ref: 15289-0001
October 15, 2025

VIA E-MAIL
Kellan Martz, Deputy City Attorney
c/o Best Best & Krieger LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: [email protected]
Raneika Brooks, Principal Planner
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Re: City Must Continue Hearing on CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Mod.

No. 25-009 Due to Incomplete Application
Address: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California Meeting: October 20, 2025
Item #: 5A
Dear Kellan and Raneika:

Our firm represents Unkowningly 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 submitted an application for 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”) at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (the “Property”). The Application is presently scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 20, 2025.

As discussed below, the hearing must be continued—or, alternatively, the Application denied—because the Application remains legally incomplete. Specifically, the Applicant failed to consult with the State Lands Commission as required by the City’s Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”), and the LIP expressly states that this failure renders the Application incomplete. In addition, because our Clients and other property owners along the private easement road hold property interests in the portion of the easement affected by the proposed development, the LIP requires the Applicant to invite these owners to join as co-applicants. The Applicant has made no such effort.
643
~ ( 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 Mr. Martz and Ms. Brooks
October 15, 2025

Page 2 ends

5737953.1
I. The Application Remains Incomplete and the LIP Precludes a Hearing Because 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 Site 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 an excerpt from this incomplete letter as Exhibit A.

As such, the LIP requires 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).) Critically: “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. [emphasis added]; 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.”].) The Applicant has not provided this required written evidence, and neither the Staff Report nor any attachments reference or include such documentation. In fact, staff records personnel Jason Ernst indicated by email on October 14, 2025, that “[r]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 B. In conversations with staff, staff also indicated that the former planning director believed that such a consultation was not required because the Project did not impact state tidelands.

The LIP, however, does not give the planning director or any other City personnel discretion to avoid the consultation requirement, which states in black and white that applicants “shall” submit written evidence of a determination (LIP § 10.5(C), emphasis added) and that, without such determination, the Application “shall be determined to be incomplete.” (LIP § 13.6.2, emphasis added) In other words, respectfully, City staff unlawfully substituted its own judgment for that of the State Lands Commission.

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.
644
Mr. Martz and Ms. Brooks
October 15, 2025

Page 3 ends

5737953.1
II. The Applicant and City Failed to Invite Parties with Property Interests to Join as CoApplicant 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 Coastal Commission also requires developers to invite interests holders to join an application as co-applicants. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13053.5.) To provide just one example, in CDP 4-12-026, the applicant proposed grading and paving in an area containing an access easement. (See Staff Report, CDP 4-12-026, May 23, 2013, p. 19 [“A portion of the proposed driveway is located within an existing access easement on the adjoining parcel to the west.”].) Citing the above regulations, the Commission made sure that the holder of the easement was invited to join as a co-applicant. (Id. [“A letter was sent by staff … inviting this property owner (Michael and Renee Taylor), 29204 Heathercliff Road, Malibu, CA 90265) to join this application as a co-applicant if they so choose (Exhibit 9).”].) Here, the Property is subject to an easement road that connects several properties along the easement road to Pacific Coast Highway. This is shown on the Project plans. (See Plans, Sheet T2.1 [Survey].) The following depiction, prepared by Client’s title company, Chicago Title, and marked up by our firm, shows the area of the easement road:
645
LI
9 OR
Subject Property .......

I
/
I
I
I
Mr. Martz and Ms. Brooks
October 15, 2025

Page 4 ends

5737953.1
Similarly, the grant deed for the Property, attached as Exhibit C, reflects this easement.

The easement deed, attached as Exhibit D, also memorializes this easement.

EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES, TO BE USED IN COMMON WITH OTHERS….” (Exh. C, p. 6.) 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….”].) Notably, the Project involves the creation of a fire turnaround in this area.

In light of this issue, staff acknowledged in its last incomplete letter, dated February 10, 2025 (an excerpt of which is attached as Exhibit E), 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.”
Nevertheless, 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 commission. Because the City and Applicant failed to invite interest holders to join as coapplicants, the application was, at best, incomplete and cannot be acted upon now. Accordingly, the hearing must be continued or, alternatively, denied. (See, e.g., LIP §§ 13.10 [providing notice and hearing procedures for a “complete application”], 13.6.1(B) [Planning Department cannot take action on an application until it is determined to be complete].) Please contact me with any questions.

Very truly yours,
JACKSON D. McNEILL
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
646
Mr. Martz and Ms. Brooks
October 15, 2025

Page 5 ends

5737953.1
cc: Trevor Rusin ([email protected])
647

EXHIBIT A
648
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org September 1, 2023
Schmitz and Associates, Inc.

ATTN: Arfakhashad Munaim
28118 Agoura Road, Suite 200
Agoura Hills, CA 91301 Sent via email: [email protected] Reference: COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (CDP) No. 23-034
CODE VIOLATION NO. 23-047
33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
An application for a new two-story single-family residence, onsite wastewater treatment system, landscaping, grading, and associated development including the abatement of a code violation related to unpermitted fencing, landscaping, etc.

Dear Mr. Munaim:

On May 17, 2023, the application listed above was submitted to the City of Malibu’s Planning Department for processing. The subject property is located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (APN 4473-017-009) and is zoned Rural Residential – Two Acres (RR-2). The subject property is within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC) as depicted on the Post – Local Coastal Program Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map of the City of Malibu.

Our Planning Department Staff has completed an initial review of the application and determined on September 1, 2023, that the application submitted was INCOMPLETE and will require further information. To continue processing the application, please address the following items.

1. Staff must visit the property to photograph and document existing site conditions. Please contact me at (310) 456-2489, extension 276, or [email protected] to schedule a site visit.

2. Due to the fact the project abuts the ocean per LIP Section 10.5(C) a Determination from the California State Lands Commission is required. Please contact Mr. Drew Simpkin at (916) 574-2275 or at [email protected] for submittal requirements or review status. Please note that this process takes a substantial amount of time and should be started if it hasn’t been already.

3. Please provide information related to the location of the nearest public beach access point (s), what type of access exists, and whether the access is open to the public.

4. Please confirm if improvements to the access easement are proposed.

Zoning Conformance

5. Based on the information provided, the project appears to exceed the following zoning requirements:
649

EXHIBIT B
650
1 Anna Feng
To: Jackson D. McNeill
Subject: RE: Re: 33008 PCH
From: Jason Ernst <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2025 11:40 AM
To: Jackson D. McNeill <[email protected]>
Cc: Kenneth A. Ehrlich <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Re: 33008 PCH
---EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe--- There was a note in the database stating that a state land’s letter is not required for this project.

Sincerely,
Jason Ernst
Senior OƯice Assistant | Community Development Department OƯice: (310) 456-2489 ext.284 | Mobile: (424) 422-2485
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265

651

EXHIBIT C
652
653
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Equity Title Company
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL To
Bluff Top 1 LLC
33010 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA. 90265
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY:

Title Order No.: 3910121-11401 Escrow No.: 020980
AP#: 4473-017-009 GRANT DEED

THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S)
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $8,470.00
[X] computed on full value of property conveyed, or
[ ] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. [ ] Unincorporated area [X] City of Malibu AND
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Richard L. Hudspeth, a Married Man as to an undivided 50% interest and Beverly Ann Hudspeth, a Married Woman.as to an undivided 50% interest as Tenants in Common hereby GRANT(s) to:

Bluff Top 1 LLC, a California limited liability company the real property in the City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND MADE A PART HEREOF Also Known as: Vacant land - 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265 Dated November 19, 2021
Richard L. Hudspeth=

THIS DOCUMENT IS BEING SIGNED IN COUNTERPART
Beverly Ann Hudspeth
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 altached, and not the truthfulness, accura or validit of that document. 654
GOVERNMENT CODE 27361.7
I certify under penalty of perjury that the Notary Seal on the document to which this Statement is attached reads as follows:

NAME OF THE
NOTARY: ----------------------------

DATE COMMISSION
EXPIRES: ---- COUNTY WHERE BOND IS
FILED:

COMMISSION
NUMBER: VENDOR#: ---------- -----------
I certify under penalty of pe,j ury and the laws of the Stale of California that the illegible portion of this document to which this statement is attached reads as follows:
__ 5H12\WI.LABO Y£~· ______________ _

PLACE OF
EXECUTION: ----~C=H=cn=d=al=e~C=A~· ___ DATE: /;;i_./ ;;tg I :::>-n, I ~E=q=u=ity~/~P~ro~g=r=es=s=iv~e~c=ri=tl=e~,~R=e=c=o=rd=i=ng~C=le=r=k~~· I ~
=as agent
Adrinch Zargarian
Signature
655
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

