Agenda packet, special meeting, first session — Malibu City Council, October 21, 2026 (part 1 of 5)

Meeting Agenda
CC_261021_AGENDA.PDF
Item 1A
Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-10 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 (33008 Pacific Coast Highway, APN 4473-017-009, Owner Bluff Top 1 LLC, Appellant Mark Mackey) (Continued from September 23, 2026) CC_261021_ITEM_1A.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

Malibu City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, October 21, 2026
2:00 P.M. – CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
City Hall – Council Chambers
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Zoom Webinar Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87985644870

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

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

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

MEETING PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may participate in-person or remotely via Zoom Webinar.

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

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

City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 2 - October 21, 2026 When each item is called, the Mayor will announce a final call for Speaker Slips and raised hands.

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

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

Any written comments or audiovisual materials for the hearing from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on 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 4:00p.m. 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].

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

Two p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order - Mayor
Roll Call - Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance
Report on Posting of Agenda – September 17, 2026
Approval of Agenda

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

A. Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-10 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 (33008 Pacific Coast Highway, APN 4473-017-009, Owner Bluff Top 1 LLC, Appellant Mark Mackey) (Continued from September 23, 2026) Recommended Action: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-63 (Exhibit A) denying Appeal (AP) No. 26-006 (Exhibit C), determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23- 034, an application for the construction of a new two-story, 18-foot (ft.) high, 4,856 square foot City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 3 - October 21, 2026 (sf.) single-family residence, including a 791 sf., attached garage and an 824 sf., second unit, landscaping, hardscape, grading, fire department turnaround area, vehicular access gate, and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Minor Modification (MM) No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (Bluff Top 1 LLC); or 2) Direct staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

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

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

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Special meeting agendas may be amended up to 24 hours in advance of the meeting. Dated this 17th day of September 2026 at 1:00 p.m.

Christina Muñoz, Deputy City Clerk

Page 1 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Didier Murillo, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director
Approved by: Joseph D. Irvin, City Manager
Date prepared: September 17, 2026 Meeting Date: October 21, 2026 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-10 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 (33008 Pacific Coast Highway, APN 4473-017-009, Owner Bluff Top 1 LLC, Appellant Mark Mackey) (Continued from September 23, 2026)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Either: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 26-63 (Exhibit A) denying Appeal (AP) No. 26-006 (Exhibit C), determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-034, an application for the construction of a new two-story, 18-foot (ft.) high, 4,856 square foot (sf.) single-family residence, including a 791 sf., attached garage and an 824 sf., second unit, landscaping, hardscape, grading, fire department turnaround area, vehicular access gate, and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Minor Modification (MM) No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR2) zoning district at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (Bluff Top 1 LLC); or 2) Direct staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

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

STRATEGIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: N/A.

DISCUSSION: This item was scheduled for the September 23, 2026 Special City Council meeting. However, the City Council continued the item to the October 21, 2026 Special City Council meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

City Council Meeting
10-21-26
Item

1.A.
1 I - I

Page 2 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

The matter before the City Council is an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of CDP No. 23-034 and MM No. 25-009, an application to allow for the construction of a new two-story, 18-ft., high, single-family residence and associated development. The appeal was filed by Mark Mackey, represented by Jackson D. McNeill of Holland & Knight LLP (formerly with Elkins Kalt) (Exhibit C).

Project Background
On February 17, 2026, the Planning Commission considered the project, and following deliberation, approved CDP No. 23-034 and MM No. 25-009 on a 4-0-1 vote (with the one vote being an Abstention). The February 17, 2026 staff report and related correspondence are included as Exhibit D and provide additional detail regarding the project and the basis for the Planning Commission’s decision.

On February 26, 2026, Mark Mackey filed Appeal No. 26-006. Video of the Planning Commission deliberation can be found on the City’s website at https://www.malibucity.org/662/Public-Meeting-Video-Archive.

Leading up to the February 17, 2026 Regular Planning Commission meeting, the project was continued three times to allow staff additional time to address comments received from California Coastal Commission staff regarding the proposed reduction of the bluff edge setback and concerns raised by the adjacent property owner to the north and other members of the public regarding potential private view impacts. In addition, the item was continued one year prior to allow the applicant additional time to modify the proposed roof deck to address privacy concerns. For a complete chronology of the report, see City Council Resolution No. 26-63.
1 Project Overview
As shown in Figure 1, the subject parcel is a vacant, parallelogram-shaped blufftop lot of approximately 0.67 acres in size. The property is accessed from a private driveway easement stemming south from PCH, which is designated as a scenic road in the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) where proposed development must be assessed for potential visual impacts on scenic areas. Residential development is permitted on the parcel, subject to the non-beachfront residential development standards of the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and LCP.
1 All referenced Planning Commission agenda reports are available online at malibucity.org/agendacenter. 2

Page 3 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Figure 1: Aerial Map
Source: City GIS 2026
The project site is not designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as shown on the LCP ESHA Overlay Map; however, a mapped blueline stream exists offsite 104 feet west of the project site and warrants protection as ESHA pursuant to LIP Chapter 4. To minimize potential ESHA impacts, LIP Section 4.6.1 requires a minimum 100-ft. buffer from ESHA.

Developed residential properties with existing fuel modification zones and ongoing fuel modification activities are located between the stream ESHA and the project site. The proposed residence would be located 104 feet from the stream and within these existing, overlapping fuel modification zones. Therefore, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)-approved fuel modification required for the proposed residence would not extend into previously unaffected ESHA or result in new ESHA impacts. Pursuant to Land Use Plan Section 3.1, fuel modification areas required by the LACFD for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA. However, where an existing fuel modification area overlaps a stream, the stream itself remains ESHA. The LCP distinguishes between vegetative ESHA, such as coastal sage scrub or chaparral ESHA, and stream and wetland ESHA, which are subject to a higher level of protection. In response to concerns raised during the Planning Commission hearing regarding the project’s proximity to the 100-foot stream setback, the Planning Commission imposed a 3

Page 4 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
condition limiting development to a 10,000 square foot development area, which would be required if the development impacted ESHA (LIP Section 4.7.1).

The parcel is currently vacant, except for an unpermitted nonconforming six-foot-high solid gate and fence along the front property line. 2 City records show the current fence was constructed around November 2022. The proposed scope of work would replace the nonconforming fence with a compliant, visually permeable fence up to six feet in height within the front yard setback.

The project scope approved by the Planning Commission is the following:
a) Construction of a 4,856 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, 18 feet in height, including a 791 square foot attached garage;
b) 824 square foot, second unit above the garage;
c) Construction of outdoor decks;
d) Installation of new landscaping and hardscape;
e) Grading;
f) Construction of a new OWTS;
g) Vehicular access gate; and
h) Fire department turnaround area.
i) Discretionary Request: MM No. 25-009 for a 37 percent reduction of the front yard setback.

APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL
The appellant’s representative, Jackson D. McNeill, provided written and oral testimony during the public hearing before the Planning Commission. In the appeal, the appellant contends that the findings are not supported by the evidence, and that the decision was contrary to law. The specific arguments are summarized below in italics. The full text of the appeal documents is included as Exhibit C.

Appeal Item 1. The decision is contrary to law, and the evidence fails to support the findings because the Planning ESHA analysis relies on an incorrect measurement methodology; when correctly measured, an ESHA buffer exists that conflicts with the project.

Staff Response
The project’s distance from the stream is in conformance with LIP Chapter 4 as demonstrated by materials submitted by the applicant, including a letter from Ford Biological Consulting and a drone aerial exhibit. The City Biologist reviewed these 2 An active code violation case is open for the unpermitted gate and face and would be resolved if the CDP is approved and the project constructed. An inspection would be conducted to verify the violation was remediated. If the CDP is not approved, code enforcement staff will require the gate be addressed immediately. 4

Page 5 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
materials and confirmed that the proposed development is located 104 ft. from the mapped blue line stream to the west. It was further confirmed that the project area is located within the existing fuel modification zones of adjacent single-family residences, as shown in Figure 2 below. The figure illustrates that the existing single-family residences and access road are closer to the stream than the proposed project. Nevertheless, the proposed project maintains a 104-ft. setback from the stream, exceeding the required 100-foot buffer. As stated previously, pursuant to Land Use Plan Section 3.1, fuel modification areas required by the LACFD for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA. Furthermore, the development is located 100 feet from the stream as required by the LCP, and no new fuel modification encroaches into the ESHA buffer zone.

Figure 2: Aerial Map with Blue Line Stream Location
Source: City GIS 2026
Appeal Item 2. The project fails to account for Coastal ESHA.

Staff Response
Based on information provided by the project biologist and reviewed by the City Biologist, the project area and bluff were confirmed to be within the existing fuel modification zones Legend:

Stream
5

Page 6 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
associated with adjacent single-family residences. The vegetation on the bluff is dominated by non-native species, and no ESHA was identified within the bluff area.

Accordingly, the bluff was not determined to constitute ESHA. As mentioned previously, the development is located 104 feet from the stream and no new fuel modification would encroach into the required stream buffer. In addition, the appellant has not provided substantial evidence that ESHA is present within the project site.

Appeal Item 3. The decision violates the LCP’s Archaeological Requirements.

Staff Response:

The originally submitted Archaeological Report (Phase I) found that further archaeological study was not needed. Planning Division staff included recommendations from the archeologist’s report as conditions of approval to ensure that should any cultural resources be found onsite during excavation and construction, they will be properly addressed.

Prior to the December 1, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting, staff received correspondence from the appellant’s counsel stating that the applicant’s Phase I Archaeology Report was insufficient and that human remains and other cultural resources likely exist on the site. A letter was also submitted from a Chumash Elder (David Dominguez) who cited another Chumash Elder (Julie Tumamait-Stenslie) allegedly in support of the concern raised. As a result, the project was continued to a date uncertain to provide the applicant time to pursue further archeological study and consultation with Chumash representatives.

Chumash Elder Julie Tumamait-Stenslie also stated that she spoke with Chumash Elder David Dominguez by telephone and asked him to retract his letter. To date, Chumash Elder David Dominguez has not retracted his letter.

LIP Section 11.3 establishes the LCP’s archaeological resource review requirements required for development. As mentioned, the initial Phase 1 inventory concluded that no additional studies were necessary because the resources found were not determined to constitute significant cultural resources. However, in response to the conflicting information described above, City staff required an additional Phase 1 evaluation to further evaluate the nature of the significance of the materials identified. In addition, Chumash Elder would act as a third-party intermediary to determine if the resources discovered were significant.

On January 2, 2026, Matthew A. Boxt, Ph.D., prepared an extended archaeological study which included an intensive evaluation of the project area included in the original Phase 1 6

Page 7 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Report. This study incorporated subsurface testing, including auger borings, laboratory analysis, and cultural resource monitoring Chumash Elder Julie Tumamait-Stenslie who validated the findings of both Phase 1 studies.

The extended study concluded that the subsurface soils within the project area are “archaeologically sterile,” meaning that the project site does not contain intact or significant cultural resources. The extended study characterized the project site as an “artificial or pseudo-site” created by earth-moving activities decades earlier from the property to the north. In addition, it concluded that the project did not exhibit indicators that would reflect past human activity and confirmed that the proposed development would not adversely affect cultural resources.

Although the extended study did not identify significant cultural resources, it recommended precautionary measures in the event previously unidentified resources are found during construction. These measures were included as conditions of approval in the adopted Planning Commission resolution No. 26-10 (Exhibit B).

Under LIP Section 11.3(F), when a Phase I identifies “one or more significant” cultural resources, a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report, or an environmental impact report are required to be prepared. The Phase 1 study, including the extended study, did not identify a significant cultural resource. As such, no further evaluation is required.

The archaeological investigations did not identify significant cultural resources with proposed area. The appellant has not provided substantial evidence challenging the Phase 1 studies conducted. Furthermore, the applicant has carried their burden and provided substantial evidence through the Phase 1 studies conducted on site in consultation with a qualified Chumas Cultural Resource Monitor.

Appeal Item 4. The project violates County Fire requirements.

Staff Response
The appellant states that the project fails to demonstrate compliance with various Fire Code sections as stated in their appeal letter regarding; access road, width, and defensible space. However, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) approved the project in a letter dated April 24, 2025. Figure 3 is a screenshot of a portion of the LACFD review sheets where it indicated the project as submitted was approved for vehicular access (including width and grade percentage), required fire department vehicular turnaround, required 5 ft., walking area (including grade percentage), and width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates. If the City Council approves the project, it may require the applicant to obtain updated approvals from LACFD to be submitted during the plan check process.
7

Page 8 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Figure 3: Screenshot of LACFD Approved Components
Source: LCFD Review Sheet
Appeal Item 5: The decision was improper because the applicant failed to consult with the State Lands Commission (SLC) and the LIP does not permit staff to substitute its own judgement for the SLC.

Staff Response
It has been a long-standing policy of the Planning Division and confirmed by review of many coastal bluff projects in Malibu by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), that the requirement to obtain written determination from the State Lands Commission is only applicable to beachfront properties pursuant to LIP Section 10.5(C-E). While the subject property is oriented toward the ocean, a steep bluff is located between the proposed building pad and the ocean. The proposed development further incorporates the blufftop setback requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D). Being setback far from the mean high tide line and the beach below the bluff, there is no evidence that the proposed development would encroach into State Lands. Further, there is no development proposed along the shoreline or bluff, nor does the project propose a shoreline stabilization device or other development along the bluff such as drainage devices or beach access. 8 TO:

FROM:

Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
Fire Prevention Engineering Assistant
Compliance with the conditions checked below is required prior to Fire Department approval.

The project DOES require Fire Department Plan, Review and Developer Fee payment The project DOES NOT require Fire Department ~lean, Review The required fire flow for this project is 1,250 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a 1 hour duration. (Provide now information from the water dept.) The project is required to have an inter,ior automatic fire sprinkler system.

Final Fuel Modification Plan Approval is required prior lo Fire Department Approval ✓
Conditions below marked "not approved" shall be corrected on the site plan and resubml'lted for Fire Department approval.

Required Fire Department vehicular access (including width, and grade%} as shown, from the public street to the proposed project Required and/or proposed Fire Department Vehicular Turnaround Required 5 foot wide Fire Department Walking, Access (including grade %) Width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates
App'd Nlap;p'd
•county of Los Ange:les Fire De,partrnent Approval Expires with City Planning per,mits expiration, revisions to the County of Los Angeles Fire Code or revisioM to Fire Depa,rtment regulations and standards. * Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project maintain,s compliance with, the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the time revised plan,s are submitted. Applicable review fees shall be required. /?t"'P1-~ 04/24/2025

SIGNATURE DATE
AddiliOnal requinimerrt.slooneiliOns may be imposed upon nlview of complete arcl'liteclural plans.

The Firs Preve,,tion Englrwerittg may be contacted by phOne at (818) 88()-0341or at th9 l'lre Department Counl11r:
26600 Agoura Road, Suite 110, Calabasas., CA 91302; Hours: Monday-Thursday between 7:00 Alli and 11 :00 AM Rev 04121 11 0 tlV"

Page 9 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

The subject project does not propose any development along the shoreline or the beach and it is solely located beyond the bluff on flat land. As mentioned previously this interpretation has been consistently applied by the City and the CCC. Blufftop properties that do not include beachfront development are not subject to State Lands determinations because they are not necessary as those properties are not located on public tidelands or wouldn’t adversely impact tidelands. LIP Section 10.5(C) requires that all new development along the shoreline or beach obtain a SLC letter to determine the impact upon the boundary between public tidelands and private property. Being far away from the public tidelands below the bluff, the project location does not require an SLC determination.

Appeal Item 6: The applicant and City failed to invite parties with easement interests to join as co-applicants; abstaining from erecting new structures within the easement did not cure this issue.

Staff Response
Pursuant to LIP Section13.6.2(C), all 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 co-applicant. Therefore, when there is no development taking place on neighboring properties, in this case, the shared private access easement, the City does not require coapplication notices. The subject project does not propose any development within the shared private access easement with other properties. Revised plans were submitted to further clarify that no development will be proposed within the portion of the shared easement. The access easement on adjacent properties will remain as is. The prior version of the plans erroneously stated that the area was existing pavement to remain but confirmed to be existing decomposed granite (DG) to remain. Therefore, staff did not require a co-application. Furthermore, this was originally identified as an incomplete item; the applicant then clarified that no improvements were proposed within the easement, and the previous Planning Director and Senior Planner no longer required the co-application submittal.

Appeal Item 7: The project landscaping violates the MMC and LCP.

Staff Response
As previously described, the project consists of a two-story, 18-foot-tall single-family residence with associated improvements and landscaping. The approved landscaping plan shows proposed Big Berry Manzanita trees and Oak trees that the appellant is claiming violates the MMC and LCP. The appellant states that proposed landscaping will obstruct their existing Primary View Determination (PVD). However, three of the four Big Berry Manzanita trees with a maximum height of 10 to 20 ft., will be located behind the proposed single-family residence; and one of the two proposed Island Oak trees with a maximum height of 35 ft., will be located at the northeast corner of the site as seen on 9

Page 10 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Figure 4 below. Conditions of approval addressing view impacts were included in the Planning Commission Resolution 26-10:

Condition No. 43 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; and
Condition No. 44 Vegetation in excess of six feet in height shall not obstruct the primary view of existing residences located within a 1,000-foot radius at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

Figure 4: Landscape Plans with Staff Illustration
Source: Project Plans Approved by Planning Commission (2/17/2026) As previously stated, the proposed project will not exceed 18 feet in height. Staff conducted a visual analysis of the proposed project from the neighbor’s primary viewing area to document the view obstruction. It was determined that any proposed building would obstruct private bluewater views regardless of structure location or height on the lot due to the configuration of the parcel. Nonetheless, the proposed project does not exceed the 18 ft. height limit and is not requesting additional height over 18 ft., pursuant to a site plan review. The vegetation has been conditioned to not impact views within the PVD.

Alternatively, a condition of approval can be added to the project to revise the landscape plan to eliminate the trees or proposed other low growing landscaping. 10 \
\
\
\ I
~ fl\.'IIY M~a;anit~ l f'ca:. wtlh
ii i'liiili.. lil:1-Jihl ill 10to 20-fl.

Page 11 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Appeal Item 8: The decision violates longstanding policy on processing code enforcement cases and the decision failed to address the unpermitted bluff development.

Staff Response
As previously mentioned, the site has an active code violation case from 2022 which remains open for an unpermitted gate and face and would be resolved if the CDP is approved and the project constructed. An inspection would be conducted to verify the violation was remediated. If the CDP is not approved, code enforcement staff will require the gate be addressed immediately. The CDP was submitted in 2024. The gate is not proposed to remain and is not before the Council or part of the project.

Resolution of code enforcement cases through an application to approve or alter unpermitted development is in fact common, and sometimes necessary, to resolve a violation. The case cited by appellant was exceptional, as a CDP was granted to cure the violation but then was never constructed, and the violation was not resolved for over a decade after approval of the CDP. Nevertheless, regardless of what happens with this application code enforcement will require remediation of the unpermitted gate and fence.

The existence of an active code enforcement matter does not provide grounds for denial of a project where the evidence supports the required findings.

Appeal Item 9: The project does not comply with the certificate of compliance and noncompliance prohibits approval.

Staff Response
The appellant states that the original Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 29220 was recorded against title in 1986 and required as a condition that the owner dedicate to the County the right to restrict the erection of buildings and/or other structures because the property and/or its access has portions within a flood-prone area at the toe of the bluff. A CoC was recorded on September 4, 2025, which states that no buildings, improvements, structures and/or obstructions of any kind shall be constructed on the portion of the property being located within the flood-prone area located on the southern portion of the site and has an area of approximately 7,335 sf. 11

Page 12 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

Figure 5: CoC Exhibit (area of deed restriction)
CoC – Exhibit E
The CoC did not just require the owner to dedicate a deed restriction to the flood-mapped portions of the Property. The CoC from 2025 has cleared the conditions stated in 1986 and the deed restriction area satisfies the requirements. There is no proposed development in the deed restricted area.

Appeal Item 10: CEQA grounds for appeal (the decision improperly relies upon mitigation measures to support a Categorical Exemption from CEQA; the City unlawfully attempted to mitigate impacts to cultural resources in order to utilize a Categorical Exemption from CEQA; the project will have a significant environmental effect; alternatively, features of the project create unusual circumstances and the project presents the reasonable possibility of an adverse environmental impact; and the LCP independently requires additional CEQA review.