Equity Title Company
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL To
Bluff Top 1 LLC
33010 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA. 90265
THIS SPACE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY:

Title Order No.: 3910121-11401 Escrow No.: 020980
AP#: 4473-017-009 GRANT DEED

THE UNDERSIGNED GRANTOR(S) DECLARE(S)
DOCUMENTARY TRANSFER TAX is $
[X] computed on full value of property conveyed, or
[ ] computed on full value less value of liens or encumbrances remaining at time of sale. [ ] Unincorporated area [X] City of Malibu AND
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Richard L. Hudspeth, a Married Man as to an undivided 50% interest and Beverly Ann Hudspeth, a Married Woman.as to an undivided 50% interest as Tenants in Common hereby GRANT(s) to:

Bluff Top 1 LLC, a California limited liability company the real property in the City of Malibu, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described as:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A" AND MADE A PART HEREOF Also Known as: Vacant land - 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265 Dated November 19, 2021 THIS DOCUMENT IS BEING SIGNED IN COUNTERPART ~ 'l,- Richard L. Hudspeth
~Hudspeth

13.,___.., LL /J->nt ~
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies o e..ll
only
e.e.
the
l'--1.
identity
1<m,....
of the
--1-h.t.o\
individual
s
who
p e-+-1---,
signed the
~
document to
which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness accurac . or validi of that document._,,..,.....,.

COUNTY
STATE
On rJun,,,l,,J;r
OF
OF_,/J.,c,m~-,,,,,4,_,,,-'---------------

CALIFORNIA
2 frtl. :J.PN before me, Ji;JVl91t(N/v tGR'-'bf~
~
A Notary Public personally
appeared fft,vtr/'jtl1f?/1 llttolff'bffl _,.../- ' who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person'W whose name(s)."islaf<;l subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that'he/she/lhey executed the same in'hi,;/herilh<:ji;.aillhorized capacity(ies), and that by'hil;/her/!h(lir signaturets) on the instrument the person(,il,. or the entity upon behalf ;Jf,wnich the personW acted, executed the instrument.

I certify under PENAL TY OF PERJURY undeJ,-tlie laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is !me and correct. /
WITNESS my hand and official seal. / C:;. J , JONATHAN GOUNDAR // Jl.J-- c-¾!), Notary Public • California / i11'M\JV.,. Amador County ~ . ...~~ ~ . ./"'._ , .~/.l(\~ ~ Commission# 2310454 Signature ~,,,-?:- (Seal) f\ •'' My Comm, Expires Oct 15 1023 /~ ? '
MAIL TAX ~EMENTS TO PARTY SHOWN BELOW; IF NO PARTY SHOWN, MAIL AS SHOWN ABOVE:
656

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 AMADOR
on DECEMBER 23RD, 2021 before me, JONATHAN GOUNDAR, NOTARY PUBLIC (insert name and title of the officer)
personally appeared _B_E_V_E_R_L Y_A_N_N_H_U_D_S_P_ET_H_--_-_--_--_--_-_--_--_--_-_--_--~------------_---_--_--_--_--_--_--_~-- who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person'(aj whose name{aj_ is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/lhey executed the same in fiis/her/the.ir authorized capacity(ies), and that by A'is/herltheir signalure'(s) on the instrument the person~ or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s.1 acted, executed the instrument.

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

WITNESS my hand and official seal.
(Seal)
eeeaeereE

JONATHAN GOUNDAR
Notary Public - California
Amador County J
Commission# 2310454 .....
'iJ Comm. Expires Oct 25, 2023
657
EXHIBIT "A"
PARCEL 1:

ORDER NO. 3910121-11401

THAT PORTION OF THE RANCHO TOPANGA MALIBU SEQUIT, IN THE CITY OF MALIBU, COUNTY OF

LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS CONFIRMED TO MATTHEW KELLER BY PATENT RECORDED IN BOOK 1, PAGE 407, ET SEQ, OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:

BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF THE 80 FOOT STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM T. R. CADWALADER, TRUSTEE, TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, RECORDED IN BOOK 15228 PAGE 342, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 80' 45' 30" WEST 1107.62 FEET FROM A POINT BEARING SOUTH 9" 14' 30" WEST 40 FEET FROM ENGINEER'S CENTER LINE STATION 269 PLUS 88.44 AT THE EASTERLY EXTREMITY OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE IN THE CENTER LINE OF SAID 80 FOOT STRIP OF LAND DESCRIBED IN SAID DEED AS SOUTH 80" 45' 30" EAST 7702.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 80° 45' 30" WEST 150.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27' 34' 30" WEST TO THE ORDINARY HIGH TIDE OF THE PACIFIC OCEAN; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID TIDE LINE TO A LINE BEARING SOUTH 27° 34' 30" WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 27° 34' 30" EAST TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.

EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID LAND LYING NORTH OF A LINE BEARING NORTH 72° 43' 51" WEST 144.71 FEET FROM A POINT IN THE SOUTHEAST LINE OF SAID LAND DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 27° 34' 30" WEST 520.53 FEET FROM THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND TO A POINT IN THE NORTHWEST LINE OF SAID LAND DISTANT THEREON SOUTH 27° 34' 30" WEST 499.24 FEET FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LAND.

EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL MINERALS, OIL, PETROLEUM, ASP HAL TUM, GAS, COAL AND OTHER

HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES CONTAINED IN, ON, WITHIN AND UNDER SAID LAND, BUT WITHOUT

THE RIGHT OF ENTRY, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM MARBLEHEAD LAND COMPANY, A CORPORATION RECORDED ON NOVEMBER 13, 1942 IN BOOK 19637 PAGE 347, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY.

PARCEL 2:

AN EASEMENT FOR ROAD AND UTILITY PURPOSES, TO BE USED IN COMMON WITH OTHERS,

OVER THAT PORTION OF RANCHO TOPANGA MALIBU SEQUIT, IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS CONFIRMED TO MATTHEW KELLER BY PATENT RECORDED IN BOOK 1 PAGE 407, ET SEQ, OF PATENTS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, INCLUDED IN THAT CERTAIN BASEMENT DEED, EXECUTED BY EDWARD C. CAZIER ET AL., RECORDED MARCH 18, 1957 AS INSTRUMENT NO, 4281, IN BOOK 53956 PAGE 173, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
• .. END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION*""
658
Notary fubl1o, . 1n _and : tor aaic1 C0W1ty ail4 st•t•, -pere<>AAlly _ appeaNd o. --o. -JA~•~ -- jui~:,:~~ . BA;IESS, :~9iiri to me :~o -. be the pen,one .-who•e n~~a ~:1.1e -,ubacribed tot"- with~ instrwnent and ·aoknowl~dged that they -oxecuted tbe ·aa.ne. w ITNKSS rq hand. ~d oftioial 'seal .•
"' ! , ;~: _: ::~ .
···r ; ·_: ~ -• - . . : . ~-
· • ..... ,, .. ,., ;:;:;i2~'n~g-fa:1;1v:r~r:J;'
~;·\~· ~¼~~~ .. i:•r,. ·-
• .. ·; :(-~_: ·•· ' .
-•~ , , .. . -. DOCUMENT No , , •· • . '". ~ . ,., . . , t · .. --. - -... , .. , , . ,.,. · ,, _, , . · - · ·--, ... ,,,_.,, ,w ,
~:'·~: -~-~..-;( __ . ~ ~~?t,:·?r:·~9~~~-i~?~-<~-~ i~\ ll~r,:~~:;~b -~//Li~;~!;/·-:f\f/J_.))::_:· ,.:·-§/~tl~ ••t ',' • •.• - ••• -· .··.: ·: •:, •:-'.,\ ,'-: . • ~ ,,. .•,, l\"· ,'J •.',~ , ,,·_~ : .. t er,i,,,,,,-, .. ·a;·sta.H'. i "'~' '·'· .:·~-' _, ,! ; ·. ,--.-.-.';,'J•,!,

EXHIBIT D
659
660
'.· , ·
.. -....
. . .

E A S E M K N ~ b E E D
The undersigned., . EDWARO C. CAZIER and· RtrrH D. CAZlER. huabanti• 8l'ld wife,; aa Joint tenante, ownera of the p&l'ceia of _· real property in ttie c'ounty -o~ Loa Angeles, State-of Cali!or-. . . . nia, hereinafter referred to .aa "said lande11 , desor1l;>ed .in those oe1•taln grant deeCE from c. o. Bayless and Elma E. Bay .. • leas., husband and w1ro, to E<;twaro • c. caz1er and n-uth ·o. caz1er, husband and wife, ae Joint _tenants, recorded in Book 51643,

Page 389 ends

Melcdile O. Hathaway to Edward Co Cazie1 .. and Ruth D. Cazier, ,husband and. wife, as Joint tenants, recorded in .Book 53216,

Page 13 ends

AMRE ·BUSCH, .. an umiiarriud women., owner of the real property 1n the CoWlty ot toe An&eiea, St•te or ca11rom1a, hereinafter i~rerred to as "aald landa 11 , deacrib-,d in that certai~ grant i •
o-eed from c. c . .Bayloae and .Elma E. Bayless to AII-N Buach, an unmarried .. woman, recorded in L~ok 51643, Page 370 ~-f Official R<!icqrda of said · countJ J. and • • ' .

ELVIN M • • ANDERSON and JUNE B, ANDERSOJf, huab~\d . and: trli.fe~ aa .1oint te~te, oifMra or. the ·,pa."el• ,or real pro~i-t.v 1ti the :
• : .: ._ .. • ..

County of Los Angel••• Sta_te cf dal1tom1a, hefeinaftef re:tet-r~d ;'. : s • . . . . . . ' ·-. . . . . . . . .... . , ··. . . . . .., . . . . · .:. ~.=: ·· •. . :- to -a.a· ''said. landatl, _deso~ibed ·in · tooae . cer-ta,in . grant·. ~,.ci.:_r~m . ' •• G. ·c. Bqless and El~ E. ~ayle•;· to ~:lV1n ~ .. -,·An~ ... -~: ~ _.,\Dift_ ' . ·:· ' :;_:

B~- Andtn,aon, hu•ban4:-.nd··~tf~; ··- ·: Jo~t tenan~~-,-,; ~Q~i'd~~-:-'~ ': ·• ·'.-. ·<;t B~k -51643,· Page .. 392 :of-_-O-tt~ot~-~~~~ .. q~-- ;· ~0~~~• \·aNi,f _ = •• :- '.':'\;; • , • . "!. _J_•·• ,:.. - : ••• -' ·., • • • • :.,~: • ~-~ - ~- . · .\-.-·. . ".'•.: ~ , . ·:: r• . .· . :. . ,, ... • '
.· • •.• ..
: . -:: ~:¾.-:.: : ,~ . '"!"-.·. · .. · . ~ .· . • .,. • . ·•; " . ~ ,·. - . . . - -· • . .., . ,· . • : . .. -: ~. ·. .. . . .. . • "!" •• = . -~>- . :·_ .. ·_ .. :, : '> !_::\\ \:. ·.,~-:'.::,:-~:,f :~~i~
J,\/. ~ •
661
---- . • - .- · • • .
.Crom r,elc;d1le o. Hath&W&f to Elv1n M. Anderson and June B. ·. Ander&on., husband and wife,; . ae Joint tenants~ recorded 1n •.

Book 53216, Page .15 Qf Official Recordi, ot aaid oounty; and LOUIS T. BUSCH and _DORIS M. BUSCH. tiuaband and wJ.te, . . .
ae • Joint tenants, ownet'S of the parcel of real property in - ~. • . the County of Loa Angeles, State of. California; hereinafter rete1·rod to as ''said land.a«, ·deacr1'bed • 1n that certain grant dee;d from o. c. Bayless and lUma E. Bayleaa to Louis T. Buach and Doria M. Busch. husband and wife.as Jo~nt tenants,. re- . . . corded in Book 5i6!:3, Page 378 of Off1o1al Reoorde of sald ·. county; and .
• BEVERLY. HILL', NATION~ .BANK AND 'l'RUS'r COMFANY I • corpora- • t1on, Trustee, and MELODI.LE Cl. _HATHAWAY, a widow, benefioi&t"Y, . . . . under deeds of trust recorded ·neoember '4~ 1956 as Document Noa. 1315., 1316 and 1317, . reQorded 1n Book 53216 Pagea 194, . . . . . . i88, . and 182. re~pectively~ orr101al. Reoorda of Loa ;\µgel•~ county, covering .the pro~t>t.y described 1n·a .«rant deed from aaid beneflo1ary to 6l'f1n M. Anderaon and June B • • Anderaon., . . Noordeo 1n· B()Ok ·53216, Page 15 ot orr1c1a1 Recol'da ot aaid county; and . . - • . . . .

BEVERLY HILLS NATJ:OHAL DAN)( AlfO TRUST COMPANY, a ecu:~PQ;&~ t:l.on, Truatn t, and MEL9DILE a_. HATHAWAY, a tddQw, bene£1ciax,., •• und~~ deed or ti-u1t recorcJecl l)eo·emb.qr: 27. 1956 as Doc~nt : • .••• • No~ · 13ia in · Boo), • 53~16 f~e 351 f -~~~10.1&1 Rec-~ro•~·: c~!.~rJ.,,;g·: • the
.· :.aiJ ,·Jo1Qt.
_: ~~o~: •• J and •.
·, . . . . . . . -. .
. ·, · . . , · . . . · . . .•: .
-.. -, . ~ : ... _
•.· .
• . ~ .• , • • ·.}. ·:
662
BH.VE11LY HILLS NATIONAL DANK AND TRUST COMrAiff / a corpora~ . •
.
tion, T1"Uatee; .-- . . and C. c. BAYLESS and EU'IA E. BAYLESS~ husband • • . . . . • and wife, as Joint tenants, . bene.t1c1a:r1ea, under cleeo of tr•u•t recorded July 5, 1956 as Docw11ent No. 1403 1n Book 51643• fage . . . . . .
376, Official . Reoor-ds. covering the real property deacflbed in a -gt•ant cieed from said ben~f1c1ariea to Amre Husch., :reeorded in Bock 51643 Page _370, Otf1oia1 RecordaJ and
BEVERLY HILLS NA'rIOMAL BAa ·.,AJID TRUS'l' COMPANY, a corpora- . tion, Tru1tee, and C • . O. BAYLJtSS and EU1A E. BAYL~S, husband and wire, ae Joint .tenant&, under deed ot t1"Uat recorded July 5, ·1956 as Document No_. 11.07 in Bock · 51648 Falf;e 74, ort1- c1-.1 Records, covering the real property dc·sc:r1bed in a grtll'lt deed from said ben€!f1c1ar1es to Elvin M. And&1-son arid June B . .