Staff Response
The construction project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. Further, as previously addressed in the response to appeal item 3 the applicant complied with the Archaeological requirements of LIP Section 11.3 which details what is required to meet the LCP’s archaeological resource 12

Page 13 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.
requirements. As mentioned, the archaeological study (Phase I) did not recommend that further archaeology study was warranted. Staff included the recommendations of the archeologist as conditions of approval addressing cultural resources as a precautionary measure and not meant to be mitigation measures to evade CEQA. This is a common practice that many planning commission resolutions and City Council resolutions resolving appeals have incorporated for many decades. LIP Section 11.3(F) states that:
“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: … Recommendations for Phase II. Evaluations and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report or an environmental impact report shall be prepared.

The initial Phase I report indicated no significant resources were onsite but implemented conditions to ensure compliance with State law. The applicant prepared a separate Extended Phase I Archaeological Study with an independent tribal monitor from the Chumash Tribe, after challenges from the neighbor, which characterized the project site as an “artificial or pseudo-site” created by earth-moving decades earlier on other property, that the project did not exhibit indicators that would reflect past human activity, and confirmed that the proposed development would not adversely affect significant cultural resources. The appellant has not provided evidence of unusual circumstances. Nor has the appellant provided evidence of a significant environmental effect. Nothing in CEQA requires an initial study to be conducted when no significant cultural resources are found and the City’s LIP only requires a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report, or an environmental impact report when significant resources are found. Although some deposits were found they were determined by the onsite archaeologist and Chumash tribal monitor to not be significant and not native to the site as demonstrated by the two Phase 1 studies conducted on site. The cultural resource conditions discussed in response to appeal item 3 were added to the resolution to ensure that even if such resources are found they will be dealt with appropriately through the requirements of the LCP and state law.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Division has analyzed the project. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. Further, none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence received in connection with the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission hearing is included in Exhibit F. Correspondence received after the hearing is included in Exhibit G. Note: On September 10, 2026, the applicant also submitted a compilation of letters in support of the project; those letters had previously been provided to and considered by the Planning Commission. 13

Page 14 of 14 ends

Agenda Item #1.A.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On September 17, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City, and public notice was mailed to the owners and occupants of all properties within a radius of 500 feet of the subject property (Exhibit H).

SUMMARY: Based on the information in this report, provided with the staff report presented to the Planning Commission, project plans, and other documents, the City Council shall provide directions to staff to bring back a resolution consistent with the City Council’s decision.

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 26-63
B. Adopted Planning Commission Resolution 26-10
C. Appeal No 26-006
D. February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Agenda Report
E. Certificate of Compliance, recorded on September 4, 2025 F. Correspondence considered by the Planning Commission G. Correspondence Received after the February 17, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
H. Notice of Public Hearing
14 Exhibit A
RESOLUTION NO. 26-63

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, DENYING APPEAL NO. 26-006, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS

CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23-034 TO CONSTRUCT A NEW TWO STORY, 18 FOOT HIGH 4,856 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING A 791 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE AND A 824 SQUARE FOOT SECOND UNIT,

LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE, GRADING, FIRE DEPARTMENT

TURNAROUND AREA, VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE, AND THE

INSTALLATION OF A NEW ONSITE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM, INCLUDING MINOR MODIFICAITON NO. 25-009 FOR UP TO A 50

PERCENT REDUCTION OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED IN
THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TWO ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (BLUFF TOP 1 LLC)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

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. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant, Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29) reviewers for review.

B. On April 29, 2025, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On August 15, 2025, story poles representing the location and height of the proposed addition to the detached garage were installed.

D. On August 29, 2025, Planning Division staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions, the property and surrounding area and to determine potential visual impacts of the proposed project on any scenic area, scenic road, or public viewing area.

E. On September 9, 2025, Planning Division staff deemed the application complete.

F. On September 25, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

G. On October 1, 2025, an amended agenda was published for the October 6, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting and the item was removed from the agenda. 15 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 2 of 28 ends

______________________
H. On October 9, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

I. On October 3, 2025, following publication of the staff report, the Planning Division received comments from California Coastal Commission staff recommending that additional site-specific details be included in the Shoreline and Bluff Development Findings required by Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 10.3(A), specifically with respect to the reduction of the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D).

J. On October 20, 2025, consistent with the Planning Commission’s protocol that public hearings be opened before 10:30 p.m., the item was continued, without opening the public hearing, to the November 3, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting.

K. On November 3, 2025, due to staffing changes and correspondence received from the adjacent property owner to the north and other members of the public raising various concerns, including potential impacts to private views, the Planning Commission continued the item, prior to opening the public hearing, to the December 1, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting to allow staff additional time to investigate the concerns raised.

L. On December 1, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the project to a date uncertain prior to opening the public hearing.

M. On February 5, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

N. On February 18, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the March 3, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant additional time to modify the proposed roof deck to address privacy concerns.

O. On February 17, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

P. On February 26, 2026, Mark Mackey (Appellant) filed an appeal of the Planning Commission’s action (Appeal No. 26-006).

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

R. On September 23, 2026, prior to opening the public hearing, the City Council continued the item to the October 21, 2026 Special City Council meeting.

S. On February 17, 2026, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a 16 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 3 of 28 ends

______________________
newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

T. On October 21, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered written reports including the agenda report and attachments for the February 17, 2026, Planning Commission Meeting, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposed project. The City Council has found that the project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303 (a) and (e) – New Construction. The City Council has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

The appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s findings for approval of the project are not supported by the evidence, that the Planning Commission’s decision is not supported by the findings, and that the Planning Commission’s decision is contrary to law. Specifically, the appellant contends that (1) Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) analysis relies on an incorrect measurement methodology; (2) the project fails to account for Coastal ESHA; (3) the decision violate the LCP’s archaeological requirements; (4) the project violates County Fire requirements; (5) the decision is improper because the applicant failed to consult with State Lands Commission; (6) the applicant and City failed to invite parties with easement interest to join as co-applicants; (7) the project violated the Malibu Municipal Code and LCP; (8) the decision violates longstanding policy on processing code enforcement cases; (9) the project does not comply with certificate of compliance; and (10) CEQA ground for appeal.

Based on the evidence in the record, as detailed below, in the agenda report, and at the hearing on the matter, the City Council has determined that the project conforms to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), denying the appeals, and approving the project. The Council finds that the evidence supports the findings and is consistent with the City’s past application of the applicable provisions of the LIP.

1. The project’s distance from the stream is in conformance with LIP Chapter 4 as demonstrated by materials submitted by the applicant, including a letter from Ford Biological Consulting and a drone aerial exhibit. The City Biologist reviewed these materials and confirmed that the proposed development is located 104 ft. from the mapped blue line stream to the west. It was further confirmed that the project area is located within the existing fuel modification zones of adjacent single-family residences. Figure 2 in the staff report illustrates that the existing singlefamily residences and access road are closer to the stream than the proposed project. Nevertheless, the proposed project maintains a 104-ft. setback from the stream, exceeding the required 100-foot buffer. As stated previously, pursuant to Land Use Plan Section 3.1, fuel modification areas 17 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 4 of 28 ends

______________________
required by the LACFD for existing, legal structures do not meet the definition of ESHA.

Furthermore, the development is located 100 feet from the stream as required by the LCP, and no new fuel modification encroaches into the ESHA buffer zone. Furthermore, this determination lines up with the direction given by the previous Planning Director and Senior Planning Staff (as stated in the approved Biology Review Sheet dated June 6, 2025).

2. Based on information provided by the project biologist and reviewed by the City Biologist, the project area and bluff were confirmed to be within the existing fuel modification zones associated with adjacent single-family residences. The vegetation on the bluff is dominated by non-native species, and no ESHA was identified within the bluff area. Accordingly, the bluff was not determined to constitute ESHA. As mentioned previously, the development is located 104 feet from the stream and no new fuel modification would encroach into the required stream buffer.

In addition, the appellant has not provided substantial evidence that ESHA is present within the project site.

3. The originally submitted Archaeological Report (Phase I) did not recommend that further archaeological study was needed. Planning Division staff (previous Planning Director and Senior Planner) included recommendations from the archeologist’s report as conditions of approval to ensure that any cultural resources found onsite during excavation and construction, will be properly addressed.

Following the continuance, staff received correspondence directly from Chumash Elder Julie Tumamait-Stenslie stating that she was misquoted by Chumash Elder David Dominguez and also stating she had not made statements, nor was she aware of evidence supporting the appellant’s concerns regarding the subject property at 33008 PCH. Chumash Elder Julie Tumamait-Stenslie also stated that she spoke with Chumash Elder David Dominguez by telephone and asked him to retract his letter. To date, Chumash Elder David Dominguez has not retracted his letter.

On January 2, 2026, Matthew A. Boxt, Ph.D., prepared an extended archaeological study which included an intensive evaluation of the project area included in the original Phase 1 Report. This study incorporated subsurface testing, including auger borings, laboratory analysis, and cultural 18 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 5 of 28 ends

______________________
resource monitoring Chumash Elder Julie Tumamait-Stenslie, who validated the findings of both Phase 1 studies.

The extended study concluded that the subsurface soils within the project area are “archaeologically sterile,” meaning that the project site does not contain intact or significant cultural resources. The extended study characterized the project site as an “artificial or pseudosite” created by earth-moving activities decades earlier from the property to the north. In addition, it concluded that the project did not exhibit indicators that would reflect past human activity and confirmed that the proposed development would not adversely affect cultural resources.

4. The appellant states that the project fails to demonstrate compliance with various Fire Code sections as stated in their appeal letter regarding the following: access road, width, and defensible space. The Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) approved the project as noted in their approved referral letter dated April 24, 2025. The LACFD review sheet indicated that the project as submitted was approved for vehicular access (including width and grade percentage), required fire department vehicular turnaround, required 5 ft., walking area (including grade percentage), and width of proposed driveway/access roadway gates.