Anderson, huabano and wife, · as Joint tenants, recorded _ 1n Book. 516l~3;. Page 392, Official 'Recc~d•! _and
BF.VfJ~LY HILLS HATJONAL BANK · AND THUST COMPA.HY, ~ -CQJ:>porat1ori, 'fruste~, anaC. C. BAYLl?.SS and El.MAE. BAYLESS. husband and wife, aa joint tenanta, bcnefic1ar1••• Wlder deed ot truat . . . . . . ·recorded July 5. 1956 aa . Dooument. No~ 1409 ·1n BooR 51643 -Page 424, otf'icial R",co:ros~-• oovering • the_ property · deartr1--~ . in . a &nr1t deed from ea1d -- benet1cs1ariea to Edward c. Oa.t:1er· and Rii~h . • D~ Cazier, husband and Wife, · ae JQ1nt tenanta, record'4 · ,111 _Book .·. 51643 Page 389': Off1c1~1 Rec9r-d11; an4.·
• BEVERLY u:i;14,3 ~'l'IONAL - BAJlic . ~ : ~
• TltUST • cOMtA>tt, ·a. 09~r&- • -- . . ;. . : ·. .
. tion~ Truat.e, -~ :·(;. ___ \p •• :,BAY~-;~ ' KW E •• ~r~:~~~biaa~:-:
-,;.\,.·.,
-:!: ~ ~•; ..... -
. ·- : . i.·:- • . - ! . - .:~_ .••
-:--,T.
· ..
. ·.
.·: .. -
• ..
· ' -_.-
663
• ' .-_-;
• a grant deed .from said benefioia1•ies to Louis •r. nu.sch and - . . ·.• ... · Doris M. Buach, husband ar .. d wire, as Jo1nt tenants, r•co.n,e<:} •• iri Book 516~3 rage, 378,. orr101a1 ~ecords;
Foi• the pux'J)o&e . of · creating and establishing easements fo1~ 1,oad and u.til1ty purp.o•e-s, with right of ingress · and . . • egress over, along .,-ad w1<ier the at:r1p of land he1-einat'ter. descr:lbed, aa appurtenant to and fox- the .common ·benertt or all or the said land.a, or portions thereof, . ab<;>ve referred to, DO HEREBY ORAN'r each pa:rt;y her-eto; . to each and every othtn• party hereto ana each of thttlr suooessora :1n the . ownerahip of said lands, 01" ·portions . thie1•e.01\ • easeinento for• the · purposes · aforea•1d ove:r, along and w1der said strip of land to the en(i ' that said easenJents shall be ua•d and enjoyod 1:n colllttlon by · aaid • ownen and their suooesaora end aasigna. ,
The atrip of land ~ver wh1ch •aid eaa,eme1its are hereby • ·granted is deaoribed a~ follows; • . . . - .
• ,.i'hat portion of the Hano.ho Topanga ~libu Sequit,; 1n • th~ Count)' of .. Loa An5ele•, State of Cali.forri.1~, eon- • . firmed . to lllatthe.w Keller by Patent recorded 1n Book 1, Pages LiQ7 ot ileq., or' Patents, in the oft1ce of: the • CQl:,lnty ri,corder ot said oount~, included Within a
• strip of land 20 reei; wide lying l<) ·r,et on eaoh aide • or· the fol lo.ring d••~r1bed . e,enter • l1ne, .·• • • . . . . 664
--~-~- · - -·- ----- ----- ------------
---
. . .
. ..
having a radius of 60 .feet, a J'&dial l1ne _ofoa1<l
curve bear& south ·149o 13' 55'' WeatJ . thenoe southerly a.long said curve-. 71. 57 feet_; th.ence ~angerit to said • ourve • south .27° ·31.p ,3011 Weat 159-32 feet . to the · begin..; ning of a tang&nt curve· oonoave euterly having a ·. •. • l'.'adius of 42. 71 feet; thenoe southerly along aaid o\lrve. . • 28.87 feet to th-. beginn,\.b.g of a reversing curve ' concave . • weste1•ly . ha~iing a r~d1\la or 42. 71 feet; · thence aout}\arly .• alone; said curve . 28.87 reet; thence .tlµlg~nt to J&id ... • cur'Ve South 21° '34' JO" weat 193.90 reetJ thence South • 79<? 34' 30'' ~!est 104.15 feet J • thenoe South 36'1 34' 30•:

West • 4o .34 feet J • ~henott South 66° 34 • 30!l Wea t J<J ~ 15 . feet; thence .North 78° 25' 3011 Weet 94.28 feet to J,he beginning • of a tangent ourve • oonceve -aoutheasterly· having a .radius . . • or · 2s.oc feet J thenoo southwesterly along aaid cui"'Ve • 40. 58 faetJ thenoe tangent to said CUl'Ve South 14° 34' 30" Wuet l+6.8~ feetJ thence south ·28° 34• 3011 Weat 93.14 feet; thence south 9° c;-0• 15" Weut to the ordinary h~gh tide • 11ne of the Pacific Ocean, · .•
. . .

Also, a like e•sement ov&r·that portion of said .Rancho included wi thir.1 a strip of land 20 ~·eet wide lying 10 feet on each side ot' the following described. center line 1 Beginning at the . rio.t•theas~erly teI'minus or the eo,u•ae above tieso 1'.1bed having a bearing and. a l~a_;.gth or South 27° 31.4 t ::-ie" West 159.32 feat) thence Horth 27° 31p 30' 1 East 37 .29 t~et to the beg1Ming or a ta~ent cu1•ve concave .southeaaterly . having a radius of 6o~oo feetj then~e . northeasterly along said ~urve 35.42 feet _t9 the beginning or a tang~nt curve concave no1~thwester•ly· having a radius of 40 teet, a radial line c,f aaid o~r·ve bea1•e ,1orth 28° 36• 19" West j thence ·northeasterly along.· said curve 6. 42 !'~et J the·nco North · 52° 12 • 07'' : East 36 ._48 feet. • · ALSO a like •. eaaeMent over thai • pc, rt ion of aa1d. • HanQho. , • . , • bounded as follows & • On the .. southweat by . the Northeast .. :
line of th~ firat deacribed 20 , toot · etripJ on·. the :a9uth~ • east by the northweat line of the second .deac'ribed : 20 • . ··foot strip and bowided on the .north bJ' a oilrve. oonca~e northerly having a radiue or 30 reet, aa1d curve being
tangent to aaid northeast and ncrtbweat lines~ • • _ . ·_ .. _--._:.>.~ Said 20 foot . atr1pa of lanc1 •to , terminate · in the southerly' . :·.: __ • ...: -.•:; iin& of Pacific .Coast High~ay • 100 teet: wide. ••• • •• .·: . .. . : :<::):/J ALSO a like eaaement. over t~tr portion· ot aa1d _'Rancho, , • - _-, described -.. • tollowe, · • . · -;. • • • . .. :: · , .. , •. ?i'J ' . ' ·~· -., _ -_,' ' ::- :, ' .-.... , :_• .-.-· - . ~-:- ._-_; __ :'.,,:·; Deginnirig at a point . tha{.1.·:'~lat-Nit 5outbJii~ .25•.::/30~: __ ;. -.. . •• _:_-i/j; · •··· lt:!. 1
~;~~rr:: • ~T~":. :.==l~~t1::~:r..;~,~:::-~· • . \fe}:i~ • 28~ • 3~•- 30" • w••~ : ?3-·14 r"~ifth•n~•: s.4'a~t.1;;61°/1,1\ 39t > :=; :_-.,. •·.< . ·:::.-:•;f{ Eut._;1:Jp.09 .fa~_tJ tha~~.:_ $~~tb-. 2~o ,.3,~ • 30.:.-)ft~~~ ·:~ ;-.;~•-.<{' ••. ·_: .;; :·-Sf>© ordinary ·high · ~ide . llm o.t th., fac1t1c ,()CJU~J ;· ,tbenoe-·. _ • .'. -~ • _,;: _ .,:<,. ~: ;-f/Jf'. ·weilte:r11·. alo·ng ·•~id. ~ide·:_l:ilw-:\9 :a.-·.1~e.: .. ~ai,~,;'8o~tb:/ ·::, .• i/. '/_ ::-/t{tf:_ .. .... _. ,. ~ .-~~::,i5t~., we•t ~-~ -~l:i10~ ~ "' ' · ~~--~MifP'-~\_:?o,1':·: ': .... </-:::,~_t:\~'.--,:Jti .. ~,~~ng:. ~t ~~,,-~~~~~ip.f\~j ~· ~_min~ • ~~.b _. ~ < .C?O-~-'?.J~~---.,-:·_:.':C?~j??..1it Rast . to aaid::po1nt:· ot NI~• ·.:. ·_ · :· .• · :-·- ~ :-:- -.-·• .:·. ··,· :·,.'::- .-: ~·i,-,p;,,,-__ ,::,*"; .• :) > i ·. ' ' •·· ; )~<):\.: ><,: {{i:\j},.h:,i!i_jllfBtflfi 665
_the :•bove deacribed-eaaerriijnt, :,rof. 1;oad ~-fl.nQ. • ,_ut1:i1t,<p\l1-poee,i~ .wi"~h ,the \-~gilt or entry the'rfeo~.·;'• . .. ·. . . -•.. DATED'.th1a , ¥iii./ _ day of Marctiii;."f-~ '. 1957~-.. > . Edward c: C ~leI•
• :: c· -~) ,t;-•:.:-•::;~_-:·~~~f_;:
:->':<t?Wltt .. ~:-~:-_ :--:: __ __ -~-//~/(;, -~::-·r~_:.~ ~ · 6 ~ ' " ..
666
··- :-.~_;·_ ..-~
··{ft'[,;i
• ~~~! -'~!1;1~ -: ~T~~Ht~ --. ::- ~B:'.; Tl'~ir. :·o~~:¼Y ~'.~·<· . ,,.,,,.... ... ~'7 . :._ ' ~ - - • •• \\ l3;v.;.;; ..;. • ............... """'""'~;;i;' .a:5i...,;.;.. ·~----;,~<iooi '\"~;; ____ : ·;;.. ·· .. ':._·., _,;:_ _ .;.;; : ... ~A-_-~i ---~ -- ·ut?'?~f. _ c.~r _·--__
.. llY.-., --'---~ ..... ~-- V-..,......,.,,,,..._--_~~J ....................... ~ ............... • 'f-~-s~-iS-~anl>.Trnst·Officer"
• •• ,-~.: ':
~-- -. . • ....,. -. ___ .... -.;
667
....
•.• •'.· .
•• • S'l'AtE·: OF. UALIF.ORN~ , •· 1 ; . .
;co~. CF LOS ANGE~EB , _~-
: • •'
... ·,.:-.,.··.·.
·; ..... -~ ._ ... ..
·~:. A.~DEF~O.N. J'.UHE ,8 •. ~Nµ~ns9,e.;;, .1.9.U~_ T~ BUSOH·.:and DORIS ·11· • • • ···.·,_ ~'.;.:\:7: =:_ ·-•, -;' , , .. ·. ~u~9M~ ,·~b:wn to. me.·,:to b~ tne/ pez;,i~n.aa ;~-- n~~e• .IIN( ;,~b~ :
acribed . to the within 1~trument· and ·acllnowle~e4 t~t t~, . •.• · · · · ...... . ;, .. ~: ..... '.' _- .. . . . •. • e~ecu~~ci -~ ue. :: . - ;: ,: :
... - . , . . .
• • .. ~ · . . ·: .• ': . • , . ,;'.!-. .
. •· . • _.. • • / ( / V, ,-~~ .... :
· . Notary ,:;u l.ic 1n· iUlci fQr<ea111' · ·•. •.
•. · ·.·, .:. <i~u#;t .M.<f·a.~~te • . ' ·•· .
. :.- .. :-:·.-.·-:~ --
·_ .:·'t<r1
.•. • .
. ·_ ~ •
.· . 1. •,,
.. ·_ .. _ .. . -~ .
: : : .... :·;·t .
• • =~:t:Fc~;ro;~J..
•~ ··
.. • • • •
. , ·• . · <;":)
• • on· 1,1,;rch 14th • • 195'7, tietcu:'ii •.' •.; Mo~ P\I.;} '. .··•··:.\.•.•.:;.:.1 ,'..'_.·-·•;.:.'. .•. •.t:·;--.. :_.,!.· / 11; 1:;_~ t~~~#~)~~~~:te• ;~~~•;~i· .··> .. :c·:'U ;• -;_· ~~~/r-, · . . roI\;:ild_-B .. ·~111:l~.- _~·:::-.>~ · . -·~-•.-, ·._._,,-'<·;"· . . . ·
668
. •-- ~ ... ·· ..
. --·
•• I • • •· • •. .-
. . . . -..
· . .
,.
. . ,.., . .
. • ....
·.• •:.
.. '
• .• •.·\• v.· •: i I
.'.-.. ~:, ,;\·/(/:.i}-,., ;,-.::,
' . ,: ~;:·-~ , ··: ..
;
.·.• .·.' ; .• : !. ~ •
. .. :·: ' . · ...
-·.· .'?::• ·::f .. ~~- ·•·. ; : '-.···.:
,·:. .. , .
-..:'-.
·. ,'
'( -~ . ··>·
l • i
- .
-:t, • .•..•• : .";:-·{,.
,{if:'.:\::-> ••
' .
· ' ..
; I•
··•_ .. ·.
:, ..
. .· .{. ':· • '..· ···;. ►