5. It has been a long-standing policy of the Planning Division and confirmed by review of many coastal bluff projects in Malibu by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), that the requirement to obtain written determination from the State Lands Commission (SLC) is only applicable to beachfront properties pursuant to LIP Section 10.5(C-E). While the subject property is oriented toward the ocean, a steep bluff is located between the proposed building pad and the ocean. The proposed development further incorporates the blufftop setback requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D). Being setback far from the mean high tide line and the beach below the bluff, there is no indication that the proposed development would encroach into State Lands. Further, there is no development proposed along the shoreline or bluff, nor does the project propose a shoreline stabilization device or other development along the bluff such as drainage devices or beach access.
19 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 6 of 28 ends

______________________
The subject project does not propose any development along the shoreline or the beach and it is solely located beyond the bluff on flat land. As mentioned previously this interpretation has been consistently applied by the City and the CCC. Blufftop properties that do not include beachfront development are not subject to State Lands determinations because they are not necessary as those properties are not located on public tidelands or wouldn’t adversely impact tidelands. LIP Section

10.5(C) requires that all new development along the shoreline or beach obtain a SLC letter to determine the impact upon the boundary between public tidelands and private property. Being far away from the public tidelands below the bluff, the project location does not require an SLC determination.

6. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.6.2(C) all 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 co-applicants. Therefore, when there is no development taking place on neighboring properties, in this case, the shared access easement, the City does not require co-application notices. The subject project does not propose any development within the shared private access easement with other properties. Revised plans were submitted to further clarify that no development will be proposed within the portion of the shared easement. The access easement on adjacent properties will remain as is. The prior version of the plans erroneously stated that the area was existing pavement to remain but confirmed to be existing decomposed granite (DG) to remain.

Therefore, staff did not require a co-application. Furthermore, this was originally identified as an incomplete item, the applicant then clarified that no improvements were proposed within the easement and the previous Planning Director and Senior Planner no longer required the coapplication submittal.

7. As previously described, the project consists of a two-story, 18-foot-tall singlefamily residence with associated improvements and landscaping. The approved landscaping plan shows proposed Big Berry Manzanita trees and Oak trees that the appellant is claiming violated the MMC and LCP. The appellant states that approved landscaping will obstruct their existing Primary View Determination (PVD). However, three of the four Big Berry Manzanita trees with a maximum height of 10 to 20 ft., will be located behind the proposed single-family residence; and one of the two proposed Island Oak trees with a maximum height of 35 ft., will be located at the northeast corner of the site. Conditions of approval addressing view impacts were included in the Planning Commission Resolution 26-10:

As previously stated, the proposed project will not exceed 18 ft., in height. Staff conducted a visual analysis of the proposed project from the neighbor’s primary viewing area to document the view obstruction. However, it was determined that the project would obstruct private bluewater views regardless of structure location or height on the lot due to the configuration of the parcel.

Nonetheless, the proposed project does not exceed the 18 ft. height limit and is not requesting 20 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 7 of 28 ends

______________________
additional height over 18 ft., pursuant to a site plan review. The vegetation has been conditioned to not impact views within the PVD.

8. The site has an active code violation case from 2022 which remains open for an unpermitted gate and fence and would be resolved if the CDP is approved and the project constructed. An inspection would be conducted to verify the violation was remediated. If the CDP is not approved, code enforcement staff will require the gate be addressed immediately. The CDP was submitted in 2024.

Resolution of code enforcement cases through an application to approved or alter unpermitted development is in fact a common, and sometimes necessary, to resolve a violation. The case cite by the appellant was exceptional as a CDP was granted to cure the violation but then was never constructed and the violation was not resolved for over a decade after approval of the CDP.

Nevertheless, regardless of what happens with this application code enforcement will require remediation of the unpermitted gate and fence. The existence of an active code enforcement matter does not provide grounds for denial of a project where the evidence supports the required findings.

9. The appellant states that the original Conditional Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 29220 was recorded against title in 1986 and required as a condition that the owner dedicate to the County the right to restrict the erection of buildings and/or other structures because the property and/or its access has portions within a flood-prone area at the toe of the bluff. A CoC was recorded on September 4, 2025, which states that no buildings, improvements, structures and/or obstructions of any kind shall be constructed on the portion of the property being located within the flood-prone area located on the southern portion of the site and has an area of approximately 7,335 sf.

The CoC did not just require the owner to dedicate a deed restriction to the flood-mapped portions of the Property. The CoC from 2024 has cleared the conditions stated in 1986 and the deed restriction area satisfies the requirements. There is no proposed development in the deed restricted area.

10. The construction project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) – New Construction. Further, as previously addressed in the response to appeal item 3 the applicant complied with the Archaeological requirements of LIP Section 11.3 which details what is required to meet the LCP’s archaeological resource requirements. As mentioned, the archaeological study (Phase I) did not recommend that further archaeological study was warranted. Staff included the recommendations of the archeologist as conditions of approval addressing cultural resources as a precautionary measure and not meant to be mitigation measures to evade CEQA. This is a common practice that many planning commission resolutions and City Council resolutions resolving appeals have incorporated for many decades. LIP Section 11.3(F) states that:
“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: … Recommendations for Phase II. Evaluations and a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report or an environmental impact report shall be prepared. 21 ---
Resolution No. 26-63

Page 8 of 28 ends

______________________
The initial Phase I report indicated no significant resources were onsite but implemented conditions to ensure compliance with State law. The applicant prepared a separate Extended Phase I Archaeological Study with an independent tribal monitor from the Chumash Tribe, after challenges from the neighbor, which characterized the project site as an “artificial or pseudo-site” created by earth-moving decades earlier on other property, that the project did not exhibit indicators that would reflect past human activity, and confirmed that the proposed development would not adversely affect significant cultural resources. The appellant has not provided evidence of unusual circumstances. Nor has the appellant provided evidence of a significant environmental effect. Nothing in CEQA requires an initial study to be conducted when no significant cultural resources are found and the City’s LIP only requires a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, focused environmental impact report, or an environmental impact report when significant resources are found. Although some deposits were found they were determined by the onsite archaeologist and Chumash tribal monitor to not be significant and not native to the site as demonstrated by the two Phase 1 studies conducted on site. The cultural resource conditions discussed in response to appeal item 3 were added to the resolution to ensure that even if such resources are found they will be dealt with appropriately through the requirements of the LCP and state law..

SECTION 4. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record (including the analysis, findings of fact, and conclusions set forth by staff in the Council Agenda Report and Planning Commission Agenda Reports, as well as the testimony and materials considered by the Planning Commission and City Council), and pursuant to LIP Section 13.7(B), the City Council adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 23-034 for construction of a 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 (OWTS); including Minor Modification (MM) No. 25- 009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).

The City Council finds the project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. The project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. The Planning Division, City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD and WD29 reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. The proposed single family residence is consistent with the property’s RR-2 residential zoning district, a zone designated for residential uses. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP 22 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 9 of 28 ends

______________________
in that it meets all applicable non-beachfront residential development standards.

2. The project is located between the first public road and the sea. However, the project will not adversely affect public access or recreation because due to the orientation of the project site atop a coastal bluff and existing public access between PCH and the beach in the vicinity. As shown on the LCP Park Lands Map, vertical access between PCH and the beach and lateral access along the beach is available at El Pescador State Beach less than 200 feet east of the project site, La Piedra State Beach located approximately 1,600 feet further to the east, and Robert M. Meyer Memorial State Beach approximately a mile to the east. An existing single-family residence is located between the subject property and El Pescador State Beach to the east and all proposed development is located atop a coastal bluff and setback from the bluff edge. No development is proposed or required on the bluff or beach. As adequate public access exists nearby and no proposed development would adversely affect existing or planned public access in the vicinity or along the shoreline, the project conforms to the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

3. There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development consistent with the RR-2 land use and zoning designations. Adjacent properties are currently developed with similar single-family residences. The City Biologist, City Coastal Engineering Consultant Reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, and City Geotechnical Consultant Reviewers reviewed the project, and these specialists found the project to meet the non beachfront residential development policies of the LCP and MMC. The project proposes a reduction of the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet, pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D) for the proposed residence. The proposed 50-foot bluff edge setback has been determined to be a sufficient distance to ensure that proposed development will not be endangered or threatened by erosion or slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure. Additional details related to project’s consistency with LIP Section 10.4(D) are discussed in the LIP Chapter 10 findings. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

The residence could be relocated elsewhere on the project site and/or be reduced in size. However, the soils testing conducted on site determined the OWTS and associated dispersal fields would be best sited in the proposed locations for optimal percolation. Moreover, because LACFD required a turnaround area to be provided onsite, the available development area was further reduced. The residence could be redesigned to a two-story configuration above 18 feet in height, which could avoid the need for the MM or increase the bluff edge setback. However, given the orientation of existing homes in the area, development above 18 feet in height would likely obstruct more private bluewater views from surrounding residences and be more visible from the beach southeast of the subject property. As designed, the proposed project complies with the requirements of the LCP.

The proposed project has been determined not to result in adverse biological, scenic or visual resource impacts, and is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

B. Minor Modification – Reduction in the Front Yard Setback (LIP Chapter 13.27)

1. The project, with the inclusion of the requested MM, as designed and conditioned, 23 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 10 of 28 ends

______________________
conforms to all applicable LCP policies and provisions. A reduction in the front yard setback is requested to maintain an 18-foot height limit for the proposed residence consistent with LIP Section 3.6 non-beachfront residential development standards, and ensure the structure footprint complies with the minimum 50-foot bluff edge setback pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D).

2. Story poles were placed on the project site to demonstrate the project’s potential for public view impacts to the surrounding area including PCH and the beach. The project’s height and bulk will not adversely affect neighborhood character as viewed from public viewing areas due to the existing pattern of residential development adjacent to and in the vicinity of the RR-2 neighborhood. The neighborhood is developed with single-family residences of varying size and height and is characterized by a mix of one and two-story homes. The project proposed has less TDSF and impermeable coverage than is otherwise allowed, and does not exceed 18 feet in height.

3. The project will comply with all applicable requirements of state and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of Malibu. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, City Environmental Health Administrator, and the LACFD and it meets the City’s residential development policies. The proposed project will comply with their respective standards through conditions of approval. The project must also be approved by WD29 and the City Community Development Department, prior to issuance of City building permits.

C. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The proposed project includes the development of a single-family residence and associated development. Staff analyzed the project’s visual impact from public viewing areas through site reconnaissance and architectural plans and an investigation of the neighborhood.

Based on a staff site visit after story poles were installed, it was determined the proposed development is not expected to have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. No existing public 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, no significant public views of the Pacific Ocean are adversely affected. As designed, the proposed residence does not exceed 18 feet, proposes less TDSF than is otherwise allowed, and maintains a minimum 50-foot setback from the bluff edge. Therefore, the project, as proposed, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location or other reasons.

Standard conditions of approval have been included for colors, materials, and lighting.