EXHIBIT E
669
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org February 10, 2025
Schmitz and Associates, Inc.

Dear Mr. Munaim:

Our Planning Department Staff has completed a review of the supplemental materials submitted and determined February 10, 2024, that the application submitted remains INCOMPLETE and will require further information.

To continue processing the application, please address the following items.

1. Staff must visit the property to photograph and document existing site conditions. Please contact me at (310) 456-2489, extension 276, or [email protected] to schedule a site visit.

3. Please provide information related to the location of the nearest public beach access point (s), what type of access exists, and whether the access is open to the public.

4. Please confirm if improvements to the access easement are proposed.

Update: 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. Please provide mailing data for the property owners that hold easement rights.
670
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.

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
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 673
-
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 674
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
675
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
676
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.
677
~ -----
@ ________ _
~ ------------
~ -----------------
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
678
679
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: Jackson D. McNeill
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Yolanda Bundy; Raneika Brooks; Trevor Rusin; Kellan Martz; Kenneth A. Ehrlich; Marco A. Ornelas Lopez Subject: Re: October 20, 2025, Planning Commission Agenda Item #5A - 33008 PCH / CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Modification No. 25-009
Date: Friday, October 17, 2025 12:19:31 PM
Attachments: image001.png
2025-10-17 33008 PCH Opposition Letter.pdf
To Whom It May Concern:

Our firm represents Unknowingly Devolving LLC and Mark and Tamara Mackey (collectively, our “Clients”). Our Clients submit the attached letter objecting to the proposed project at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Modification No. 25-009), scheduled as Item #5A on the Planning Commission’s October 20, 2025, agenda. Due to the size of the exhibits, the letter with exhibits may be found at the following link:
https://elkinskalt.sharefile.com/public/share/web-s16c82d33203549c9a5b1178bbd224e2e Please distribute this letter and the above link to Commissioners as soon as possible. Please contact me directly with 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.
680
::( ELIKINS KALT
5740327.1
Jackson D. McNeill
Direct: (310) 746-4424
Cell: (530) 941-8334
[email protected]
Ref: 15289-0001
October 17, 2025
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Re: Objections to CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Modification No. 25-009 Address: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California Meeting: October 20, 2025
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”). Among other things, the Project proposes the maximum-allowed reduction to the coastal bluff setback (from 100 feet to 50 feet), the maximum amount of 2nd story floor area, a near-maximum reduction to the front yard setback (37%), and development in an ESHA buffer area.

The Application cannot be approved as proposed. This opposition is not about minor or technical defects. The Application disregards important substantive and procedural requirements, including ESHA protections, safeguards for archaeological resources, and compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). Nor is this an innocent Applicant: The Property remains subject to an open code-enforcement case (Code Violation No. 23-047) involving multiple violations, and our Clients present evidence of additional, ongoing violations, including the unpermitted construction of a path on the coastal bluff. On this record, the City cannot reward such conduct with a CDP or minor modification.
681
~ ( 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
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 2 ends

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 682
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 3 ends

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. 683
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 4 ends

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 684
Determination
BQU NOARJESOFt.'1,.,.PEO~----
RIP,._RIAN ISTRE~
Applicant's Development Area Calculation
---------------------------.,,. --
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 5 ends

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:
685
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

Page 6 ends

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.
686
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 7 ends

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 687
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

Page 8 ends

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.) 688
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

Page 9 ends

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.) 689
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

Page 10 ends

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.)
690
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

Page 11 ends

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.)
691
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

Page 12 ends

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. 692
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 13 ends

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:
693
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

Page 14 ends

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. 694
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

Page 15 ends

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.) 695
----
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 16 ends

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. 696
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 17 ends

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.
697
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 18 ends

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 698
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 19 ends

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 699
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 20 ends

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.” 700
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 21 ends

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. 701
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 22 ends

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 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…”].)
702
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 23 ends

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 703
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

Page 24 ends

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. 704
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 25 ends

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.
705
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 26 ends

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. 706
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 27 ends

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”].) 707
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 28 ends

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:
708
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 29 ends

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:
709
View of Proposed Residence from 33006 PCH
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 30 ends

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 710
' --.. -.. \\ \ \ ( \._: ________ ,. ' •, ' " \, .. , , ' ,. , .. ,'\_ .\ "~ \ \ ·-. '• . ..... •, 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

Page 31 ends

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:
711
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 32 ends

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, 712
orker uti
City of Malibu
Planning Commission
October 17, 2025

Page 33 ends

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]
713
714
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I am writing to support the Jennys'
proposal to build a small, one-bedroom home with an auxiliary care quarters on their Malibu property. I have known the Jennys for many years--over half a century-and watched as they raised their children in our rommunity.

They purchased this property about
four years ago and have shared with me that it is their final home, where they plan to spend their remaining years. Their proposed residence is modest, thoughtfully designed to meet all height and size restrictions, and will blend hannoniously with the neighborhood.

I firmly believe that the Jennys,
as longstanding Malibu residents, have the right to develop their property in a manner that allows them to age comfortably and securely. I support this project wholeheartedly and believe it will remain in keeping with the community's character.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
~SM_ u}{l;fff~
~tiM/ui
~~qo
715
September 28, 2025
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I wish to express my strong support for Ron and Jane Jenny's proposal to construct a singlebedroom residence with a care quarters on their property in Malibu. I have known the Jennys for over forty years in Malibu, and have seen them consistently and selflessly contribute to our community throughout their long residence here. My husband and I have watched them raise their beautiful four children here, with deep connections and support of our community.

The Jennys purchased the land in question about four years ago, always with the expressed intention that this will be their final residence. Their plan is extremely modest, designed to meet all regulatory requirements, and is intended to blend well with the surrounding neighborhood.