2. The project as conditioned will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The project has been conditioned to include limitations on exterior lighting and colors of exterior finishes used to prevent any visual impacts to scenic areas.

3. The project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. The project, as designed and conditioned, is not expected to adversely affect scenic and visual resources and no feasible alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources. As designed, the proposed residence does not exceed 18 feet, proposes less TDSF than is otherwise allowed, and maintains a minimum 50-foot 24 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 11 of 28 ends

______________________
setback from the bluff edge. A MM is requested to further reduce the required 47-foot front yard setback to the north (PCH side) by 37 percent to ensure the proposed structure can maintain 18 feet in height and a minimum 50-foot setback to the bluff edge.

5. The subject property is visible from nearby public beaches; however, the proposed project does not exceed 18 feet, proposes less TDSF than is otherwise allowed, and maintains a minimum 50-foot setback from the bluff edge. A MM is requested to further reduce the required 47-foot front yard setback to the north (PCH side) by 37 percent to ensure the proposed structure can maintain 18 feet in height and a minimum 50-foot setback to the bluff edge. No development is proposed or required on the bluff or beach. Therefore, the proposed development, as designed, is sited to eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resources.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. LIP Section 10.4.(D) includes a provision to allow a reduction in the setback from the bluff edge from 100 feet to a minimum of 50 feet from the bluff edge to structures if the City geotechnical reviewers determine the required factors of safety are met. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers determined the proposed geotechnical setback line, which is set back 50 feet from the geological top of slope, meets the requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D). All structural footings will be located landward of this line. Ancillary structures without footings, such as patios, walkways, and barbecues, may be located no closer than 15 feet from the bluff edge. The project, as conditioned, incorporates all recommendations contained in the above cited reports and conditions required by the City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator and City geotechnical consultant reviewers, including foundations and drainage. The project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards.

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

3. The project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. The Planning Division, City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator, and City geotechnical consultant reviewers analyzed the proposed development for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9. These specialists determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity.

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

E. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)

1. As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 2, the proposed project is not 25 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 12 of 28 ends

______________________
anticipated to interfere with public access to the ocean. The project site is located on a coastal bluff in western Malibu. The project proposes a reduction of the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet, pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D). The proposed 50-foot bluff edge setback has been determined to be a sufficient distance to ensure that the proposed development will not be endangered or threatened by erosion or slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure. The project geotechnical consultant has evaluated gross static and pseudostatic slope stability for the site based on requirements of LIP Chapter 9.4 and the City of Malibu Geotechnical Guidelines (both 2002 and 2013) and evaluated bluff retreat rates in accordance with LIP Section

44.34 feet and the 100-year bluff retreat line, based on where the 1.1 geotechnical factor of safety line (seismic) is located, is 48.51 feet. The analysis included a projected sea level rise of 6.6 feet for the 100-year economic life of the development. While 4.9 feet of sea level rise at year 2100 is most applicable for development classified within an Intermediate-High Scenario (i.e., residential development with a medium-high risk aversion), as described in the updated 2024 CCC Sea Level Rise Policy, the use of 6.6 feet was included in the analysis. Note that 6.6 feet represents the projected sea level rise in year 2100 for the High Scenario, which is intended for uses with little to no adaptive capacity (e.g., new wastewater treatment plants, power stations, highways, or other critical infrastructure). The proposed project is solely for residential development and does not include critical infrastructure within the High Scenario.

The City geotechnical consultant reviewers determined that the development will not encroach into the 50-foot bluff-top setback and the proposed project is not expected to destabilize the structural integrity of the bluff or impact shoreline access along the beach at the rear (south) of the property.

As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 2, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with public access to the ocean. The proposed structures and related sub-surface construction activities maintain at least 50 feet from the bluff edge. Vertical public access between PCH and the beach is available at El Pescador State Beach less than 200 feet east of the project site, La Piedra State Beach located approximately 1,600 feet further to the east, and Robert M. Meyer Memorial State Beach approximately a mile to the east. No development is proposed or required on the bluff or beach, and the project will not affect the shoreline sand supply or other shoreline resources such as existing or planned public access along the shoreline as the proposed development is setback from the bluff above and the structure has a finished floor elevation of 126 feet above sea level.

The proposed development complies with the reduced 50-foot setback from the coastal bluff edge as the static factor of safety is greater than 1.5. Therefore, the proposed project will not have significant adverse impacts on public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

2. As discussed in Finding 1, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned and approved by the City coastal engineering consultant reviewers and the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, will not have any significant adverse impacts on public access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.

3. The project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging 26 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 13 of 28 ends

______________________
alternative.

4. As previously discussed in Section A and Finding 1 above, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not have any significant adverse impacts on existing or planned public access or shoreline sand supply or other resources.

SECTION 5. City Council Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the City Council hereby approves CDP No. 23-034 and MM No. 25-009, subject to the conditions in Section 6.

SECTION 6. Conditions of Approval.

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

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. Construction of a 4,856 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, 18 feet in height, including a 791 square foot attached garage;
b. 824 square foot, second unit above the garage;
c. Construction of outdoor decks;
d. Installation of new landscaping and hardscape;
e. Grading;
f. Construction of a new OWTS;
g. Vehicular access gate; and
h. Fire department turnaround area.
i. Discretionary Request:
a. MM No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback (approximately 37 percent proposed).

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Division date stamped November 12, 2025. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

Page 14 of 28 ends

______________________
Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Division within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

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

6. This CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request. In the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

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

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

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

10. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.

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

Cultural Resources

12. Prior to beginning any earthmoving activities, all construction personnel must be informed about the potential for discovery of archeological resources and/or human remains, and the appropriate measures to be taken should such resources be uncovered.

Page 15 of 28 ends

______________________
archaeological cultural resources be found, a Phase II Evaluation and Phase III Mitigation Program shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The Community Development Director shall review and approve all design/work plans for Phase III Mitigation Programs and reports which detail the evaluative techniques and results.

14. Prior to final Planning Division approval of construction plans, the applicant shall submit evidence of a signed contract with a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards, to provide archaeological monitoring and reporting services during earthmoving activities. The contract shall include provisions for on-call monitoring, discovery procedures, and reporting consistent with applicable City and State requirements. Verification of the executed contract shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any grading or building permit.

15. A final report shall be prepared by the monitoring archaeologist and submitted to the Planning Division prior to the Planning final inspection of the completed project.

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

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

Lighting

18. Exterior lighting must comply with the Dark Sky Ordinance and shall be minimized, shielded, or concealed and restricted to low intensity features, so that no light source is directly visible from public view. Permitted lighting shall conform to the following standards:
a. Lighting for walkways shall be limited to fixtures that do not exceed two feet in height and are directed downward, and limited to 850 lumens (equivalent to a 60- watt incandescent bulb);
b. Security lighting controlled by motion detectors may be attached to the residence provided it is directed downward and is limited to 850 lumens; c. Driveway lighting shall be limited to the minimum lighting necessary for safe vehicular use. The lighting shall be limited to 850 lumens; d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
29 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 16 of 28 ends

______________________
e. Site perimeter lighting shall be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fencing and Walls

26. The applicant shall include an elevation of the proposed electronic driveway gate on the architectural plans that are submitted for building plan check. The gate and all fencing along the front property line shall comply with the regulations set forth in LIP Section 3.5.

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

28. For the portion of front fencing and gates above 42 inches, the slats shall be no more than one inch in diameter.

Colors and Materials

Page 17 of 28 ends

______________________
b. The use of highly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. All windows shall be comprised of non-glare glass.

30. All driveways shall be a neutral color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation. Retaining walls shall incorporate veneers, texturing and/or colors that blend with the surrounding earth materials or landscape. The color of driveways and retaining walls shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and clearly indicated on all grading, improvement and/or building plans.

Construction/Framing

31. Prior to the issuance of a building/demolition permit, an Affidavit and Certification to implement waste reduction and recycling shall be signed by the Owner or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The Affidavit shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 65 percent (in accordance with CalGreen) of all construction waste from the landfill.

32. The applicant shall submit a copy of a Construction Management Plan to the Planning Division. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers and storage of construction material. Prior to permit issuance, the Construction Management Plan must be acceptable to the Community Development Director and, if applicable, to the Building Official and Public Works Director.

33. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to final plan check approval.

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

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

Page 18 of 28 ends

______________________
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

37. When framing is complete, a site survey shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest roof member elevation. Prior to the commencement of further construction activities, said document shall be submitted to the assigned Building Inspector and Community Development Department for review and sign off on framing.

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

Biology/Landscaping

39. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.

40. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with MMC Chapter 17.53. The certificate shall include the property owner’s signed acceptance of responsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 17.53.

41. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner /applicant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.

42. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition serving the same function as a fence or wall (also known as a hedge) located within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of six feet. A hedge located within the front yard setback shall be maintained at or below a height of 42 inches. Three violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

43. 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).

44. Vegetation in excess of six feet in height shall not obstruct the primary view of existing residences located within a 1,000-foot radius at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

45. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu, are prohibited. 32 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 19 of 28 ends

______________________

46. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

47. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated with toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.

48. Any site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation, between February 1 and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.

49. All new development including structures, septic systems, or landscaping, shall be set back no less than 100 feet from the stream.

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

51. Necessary boundary fencing shall be of an open rail-type design with a wooden rail at the top (instead of wire), be less than 40-inches high, and have a space greater than 14-inches between the ground and the bottom post or wire. A split rail design that blends with the natural environment is preferred.

52. Except as permitted pursuant to the provisions in LUP policies 3.18 and 3.20, throughout the City of Malibu, development that involves the use of pesticides, including insecticides, herbicides, rodenticides or any other similar toxic chemical substances, shall be prohibited in cases where the application of such substances would have the potential to significantly degrade Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas or coastal water quality or harm wildlife.

Herbicides may be used for the eradication of invasive plant species or habitat restoration, but only if the use of non-chemical methods for prevention and management such as physical, mechanical, cultural, and biological controls are infeasible. Herbicides shall be restricted to the least toxic product and method, and to the maximum extent feasible, shall be biodegradable, derived from natural sources, and used for a limited time.

53. Plantings required for fuel modification, except for within irrigated Zone A nearest to approved residential structures, must be native, drought-tolerant species and shall blend with the existing natural vegetation and natural habitats on the site.

54. Grading and/or demolition shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 – October 31. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 – March 31, a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.
33 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 20 of 28 ends

______________________

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

Fuel Modification

56. Prior to the issuance of final building permits, the project shall receive LACFD approval of a Final Fuel Modification Plan.

Environmental Health

57. All final project plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval.

These plans must be approved by the Building and Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.

58. Reference Plans: Reference architectural and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted to Environmental Health during building plan check review of the proposed OWTS.

Approvable building plans will show a new single-family residence with no more than 2 bedrooms and 41 drainage fixture units and a second unit with no more than 1 bedroom and 10 drainage fixture units.

59. Final OWTS Plot Plan: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary construction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18-inches by 22 inches).

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

61. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items 34 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 21 of 28 ends

______________________
listed above). a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems. The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design;
a.Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

The treatment capacity shall be specified in terms of flow rate, gallons per day, and shall be supported by calculations relating the treatment capacity to the number of bedroom equivalents, plumbing drainage fixture equivalents, and the subsurface effluent dispersal system acceptance rate. The drainage fixture unit count must be clearly identified in association with the design treatment capacity, even if the design is based on the number of bedrooms. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the treatment system shall be specified in the final design; b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems;
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield, trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system’s geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shall be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e.All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

For OWTS final designs, full-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Division.

62. All project traffic rated slab plans shall be prepared by a California licensed civil engineer and submitted for Environmental Health review and approval. These plans must be 35 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 22 of 28 ends

______________________
approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.

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

64. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

65. Operations and Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed OWTS.

66. Maintenance Contract: A maintenance contract executed between the owner of the subject property and an entity qualified in the opinion of the City of Malibu to maintain the proposed onsite wastewater disposal system after construction shall be submitted. Note only original “wet signature” documents are acceptable.

67. Advanced OWTS Covenant: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a covenant running with the land shall be executed between the City of Malibu and the holder of the fee simple absolute as to subject real property and recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. Said covenant shall serve as constructive notice to any future purchaser for value that the onsite wastewater treatment system serving subject property is an advanced method of sewage disposal pursuant to the City of MMC. Said covenant shall be provided by the City of Malibu Environmental Health Administrator.

68. Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

69. City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geotechnical consultant reviewer’s final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

70. City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

71. City of Malibu Planning Approval: City of Malibu Planning Division final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.
36 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 23 of 28 ends

______________________

72. Environmental Health Final Review Fee: A final fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of the final approval shall be paid to the City of Malibu for Environmental Health review of the OWTS design and system specification.

73. Operating Permit Application and Fee: In accordance with MMC, an application shall be made to the Environmental Health office for an OWTS operating permit. An operating permit fee in accordance with the adopted fee schedule at the time of final approval shall be submitted with the application.

Geology

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

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

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology (Public Works)

76. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to 1 shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

77. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.

78. A grading and drainage plan containing the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings, driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); 37 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 24 of 28 ends

______________________
c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading, areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated;
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

79. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project’s private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, post-construction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

80. The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including stormwater runoff, directly into the ASBS. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed to treat the potential pollutants in the stormwater runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e., no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.

81. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site. 38 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 25 of 28 ends

______________________
The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

82. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (LSWPPP) shall be provided prior to issuance of grading/building permits. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but is not limited to:

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

83. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The QQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City’s current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be included within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs):
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; d. Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality 39 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 26 of 28 ends

______________________
measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits; and
i. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the time of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading and drainage plan and/or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP’s, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

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

Noise

85. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equipment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).

Prior to Occupancy

86. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner / applicant shall submit to the Community Development Department the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.

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

88. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Report (Summary Report) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Division. Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall designate the specific materials that were land filled or recycled, and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

89. The applicant shall request a final Community Development Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Community Development Department has determined that the project complies with this coastal development permit. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Community Development Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit. 40 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 27 of 28 ends

______________________

90. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Deed Restrictions

91. Prior to final Planning Division approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 18 -

25. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final Planning Division approval.

92. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by recordation of a deed restriction, that the property is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff, and that the property owner assumes said risks and waives any future claims of damage or liability against the City of Malibu and agrees to indemnify the City of Malibu against any liability, claims, damages or expenses arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final Planning Division approval.

93. The property owner is required to execute and record a deed restriction which shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to Planning Division prior to final planning approval.

94. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by the recordation of a deed restriction, that new development on a bluff-top lot, or where demolition and rebuilding is proposed, where geologic or engineering evaluations conclude that the development can be sited and designed so as to not require a shoreline protection structure as part of the proposed development or at any time during the life of the development, the property owner shall be required to record a deed restriction against the property that ensures that no shoreline protection structure shall be proposed or constructed to protect the development approved and which expressly waives any future right to construct such devices that may exist pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30235.

95. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by recordation of a deed restriction, that no more than one secondary residential unit is permitted to exist on the subject property.

Said document shall include the definitions of a second unit and guest house as defined by the LIP Section 2.1, and shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office.

The applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division.

Fixed Conditions

96. This CDP shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property. 41 Resolution No. 26-63

Page 28 of 28 ends

______________________

97. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under.

SECTION 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21st day of October 2026. __________________________________
BRUCE SILVERSTEIN, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 42 CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTIO NO. 26-10

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23-034 FOR Tl IE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY, 18-FOOT HIGH_ 4.856 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, INCLUDING A 791 SQUARE FOOT A n�ACHED GARAGE AND A 824 SQUARE FOOT SECOND-STORY
SECOND UNlT. LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPE, GRADING. FIRE

DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND AREA, VEHICULAR ACCESS GATE, AND
THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW ONSlTE WASTEWATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM; INCLUDING MINOR MODIFICATION NO. 25-009 FOR UP TO A 50 PERCENT REDUCTION OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED IN THE RURAL RESIDENTIAL, TWO-ACRE ZONING DISTRICT AT 33008 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (BLUFF TOP 1 LLC)
The Planning Conunission of the City of MaJibu does hereby find. order and resolve as follows:

SECTION I. Recitals.

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. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant, Public Works Depaitment, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29) reviewers for review.

B. On April 29, 2025. a Notice of Coastal Development Penn it Application was posted on the subject property.

C. On August 15, 2025, story poles representing the location and height of the proposed addition to the detached garage were installed.

D. On August 29, 2025, Planning Division staff conducted a site visit to document site conditions. the property and surrounding area and to determine potential visual impacts of the proposed project on any scenic area, scenic road, or public viewing area.

E. On September 9. 2025, Planning Division staff deemed the application complete.

F. On September 25, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commjssion Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

G. On October I, 2025, an amended agenda was published for the October 6. 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting and the item was removed from the agenda.

I I. On October 9, 2025. a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City or Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

EXHIBIT B
43 l
44 I
Resolution No. 26-l 0

Page 2 ends

I. On October 20, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the project to the November 3, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

J. On November 3, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the project to the December 1, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing.

K. On December 1, 2025, the Pla1rning Commission continued the project to a date uncertain prior to opening the public hearing.

L. On February 5, 2026, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation with.in the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

M. On February 17, 2026, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, reviewed and cons1dered written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the enviro1m1ent. Therefore, the project is categorica1ly exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15303(a) and (e) - New Construction. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTlON 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record and pursuant to Local Implementation Plan (L[P) including Sections 13.7(8) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 23-034 for construction of a new two-story, 18-foot high, 4,856 square foot single-fan1ily 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 (OWTS); including Minor Modification (MM) No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH).

The project is consistent with the Local Coastal Program's (LCP's) zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. The project, as conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
I. The Planning Division, City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer. City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, 45 Resolution No. 26-10

Page 3 of 22 ends

LA CFO and WD29 reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. The proposed singlefamily residence is consistent with the property's RR-2 residential zonjng district, a zone designated for residential uses. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable non-beachfront residential development standards.

2. The project is located between the first public road and the sea. However, the project will not adversely affect public access or recreation because due to the orientation of the project site atop a coastal bluff and existing p ublic access between PCH and the beach in the vicinity. As shown on the LCP Park Lands Map, vertical access between PCH and the beach and lateral access along the beach is available at El Pescador State Beach less than 200 feet east oflhe project site, La Piedra State Beach located approximately 1,600 feet fwiher to the east, and Robert M. Meyer Memorial State Beach approximately a mile to the east. An existing single-family residence is located between the subject property and El Pescador State Beach to the east and all proposed development is located atop a coastal bluff and setback from the bluff edge. No development is proposed or required on the bluff or beach. As adequate public access exists nearby and no proposed development would adversely affect existing or planned public access in the vicinity or along the shoreline, the project conforms to the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

3. There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and assoc iated development consistent with the RR-2 land use and zoning designations. Adjacent properties are currently developed with similar single-family residences. The City Biologist, City Coastal Engineering Consultant Reviewers, City Environmental Health Administrator, and City Geotechnical Consultant Reviewers reviewed the project, and these specialists found the project to meet the nonbeachfront residential development policies of the LCP and MMC. The project proposes a reduction of the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet, pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D) for the proposed residence. The proposed SO-foot bluff edge setback has been determined to be a sufficient distance to ensure that proposed development will not be endangered or threatened by erosion or slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure. Additional details related to project's consistency with LIP Section I 0.4(O) are discussed in the LIP Chapter IO findings. The proposed project, as conditioned, will comply with all applicable requirements of State and local law.

The residence could be relocated elsewhere on the project site and/or be reduced in size. However, the soils testing conducted on site determined the OWTS and associated dispersal fields would be best sited in the proposed locations for optimal percolation. Moreover, because LACFD required a turnaround area to be provided onsite, the available development area was further reduced. The residence could be redesigned to a two-story configuration above 18 feet in height, which could avoid the need for the MM or increase the bluff edge setback. However, given the orientation of existing homes in the area, development above 18 feet in height would likely obstruct more private bluewater views from smrounding residences and be more visible from the beach southeast of the subject property. As designed, the proposed project complies with the requirements of the LCP.

The proposed project has been determined not to result in adverse biological, scenic or visual resource impacts, and is the least enviromnentally damaging feasible alternative. 46 Resolution No. 26-10

Page 4 ends

B. Minor Modification - Reduction in the Front Yard Setback (Lf P Section 13.27) I. The project, with the inclusion of the requested MM, as designed and conditioned, conforms to all applicable LCP policies and provisions. A reduction in the front yard setback is requested to maintain an 18-foot height limit for the proposed residence consistent with LIP Section 3 .6 non-beach front residential development standards, and ensure the strncture footprint comp)jes with the minimum 50-foot bluff edge setback pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(0).