As long-time fellow Malibu residents, my husband, Richard Ross and I, believe the Jenny's have created a perfect understated plan that supports their aging needs for this chapter of their lives. We strongly support their application and are completely confident that it will be a good fit and addition to the neighborhood.

Thank you fpr your consideration.
- Fernhill Drive
Malibu, California
716
t Ill
I am itin in u. ""'"'rt f th pr po ed ne h m pr ~ ct in our alibu n i hb rh . Th plan r fl t mi11im 1 £ tprin and th h m own r ha d m nstr t d their mmitm nt t 01n l ing • th all l~cnl r trictions. I b Ii tlu d elopment will nhanc ur mm uni hil r ..,er in th ...,,,.i ting tranquility and a thetic.

Thank ot1 £ r th opportlmi t ...,., ... pr s my upport.

Th s ro d d trccts LLC
P cific oast High
902 5
inc r 1
K s ara Par~ .... r
R pres nlati en r
fire h r d d
5737953.1
Jackson D. McNeill
D: (310) 746-4424
[email protected]
Ref: 15289-0001
October 14, 2025
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Raneika Brooks, Principal Planner
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Re: Legally Deficient Notice of Hearing for October 20, 2025, Planning Commission Agenda Concerning 33008 PCH
Item #: 5A
Dear Raneika:

Our firm represents 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 has submitted an application for 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 at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (the “Site”), immediately adjacent to our Clients’ properties (the “Project”).

On October 9, 2025, our firm received an email from the City of Malibu (“City”) indicating that the Project had been scheduled for a public hearing before the Planning Commission on October 20, 2025. The email included an updated Notice of Public Hearing (“Notice”), which we attach as Exhibit A. Respectfully, as discussed below, the Notice provided was legally deficient because it (1) fails to mention the code violation case that the hearing and Application purportedly resolves; and (2) because it fails to notice state, regional, and local agencies as required by the LIP. As such, the hearing must be continued to allow for the provision of adequate and lawful notice.
717
~ ( 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 - -
Ms. Brooks
October 14, 2025

Page 2 ends

5737953.1
I. The Notice Fails to Mention the Code Violation Purportedly Being Resolved.

The Notice is legally deficient because it fails to provide notice that the Project purportedly addresses (or that the Planning Commission will consider) the resolution of Code Violation No. 23-047 (the “Code Violation”).1
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, meanwhile, 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.) The draft Resolution also discusses the Code Violation as part of the Application. (See Draft Resolution 25-76, Section 1, Recital A [“On May 17, 2023, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-034 and Code Violation (CV) No. 23-047 was submitted to the Planning Division by applicant, Schmitz and Associates, Inc., on behalf of the owner, Bluff Top 1 LLC.”].)
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 mention the Code Violation, the general public remains unaware that the hearing 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, the meeting must be continued and re-noticed.

II. The City Failed to Properly Notice State, Regional, and Local Agencies.

Among the parties required to be provided with notice, the Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”) requires the City to provide notice to “[l]ocal, regional and state agencies known to be interested in the project including but not limited to: Los Angeles County, Ventura County, NPS, SMMC, CDPR, CDFG, NMFS, USFWS.” (LIP § 13.12.1.A.4.) Further, “[t]he public hearing may 1 Our Client’s question the ability and propriety of resolving code violations by approving new development rather than through the City’s designated administrative procedures for code violations, and our Clients reserve the right to challenge the propriety of this approach. 718
Ms. Brooks
October 14, 2025

Page 3 ends

be conducted in accordance with existing local procedures or in any other 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.) Here, Ms. Brooks stated by email on October 10, 2025, that the City sent following agencies notice of the hearing:
• L.A. County
• Department of Regional Planning
• County of Ventura, Attn: Planning Dept.
• US Fish and Wildlife Service
• National Park Service
• Development, US Army Corps of
Engineers, LA Dist., ATTN: Regulatory
Div.
• CESPL-RG, Dept. of Transportation,
Dist. 7, Regional Planning
• IRG/CEQA Branch, RWQCB, Region 4
c/o Jenny Newman, Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy
• Calif. Dept. of Parks & Recreation
• National Marine Fishery Service
• California Coastal Commission, So.

Central Coast District
• California Dept. of Fish & Game, So.

Coast Region-CEQA Program,
• California Department of Pesticide
Regulation,
• Pepperdine University, Dir. Of
Regulatory Affairs Rhiannon Pregitzer
• Malibu Times
• Santa Monica Baykeeper
Respectfully, while our Clients appreciate the effort to provide notice to a wide range of agencies, the City failed to provide notice to any agencies related to American Indians, despite the fact that shells and tools were discovered on the Site and despite the fact that the archaeological study for the Site “indicates that potential cultural resources are located on the project site.” (See Archaeology Review (ARC) No. 23-014, attached as Exhibit B.) Indeed, the City originally notified the California Native American Heritage Commission (“NAHC”) of these issues, but did not notify NAHC that this hearing was occurring. (Exh. A, p. 1, 3.) Despite acknowledging that NAHC constituted an agency known to be interested in the project (LIP § 13.12.1.A.4), the City failed to provide the NAHC notice of the public hearing on the Project. Nor did the City notify any other state entities with relevant American Indian or cultural resource expertise, such as the Governor’s Office of Tribal Affairs, the California Department of Justice Office of Native American Affairs (“ONAA”), or the California Natural Resources Agency’s Tribal Affairs office—much less any tribes (e.g., Chumash) themselves.

Without this, the notice from the City is not “reasonably calculated to give interested persons an opportunity to appear and present their viewpoints.” (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 13566.) 5737953.1
719
Ms. Brooks
October 14, 2025

Page 4 ends

5737953.1
This omission is not a mere technical defect. As will be explained in subsequent correspondence, the City also failed to conduct supplemental Phase I investigations or a Phase II investigation despite confirmed on-site cultural materials, and it further failed to prepare a mitigated negative declaration or environmental impact report to evaluate the project’s potential effects on cultural resources as required by the LIP and in violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). These are precisely the kinds of issues that agencies with American Indian expertise are best suited to speak to.

Accordingly, the hearing must be continued to allow proper notice to the appropriate agencies.

Very truly yours,
JACKSON D. McNEILL
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
JDM:jdm
cc: [email protected]
Rebecca Evans ([email protected])
720

EXHIBIT A
721
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, October 20, 2025, 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 AND MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 25-009 - An application to construct new twostory, 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: Raneika Brooks, Principal Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 276
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Commission’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the Planning Commission on, or before, the date of the meeting.

LOCAL APPEAL - A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten days following the date of action which the appeal is made and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms or in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 246.

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: October 9, 2025 722

EXHIBIT B
723
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:

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 724
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
725
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
726
727