2. Story poles were placed on the project site to demonstrate the project's potential for public view impacts to the surrounding area including PCH and the beach. The project's height and bulk will not adversely affect neighborhood character as viewed from public viewing areas due to the existing pattern of residential development adjacent to and in the vicinity of the RR-2 neighborhood. The neighborhood is developed with single-family residences of varying size and height and is characterized by a mix of one and two-story homes. The project proposed has less TDSF and impermeable coverage than is otherwise allowed, and does not exceed 18 feet in height.

3. The project will comply with all applicable requirements of state and local law and is conditioned to comply with any relevant approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of Malibu. The project has been reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, City Environmental Health Administrator, and the LACFD and it meets the City's residential development policies. The proposed project will comply with their respective standards through conditions of approval. The project must also be approved by WD29 and the City Community Development Department, prior to issuance of City building permits.

C. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6)

1. The proposed project includes the development of a single-family residence and associated development. Staff analyzed the project's visual impact from public viewing areas through site reconnaissance and architectural plans and an investigation of the neighborhood.

Based on a staff site visit after story poles were installed, it was determined the proposed development is not expected to have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. No existing public 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, no significant public views of the Pacific Ocean are adversely affected. As designed, the proposed residence does not exceed 18 feet, proposes less TDSF than is otherwise allowed, and maintains a minimum SO-foot setback from the bluff edge. Therefore, the project, as proposed, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location or other reasons.

Standard conditions of approval have been included for colors. materials, and lighting.

3. The project, as designed and conditioned. is the least envi.ro1rn1entally damaging alternative.

Page 5 ends

adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources. As designed, the proposed residence does not exceed 18 feet, proposes less TDSF than is otherwise allowed, and maintains a minimum 50-foot setback from the bluff edge. A MM is requested to further reduce the required 47-foot front yard setback to the north (PCH side) by 37 percent to ensure the proposed structure can maintain 18 feet in height and a minimum 50-foot setback to tbe bluff edge.

5. The subject prope11y is visible from nearby public beaches; however, the proposed project does not exceed 18 feet, proposes less TDSF than is otherwise allowed, and maintains a minimum 50-foot setback from the bluff edge. A MM is requested to further reduce the required 47-foot front yard setback to the north (PCH side) by 37 percent to ensure the proposed structure can maintain 18 feet in height and a minimum 50-foot setback to the bluff edge. No development is proposed or required on the bluff or beach. Therefore. the proposed development, as designed, is sited to eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resources.

D. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. Evidence in the record demonstrates that the project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards. LIP Section 10.4.(D) includes a provision to allow a reduction in the setback from the bluff edge from 100 feet to a minimum of 50 feet from the bluff edge to structures if the City geotechnical reviewers determine the required factors of safety are met. The City geotechnical consultant reviewers determined the proposed geoteclmical setback line, which is set back 50 feet from the geological top of slope, meets the requirements of LIP Section I 0.4(D). All strnctural footings will be located landward of this line. Ancillary structures without footings, such as patios, walkways, and barbecues, may be located no closer than 15 feet from the bluff edge. The project, as conditioned, incorporates all recommendations contained in the above cited reports and conditions required by the City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Adminjstrator and City geotechnical consultant reviewers, including foundations and drainage. The project will neither be subject to nor increase the instability of the site from geologic, flood, or fire hazards

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

3. The project, as designed and conditioned. is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

4. The Planning Division, City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator, and City geotechnical consultant reviewers analyzed the proposed development for the hazards listed in UP Chapter 9. These specialists determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity.

5. As previously discussed in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alterna6ve and no adverse impacts to sensitive resources are anticipated.
48 l
E. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 6 ends

1. As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 2, the proposed project is not anticipated to i11terfere with pubJic access to the ocean. The project site is located on a coastal bluff in western Malibu. The project proposes a reduction of the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet, pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D). The proposed 50-foot bluff edge setback has been determined to be a sufficient distance to ensure that the proposed development will not be endangered or threatened by erosion or slope instability for a projected 100-year economic life of the structure. The project geotechnical consultant has evaluated gross static and pseudostatic slope stability for the site based on requirements of LIP Chapter 9.4 and the City of Malibu Geotechnical Guidelines (both 2002 and 2013) and evaluated bluff retreat rates in accordance with UP Section

10.4 for the 100-year economic life of the project. The consultants projected a bluff retreat rate of two inches per year, or 16. 7 feet, for the 100- year economic life of the development. The 100- year bluff retreat line, based on where the 1.5 geoteclrnical factor of safety line (static) is located, is 44.34 feet and the 100-year bluff retreat li11e, based on where the 1.1 geotechnical factor of safety line (seismic) is located, is 48.51 feet. The analysis included a projected sea level rise of 6.6 feet for the 100-year economic life of the development. While 4. 9 feet of sea Jevel rise at year 2100 is most applicable for development classified within an lntermediate-High Scenario (i.e., residential development with a medium-high risk aversion), as described in the updated 2024 CCC Sea Level Rise Policy, the use of 6.6 feet was included in the analysis. Note that 6.6 feet represents the projected sea level rise in year 2100 for the High Scenario, which is intended for uses with little to no adaptive capacity ( e.g., new wastewater treatment plants, power stations, highways, or other critical infrastructure). The proposed project is solely for residential development and does not include critical infrastructure within the High Scenario.

As previously discussed in Section A, Finding 2, the proposed project is not anticipated to interfere with public access to the ocean. The proposed structures and related sub-surface construction activities maintain at least 50 feet from the bluff edge. Vertical public access between PCH and the beach is available at EL Pescador State Beach less than 200 feet east of the project site, La Piedra State Beach located approximately 1,600 feet further to the east, and Robert M. Meyer Memorial State Beach approximately a mile to the east. No development is proposed or required on the bluff or beach, and the project will not affect the shoreline sand supply or other shoreline resources such as existing or planned public access along the shoreline as the proposed development is setback from the bluff above and the structure has a finished floor elevation of 126 feet above sea level. The proposed development complies with the reduced 50-foot setback from the coastal bluff edge as the static factor of safety is greater than 1.5. Therefore, the proposed project will not have significant adverse impacts on public access, shoreline sand supply or other resources due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

Page 7 ends

3. The project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 23-034 and MM No. 25-009, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

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

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

3. a. Construction of a 4,856 square foot, two-story, single-family residence, 18 feet in height, including a 791 square foot attached garage; b. 824 square foot, second unit above the garage;
c. Construction of outdoor decks;
d. Installation of new landscaping and hardscape;
e. Grading;
f. Construction of a new OWTS;
g. Vehicular access gate; and
h. Fire department turnaround area.

1. Discretionary Request:
a. MM No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback (approximately 37 percent proposed).

Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Division date stamped November 12, 2025. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval sti.pulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.
50 [
Resolution No. 26-1 0

Page 8 of 22 ends

4. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.18.2, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Division within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

5. The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the PJam1ing Division for consistency review and approval prior to plan check and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits.

6. This CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall set forth the reasons for the request. ln the event of an appeal, the CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision-making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

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

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Depaiiment, WD29 and LACFD, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

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

10. Pw-suant to LJP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until a ll appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.
11 . The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to issuance of any building permit, including grading or demolition.

Cultural Resources

Page 9 ends

13. A qualified archaeologist shall be present onsite during all earthmoving activities and shall remain present onsite to monitor until he or she determines that it would be unlikely for further work to encounter cultural resources. Should the presence of important archaeological cultural resources be found, a Phase H Evaluation and Phase III Mitigation Program shall be conducted by a qualified archaeologist. The Community Development Director shall review and approve all design/work plans for Phase IH Mitigation Programs and reports which detail the evaluative techniques and results.

14. Prior to frnal Planning Division approval of construction plans, the applicant shall submit evidence of a signed contract with a qualified archaeologist, meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, to provide archaeological monitoring and reporting services during earthmoving activities. The contract shall include provisions for on-call monitoring, discovery procedures, and reporting consistent with app licable City and State requirements. Verification of the executed contract shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of any grading or building permit.

15. A final report shall be prepared by the monitoring archaeologist and submitted to the Planning Division prior to the Planning final inspection of the completed project.

Lighting

Page 10 ends

d. Lights at entrances as required by the Building Code shall be permitted provided that such lighting does not exceed 850 lumens;
e. Site perimeter lighting shaJl be prohibited; and
f. Outdoor decorative lighting for aesthetic purposes is prohibited.

19. Night lighting for sp011s courts or other private recreational facilities shall be prohibited.

20. No permanently installed I ighting shall blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. Lighting levels on any nearby property from artificial light sources on the subject property(ies) shall not produce an illumination level greater than one foot-candle. 2 1. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded directed downward and inward so there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Lighting of the shore or the beach in excess of one foot candle is prohibited.

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

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

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

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

Fencing am/ Walls

26. The applicant shall include an elevation of the proposed electronk driveway gate on the architectural plans that are submitted for building plan check. The gate and all fencing along the front property line shall comply with the regulations set forth in LIP Section 3.5.

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

28. For the portion of front fencing and gates above 42 inches, the slats shall be no more than one inch in diameter.

Colors and Materials

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

Resolution No. 26-10

Page 11 ends

Construction Conditions

31. Prior to the issuance of a building/demolition permit, an Affidavit and Certification to implement waste reduction and recycling shall be signed by the Owner or Contractor and submitted to the Environmental Sustainability Department. The Affidavit shall indicate the agreement of the applicant to divert at least 65 percent (in accordance with Cal Green) of all construction waste from the landfill.

33. A construction staging plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Building Official prior to final plan check approval.

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

36. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LlP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site. 54 Resolution No. 26-10

Page 12 of 22 ends

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

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

Biology/Landscaping

39. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division.

40. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with MMC Chapter 17.53. The ce1tificate shall include the property owner's signed acceptance ofresponsibility for maintaining the landscaping and irrigation in accordance with the approved plans and MMC Chapter 17.53.

41. Prior to a final plan check approval, the property owner/appli cant must provide a landscape water use approval from the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29.

43. 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 futme growth).