EXHIBIT G
Cl~ l'll' M ilhbu
(.,t~ c~ .. n<' • l'Li!' II' ,nll. ( 0.111n 1Ui~
lJRZ.S S«IEt ~ R~
~.1.il"":>11, <'.A 90'l<'i5
l(e: J1:1medrir,:; <le1u:.dofthr a-p:pcnl tor JJ(0-6 ruific C'1:i'~ LJ ,•lw, a) lk 1t1) residence) ,-.:_ ,. ~ ,artJ 'tuc nc1 ,;hl:lori ILvin J'-'1 •DO -:· the Jtnn: .,~ Rlll"'I knr,.,, ,.~ oold 'di i~· h(i',oe wor~ .,.mi, UJiC Ciry fo,• m:my 1-(:n on thi3 proJCA. tn ®r GJ<-.lll<r1;. thtfll 1..> r.o n:.L,,Jlll 1hrj )h..owd be pr¢v~ltd drOC':'1 l-.i11ldr~ 11 h·•~i: l.ln U<'U o ... t pr('fldf)I AU-:r enmpt~i..,i; 1hr: Cir)-'sk:n~•n:::;il Tff!uro,i.-.: n::-.·tew pI~, P''"ll""Y n •4'lltfA SJ!,.1111.! br. ,i!J(l1,H J i,.) ~IJ ,.. il.!~1 ., rc~.m:ihlc li'Tlc ll'IIOI" Is tllcn: Q "'--") 111 np,:d11ir 11 ..1,,-,t'r<'' ll:011 .1rJ J a:,e uc , ,.;uh SO. ord tht)' ;,c-. ,n (1 1 2.JJnin , ll'reir 'ho1m:· Y,'Tn
im a'ty c,f',hlbo 11Luu.iJ11 dcp3rt!r.ml ""'lea~· ,;,; ae m t~.<ll mid 71)J r.:.)' !>h.-u Id 0, 1 'hm.-1: to cnd. .. 1 c a11o~h<r :,..::r i;,1 l'flUl't bcl UC ll', Cil)' Cc-~n ~ Ill):,~,!] The Jenn)~ rus:.c I ,Ttt ir. ·,b ld111 "L'"-" mo, =rt~ 1970... r11s~ •rull' chilwef'l ~rel'!. !ffld ~\h to b"uittl a 1.-.omt \ib(-~ tbc> n !l.p<."N tnc1. f11:ffla:...,t.np ~ c.1"
We h;1ve r.:-. ,;v,c~ :he l:&ot· 1ppruv,1h ;:ocd b:· lb: \folit--11 Plr1nn.ni f..c-p:rrtmi:fii: lllt naq1.tircd itenl.SM\"1! bt-cncomp~ctl \\'e M\c J.so ~n 1hr l\.:at.i.C) .llU•t111.:)' Sc :!;Jfi-.::.U lc,h;:r, ·,\ hiel'l -;,p-. ~.r lo I)(' un .. uc:~ t lti rr-Lflf_£atc i;wc, .\11 • r.Jv u.tJn,, ,J .a."'-l ~~bl~ Doth ll'lt Plnr.n;ni l~en, ;!fit 'the Pl~ l°'uollfil5.~i :t'I 01~1."n 1tu1 tk•c In~ n ,.i.l &£$UC$ wer,: n:•.fl,\ i.:d 0\ 1!'" inm)) , ~!II'$, "'t beh:~c 1.tu.: p-p-,;. ii 1;1,f;;s mrri·
It tS impar.mt t..\.it chc Cu-,.11d1 noL al.Jow1J:1!000ded spp!JI., to ,.1e'4y li.llh.crwi'.£ e"111pl ..n, pcoj~L1. f« ... ,:,ndc.d p<tiuds. \Va r,i J~t fblli, 11re,-> :iu to dffl) t~1sar~1 '1•,m..-p1•~ n(.hflo'."i' thidcn:np 1.lJ ~ Tiur.j; yO'J fo.- ymu com.i«n'l1wn.

From: John Aylsworth
Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2026 3:25 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Paul Grisanti
Subject: Ron Jenny appeal 33008 PCH
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We have known Ron and Jane Jenny for many years—Little League, weddings, gatherings, friendships ,and community events—and write to express our support for their approved project at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

The Jennys completed Malibu’s lengthy planning process and received a recommendation from the Planning Department and approval from the Planning Commission. The issues raised in the appeal were reviewed and resolved during that process. From our review, the objections appear focused on preserving a view rather than any regulatory violation. The proposed residence complies with height, setback, and lot standards and is well under the allowable square footage. We understand there is precedent that prevents neighbors from using appeals to stop lawful development on property owned by others.

We respectfully request that the Council deny this appeal and uphold the approvals already granted so the Jennys can proceed.

Reconsidering how appeals are used in cases like this would help prevent undue delay of otherwise compliant projects. Also, this would save the city council hours of precious time.

We also note that the current appeal process can impose lengthy, unfair burdens on property owners; where appeals are without merit, appellants should bear responsibility for delays or damages caused by the process.

When we built our home, prolonged delays would have been an extreme hardship. 728
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, John and Karen Aylsworth
729
From: Kim Ross
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2026 7:42 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Deny Appeal /Approve CDP (Jenny Residence) 33008 Pacific Coast Highway March 20, 2026
City of Malibu, Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265

Dear Malibu City Council,
My husband, Richard Ross, and I have lived in Malibu for many years and have known Ron and Jane Jenny for decades. They have been long standing active members and contributors to the Malibu community, and we believe their proposed home will fit appropriately within the character of the neighborhood.

I attended the Planning Commission hearings and reviewed the materials and discussions presented by everyone. The Planning Commission, at their February 17th 2006 meeting, approved this project based upon all of the Jenny’s invested time and expense to meet every single requirement, with the assistance of several experienced professionals guiding them throughout the process.

The main complaint left against this code-compliant project appears to be preserving a private view rather than any violation of City requirements. The Jennys legally purchased this lot and are entitled to develop it, consistent with the City rules, which they have met. The complainant and their attorneys seem to repeat their challenges of this project purely on the basis of meritless aesthetic reasons, and that is unjust.

I am asking the Council to uphold the Planning Department and Planning Commission approvals, not just as the Jenny’s neighbor and friend, but also as a member of this community who wants to see consistency and fairness in our approval processes. This appeal is unfounded and has created costs and hardships on the Jennys that should have been deemed unnecessary.
730
Thank you for allowing the Jennys to move forward without any further delay.

Kimberly Ross
Malibu CA 90265
--
Kimberly Collen-Ross
C:
731
From: Linda Fleiderman
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 11:24 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 23825 Pacific Coast Highway (Jenny residence)
City of Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, ca. 90265
Re: Support for the approval of the planning department, and planning commissions findings.
33008 Pacific Coast Highway (Jenny residence)
Dear Mayor and members of the city Council
I have resided in Malibu for 52 years. I have known Ron and Jane Jenny for most of that time.

I am writing in support of the approved project located at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

The Jenny‘s spent four years working with the Malibu planning department to design a home consistent with city requirements. The planning department recommended approval of the planning commission.

I reviewed the presentation and submitted to the planning commission and understand the planning commission approved the coastal development permit (CDP).

Project materials indicate that relevant technical issues have been resolved, including fire, including fire access and turn around, archaeological, and biological reviews, wave, 732
uprush, analysis, geotechnical and civil, engineering, evaluation‘s, septic approval, required, setbacks, height and landscape limits, and lot coverage standards.

Accordingly, the project seems to comply with Malibu‘s regulatory and planning criteria.

A neighbor has filed an appeal. I have seen a copy of the appeal and the attorneys memorandum. My interest is that decision said here to the cities, technical findings and established rules.

The Jenny is all and pay taxes on the property, and they do not appear to have exploited the maximum permits square footage. For these reasons, I urge the Malibu city counsel to approve the CPD. In my opinion this should be expedited. The Jenny‘s are not young and they would like to build this house in a reasonable time as they want to make this home their last home in the city they love, Malibu.

Thank you for your attention and concern, Linda Fleiderman Malibu
Sent from my iPad
733
From: Jerry Jacob
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 7:46 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Support of approval for 33008 Pacific Coast Hwy Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council
As Malibu residents, we have known the Jennys for many years. We write in support of the approved project at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.The Jennys collaborated with the Malibu Planning Department for four years to design a residence that complies with City regulations. The Malibu Planning Department recommended approval to the Planning Commission.I have reviewed the materials submitted to the Planning Commission and understand that the Planning Commission approved the Coastal Development Permit (CDP).

Project documents show that the pertinent technical matters have been addressed, including fire department access and turnaround, archaeological and biological assessments, wave uprush analysis, geotechnical and civil engineering reviews, septic approval, required setbacks, height and landscaping constraints, and lot coverage limits.

On that basis, the project appears to meet Malibu’s regulations and planning standards.

One neighbor has filed an appeal; I have reviewed a copy of the appeal and the attorney’s report. My concern is that decisions be guided by the City’s technical reviews and established rules.

It is my understanding that the rest of the neighbors in the neighborhood have supported the Jenny's new home.

The Jennys own the property and pay taxes on it, and they do not appear to have maximized the allowable square footage. Therefore, I urge the Malibu City Council to uphold approval of the CDP so the Jennys may begin construction on their home soon.

Sincerely,
Jerry Jacob
Malibu, Ca. 90265
734
735
From: Ronald Jenny
Sent: Monday, March 16, 2026 11:58 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Timmy Keenan
Subject: Denial of appeal for 33008 Pacific Coast Highway Dear Mayor and City Council,
I am forwarding this letter, provided to me by Tim Keenan, regarding the denial of the appeal to build our home at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

Thank you, Ronald Jenny
736
City of Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Support for the approval of the planning department and planning commission findings.
33008 Pacific Coast Highway (Jenny's residence)
Dear Members of the City Council,
As Malibu residents, we have known Ron and Jane Jenny for many years. We write in support of the approved project at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

The Jennys have worked with the Malibu Planning Department for four years to design a home in compliance with City rules. The Malibu planning department has recommended approval to the planning commission.

I have reviewed the presentation provided to the Planning Commission and understand that the Planning Commission has approved the CDP Coastal Development Permit.

Project materials indicate that the relevant technical issues have been addressed, including fire department access and turnaround, archaeological and biological reviews, wave uprush analysis, geotechnical and civil engineering reviews, septic approval, required setbacks, height, and landscape restrictions, and lot coverage standards.

Given these findings, it appears the project complies with Malibu’s regulations and planning requirements.

A neighbor has filed an appeal; I have seen a copy of the appeal and the attorney’s report. My interest is that decisions be based on the City’s technical reviews and established rules.

From what I understand, the appeal is motivated by concerns about view protection rather than noncompliance. The Jennys own the property and pay taxes on it, and they appear not to have maximized the allowable square footage.

Therefore, I urge the city to approve the CDP so the Jenny’s can start construction on their home soon.

737
Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Tim Keenan
SPC 34
Malibu, CA
738
From: Jenny Guerrero
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2026 9:23 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Building Permit -Ronald Jenny' Property
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We are neighbors living on the beach to the east of the Jenny property. I spoke with Ron Jenny and understand they have been working with the City on this project for many years.

Having completed the City’s lengthy and careful review process, the Jennys should be permitted to build on property they lawfully own within a reasonable timeframe.

Based on my review, the items raised in the appeal have already been addressed by the project consultants and approved by the Planning Department and the Planning Commission. Ron has been working to move these plans through the process for about four years. It appears this appeal is motivated by view concerns, while the neighbor appealing this has a hedge of large eucalyptus trees that block everybody else's view.

They did not have the right to prevent the Jennys from building in a reasonable period of time. Considering it is mainly because it would hurt their view. Especially because they don't consider the view of their other neighbors because of their trees.

The Council immediately deny appeal to stall otherwise compliant projects for extended periods. I respectfully urge you to deny this appeal promptly and allow the Jennys to proceed.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Domenick J. Sisto, MD
Attached signed letter
739
740
Los
Angeles
Orthopaedic
Institute --·i111~111iirn1111·1.a .. -1lllillsllila.;1lill.,_,,,._ ____________________ _ March 18, 2026
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
We are neighbors living on the beach to the east of the Jenny property. I spoke with Ron Jenny and understand they have been working with the City on this project for many years.

Having completed the City's lengthy and careful review process, the Jennys should be permitted to build on property they lawfully own within a reasonable timeframe.

The Council immediately deny appeal to stall otherwise compliant projects for extended periods. I respectfully urge you to deny this appeal promptly and allow the Jennys to proceed.

Thank you for your consideration.

SHERMAN OAKS OFFICE: 4955 van nuys boulevard • suite 615 • shermon oaks. callfornia 91403 • (818) 905-2222 • fax (818) 905-8702 PALMDALE OFFICE: 38660 medical center drive • suite A250 • polmdale. californio 93551 • (661) 267-7777 • fax (661) 267-7101 WEBSITE: www.laortho.org
From: Gary Wonnacott
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2026 9:47 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Jenny residence 22008PCH
741
742
De.at Mayor and Members of the City Cour.cil,
As Malibu resid$\ts Who have knovvn Ron aiid Jane Jenny r« many~ - in fact. we wet'e neighbors on Bonsall about 50 ~ ago - we write in support of the approYld proj~t at 33008 PadHc Coast Highway.

The Jen,,yg have WON!d with th6 Mtllbu Planning ~t for several years to de!ilg~ a homt!! thaT. compOes whh City N!es. We ha~ revle~ the presentatiQn provided io die Planning Commission and undefsta,nd '!hat the Plannlng D•~nt has recommended opprovaL tt. ~ the Jenny team's consultants have addressed the Cltys fllQUlremants and technl~ concerns..

Given tf'les8 findings. Che pro)ect com¢"es With Malibu's regliations ond pmming ~iremou. In our viewi the CounCI should uphold that detennir tion so Iha .JeMyS can build t.t'lelr home within a reasonable urneframe.

We have Se!O a copy of the appeJJl end the attomeV's report. From what we \!Odersttnd, the, apPeal I$ motivated primor11y by view GOneemt rather lhatn by any~ noncompliance. The Jennys own tile l&'l(Op&rty and havo the right to proceed; their proposed home does not maxlrnl:Ze allowable ~arefoo~1-
Rcn Jenny told us they S98fltfoUlr ~ wcnang Wid'I city plam:ifng to reach this point; ,aelays byf.he original planner contribtQed to the timellne. Fot these reasons, wv respectMly urge the Councl to ~ the appe!l, uptlold b P1anntng Commission's approval, and allow thll JeN't'/$ w J:l..~ with oonstn.iction.
lhank you for your cons.deration.

Sincerely,~~~
, ~w~~~/ </-~b
Gary and Cathi& Wonl\leott
Mafibu Ce.. 90265
From: diane covington
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2026 3:39 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject:

City of Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Support for the approval of the planning department and planning commission findings.
33008 Pacific Coast Highway (Jenny's residence)
Dear Members of the City Council
As Malibu residents, we have known Ron and Jane Jenny for many years. We write in support of the approved project at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway.

I have reviewed the presentation provided to the Planning Commission and understand that the Planning Commission has approved the CDP Coastal Development Permit.

Given these findings, it appears the project complies with Malibu’s regulations and planning requirements.

A neighbor has filed an appeal; I have seen a copy of the appeal and the attorney’s report.

My interest is that decisions be based on the City’s technical reviews and established rules.

From what I understand, the appeal is motivated by concerns about view protection rather than noncompliance. The Jennys own the property and pay taxes on it, and they appear not 743
to have maximized the allowable square footage. Therefore, I urge the city to approve the CDP so the Jenny’s can start construction on their home soon.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Diane & Hil Covington
Your address
Malibu, Ca 90365
744
From: AK Munaim
To: Gail Duncan
Cc: rj; jsjenny97
Subject: 33008 PCH - City Council Appeal Hearing - Support Letters Date: Thursday, September 10, 2026 10:52:43 AM
Attachments: jenny signed.pdf
Support Letter - Keshara Parker.pdf
Support Letter - Christina Stevens.pdf
Support Letter - Getachew.pdf
Gregory Hyland - Support Letter.pdf
Support Letter - Jerry and Lynn Jacob.pdf
Hi Gail,
We are scheduled for the City Council appeal hearing on 10/21. We would like to submit the support letters for public record for City Council. Would you kindly do so? 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.
745
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.

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
Malibu
746
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 . Malibu CA.
90265
747
748
October 1, 2025
Malibu Planning Commission
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Attn: Rebecca Evans, Record ing Secretary
Members of the Planning Commission:

To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as a neighbor residing at- to express my support for the proposed 4189 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.

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

I
Ayahlusr.ii Ge_tachew
749
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 positively to our community.

Please consider this letter as my encouragement for your approval.

Warm regards,
Christina Stevens
Christina l Stevens. Callfomla 90265 USA
750
t Ill
I am itin in u. ""'"'rt f th pr po ed ne h m pr ~ ct in our alibu n i hb rh . Th plan r fl t mi11im 1 £ tprin and th h m own r ha d m nstr t d their mmitm nt t 01n l ing • th all l~cnl r trictions. I b Ii tlu d elopment will nhanc ur mm uni hil r ..,er in th ...,,,.i ting tranquility and a thetic.

Thank ot1 £ r th opportlmi t ...,., ... pr s my upport.

LLC
inc r 1
K s ara Par~ .... r
R pres nlati en r
fire h r d d
751
September 28, 2025
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
I wish to express my strong support for Ron and Jane Jenny's proposal to construct a singlebedroom residence with a care quarters on their property in Malibu. I have l<nown the Jennys for over forty years in Malibu, and have seen them consistently and selfishly contribute to our community throughout their long residence here. My husband and I have watched them raise their beautiful four children here, with deep connections and support of our community.

Thank you for your consideration.
/ ,/'. rr
Kim and Richard Ross
-
Malibu, California

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on WEDNESDAY, October 21, 2026, at 2:00 PM in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the project identified below.

APPEAL NO. 26-006 – An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 26-10 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 to construct a new new two-story, 18-foot high, 4,856 square foot single-family residence, including a 791 square foot attached garage and an 824 square foot second-story second unit, landscaping, hardscape, grading, fire department turnaround area, vehicular access gate, and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system; including Minor Modification No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback
Location: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway
APN: 4473-017-009
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e)
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission
Applicant: Schmitz and Associates, Inc.

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

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the project.

Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 PM on October 7, 2026. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from members of the public, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted three (3) business days in advance, by 4:00 PM on October 16, 2026. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected] To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in

EXHIBIT H
752
accordance with the Council’s procedures.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: September 17, 2026
753

Malibu City CouncilOctober 21, 2026

Malibu City Council
October 21, 2026