45. Invasive plant species, as determined by the City of Malibu. are prohibited.

46. No non-native plant species shall be approved greater than 50 feet from the residential structure.

47. The landscape plan shall prohibit the use of building materials treated witb toxic compounds such as creosote or copper arsenate.
55 Resolution No. 26-10

Page 13 ends

48. Any site preparation activities, including removal of vegetation, between February I and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified. a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.

49. All new development including structures. septic systems, or landscaping, shall be set back no less than 100 feet from the stream.

54. Grading and/or demolition shall be scheduled only during the dry season from April 1 - October 3 1. If it becomes necessary to conduct grading activities from November 1 - March 3 l , a comprehensive erosion control plan shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a grading permit and implemented prior to initiation of vegetation removal and/or grading activities.

55. The use of wood chips and slu·edded rubber is prohibited anywhere on the site. Flammable mulch material, including shredded bark. pine needles. and artificial turf, are prohibited between zero and five feet of a structure. Non-continuous use of t1ammable mulch (excluding wood chips and slu·edded rubber) is allowed between 5 and 30 feet from the eave/overhang of a structure with limited application areas. Any mulch materials (excluding wood chips and shredded rubber) are allowed 30 feet or more from a structure with no limitation on application area.
56 l
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 14 ends

Fuel Modification

56. Prior to the issuance of final building permits. the project shall receive LACFD approval of a Final Fuel Modification Plan.

Environmental Health

57. All final project plans shall be submitted for Environmental Health review and approval.

These plans must be approved by the Building and Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.

58. Reference Plans: Reference architectural and grading/drainage plans shall be submitted to Environmental Health during building plan check review of the proposed OWTS.

Approvable building plans will show a new single-family residence with no more than 2 bedrooms and 41 drainage fixture units and a second unit with no more than ] bedroom and 10 drainage fixture units.

59. Final OWTS Plot Plan: Prior to final Environmental Health approval, a final OWTS plot plan prepared by a City Registered OWTS Designer shall be submitted showing an OWTS design meeting the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP, including necessary constmction details, the proposed drainage plan for the developed property and the proposed landscape plan for the developed property. The OWTS plot plan shall show essential features of the OWTS and must fit onto an 11-inch by 17-inch sheet leaving a five-inch margin clear to provide space for a City applied legend. If the scale of the plans is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details and/or all necessary setbacks, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18-inches by 22- inches ).

60. Final OWTS Design Report, Plans, and System Specifications: Jf the OWTS design and/or bedroom/drainage fixtme unit counts are modified in any way subsequent to the Planningstage review, then a final OWTS design report and large set of construction drawings with system specifications (four sets) shall be submitted to describe the OWTS design basis and all components (i.e., alarm system. pumps, timers, flow equalization devices, backflow devices, etc.) proposed for use in the construction of the proposed OWTS. For all OWTS, final reports must be signed by a City registered OWTS Designer, and the plans stamped by a California Geologist. The final OWTS design report and construction drawings shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator with the designer's wet signature, professional registration number and stamp (if applicable).

61. The final design report shall contain the following information (in addition to the items listed above).
a. Required treatment capacity for wastewater treatment and disinfection systems.

Page 15 ends

b. Sewage and effluent pump design calculations (as applicable). c. Description of proposed wastewater treatment and/or disinfection system equipment. State the proposed type of treatment system(s) (e.g., aerobic treatment, textile filter ultraviolet disinfection, etc.); major components, manufacturers, and model numbers for "package" systems; and conceptual design for custom engineered systems;
d. Specifications, supporting geology information, and percolation test results for the subsurface effluent dispersal portion of the onsite wastewater disposal system. This must include the proposed type of effluent dispersal system (drainfield. trench, seepage pit subsurface drip, etc.) as well as the system's geometric dimensions and basic construction features. Supporting calculations shal I be presented that relate the results of soils analysis or percolation/infiltration tests to the projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate, including any unit conversions or safety factors. Average and peak rates of hydraulic loading to the effluent dispersal system shall be specified in the final design. The projected subsurface effluent acceptance rate shall be reported in units of total gallons per day and gallons per square foot per day. Specifications for the subsurface effluent dispersal system shall be shown to accommodate the design hydraulic loading rate (i.e., average and peak OWTS effluent flow, reported in units of gallons per day). The subsurface effluent dispersal system design must take into account the number of bedrooms, fixture units and building occupancy characteristics; and
e. All final design drawings shall be submitted with the wet signature and typed name of the OWTS designer. If the scale of the plan is such that more space is needed to clearly show construction details, larger sheets may also be provided (up to a maximum size of 18 inch by 22 inch, for review by Environmental Health). Note:

For OWTS final designs, ful l-size plans are required for review by the Building Safety Division and/or the Planning Division.

62. All project traffic rated slab plans shall be prepared by a California licensed civil engineer and submitted for Enviromnental Health review and approval. These plans must be approved by the Building Safety Division prior to receiving Environmental Health final approval.

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

64. Proof of Ownership: Proof of ownership of subject property shall be submitted to the City Environmental Health Administrator.

65. Operations and Maintenance Manual: An operations and maintenance manual specified by the OWTS designer shall be submitted to the property owner and maintenance provider of the proposed OWTS.
58 I
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 16 of 22 ends

68. Project Geologist/Geoteclrnical Consultant Approval: Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Envirom11ental Health Administrator.

69. City of Malibu Geologist/Geotechnical Approval: City of Malibu geoteclu1ical consultant reviewer's final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

70. City of Malibu Public Works Approval: City of Malibu Public Works final approval of the OWTS plan shall be submitted to the Environmental Health Administrator.

71. City of Malibu Plaru1ing Approval: City of Malibu Planning Division final approval of the OWTS plan shall be obtained.

Geology

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

75. Final plans approved by the City geoteclmical staff shall be in substantial conformance with the approved CDP relative to construction, grading. sewage disposal and drainage.

Any substantial changes may require a CDP amendment or a new CDP. 59 Grading/Drainage/Hydrology (Public Works)
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 17 of 22 ends

76. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November l to March 31) shall be prohibited for development that:
a. Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
b. Includes grading on slopes greater than 4 to 1.

Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4 to I shall not be undertaken unless there is sufficient time to complete grading operations before the rainy season. If grading operations are not completed before the rainy season begins, grading shall be halted and temporary erosion control measw·es shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 31 , unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

77. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the Los Angeles County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with LIP Section 8.3.

78. A grading and drainage plan containj11g the following information shall be approved, and submitted to the Public Works Department. prior to the issuance of grading pem1its for tbe project:
a. Public Works Department general notes;
b. The existing and proposed square footage of impervious coverage on the property shall be shown on the grading plan (including separate areas for buildings. driveways, walkways, parking, tennis courts and pool decks); c. The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area shall be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading. areas disturbed for the installation of the septic system, and areas disturbed for the installation of the detention system shall be included within the area delineated;
d. The limits to land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated and a total area of disturbance should be shown on this plan. Areas disturbed by grading equipment beyond the limits of grading shall be included within the area delineated;
e. If the property contains rare, endangered or special status species as identified in the Biological Assessment, this plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on this plan is required by the City Biologist; f. The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses and over excavations for fill slopes; and
g. Private storm drain systems shall be shown on this plan. Systems greater than 12 inch in diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with this plan.

79. A digital drawing (AutoCAD) of the project's private storm drain system, public storm drain system within 250 feet of the property limits, and post-construction BMPs shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of grading or building permits. The digital drawing shall adequately show all storm drain lines, inlets, outlets, post-construction BMPs and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements. 60 Resolution No. 26-10

Page 18 ends

80. The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the State Water Resources Control Board as an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) as part of the California Ocean Plan. This designation prohibits the discharge of any waste, including storm water runoff, directly into the ASBS. The applicant shall provide a drainage system that accomplishes the following:
a. Installation of BMPs that are designed lo treat the potential pollutants in the storm water runoff so that it does not alter the natural ocean water quality. These pollutants include trash, oil and grease, metals, bacteria, nutrients, pesticides, herbicides and sediment.
b. Prohibits the discharge of trash.
c. Only discharges from existing storm drain outfalls are allowed. No new outfalls will be allowed. Any proposed or new storm water discharged shall be routed to existing storm drain outfalls and shall not result in any new contribution of waste to the ASBS (i.e., no additional pollutant loading).
d. Elimination of non-storm water discharges.
81 . A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The SWMP shall be prepared in accordance with the LIP Section 17.3.2 and all other applicable ordinances and regulations. The SWMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the pre-development and post-development drainage of the site.

The SWMP shall identify the site design and source control BMPs that have been implemented in the design of the project. The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading or building permit for this project.

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Management
Water Conservation Practices
Dewatering Operations
Waste Management Material Delivery and Storage
Stockpile Management
Spill Prevention and Control
Solid Waste Management
Concrete Waste Management
Sanitary/Septic Waste Management
All Best Management Practices (BMP) shall be in accordance with the latest version of the California Stormwater Quality Association BMP Handbook. Designated areas fo,- the 61 [

83. 84.

Noise
Resolution No. 26-1 0

Page 19 ends

storage of construction materials, solid waste management, and portable toilets must not disrupt drainage patterns or subject the material to erosion by site runoff.

A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the Public Works Director. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predevelopment and post development drainage on the site. The QQMP shall meet all the requirements of the City's current Municipal Separate Stormwater Sewer System (MS4) permit. The following elements shall be inc luded within the WQMP:
a. Site Design Best Management Practices (BMPs):
b. Source Control BMPs;
c. Treatment Control BMPs that retain on-site Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technically infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site; d. Drainage improvements;
e. A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMPs for the expected life of the structure;
f. Methods of onsite percolation, site re-vegetation and an analysis for off-site project impacts;
g. Measures to treat and infiltrate runoff from impervious areas; h. A copy of the WQMP shall be filed against the property to provide constructive notice to future property owners of their obligation to maintain the water quality measure installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permjts; and

1. The WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and the fee applicable at the ti.me of submittal for review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior the Public Works Department's approval of the grading and drainage plan and/or building plans. The Public Works Department will tentatively approve the plan and will keep a copy until the completion of the project. Once the project is completed, the applicant shall verify the installation of the BMP's, make any revisions to the WQMP, and resubmit to the Public Works Department for approval. The original signed and notarized document shall be recorded with the Office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. A certified copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

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

85. Onsite noise, including that which emanates from swimming pool and air conditioning equjpment, shall be limited as described in MMC Chapter 8.24 (Noise).

Site Spec/fie Condition

86. The proposed development must be confined within a l 0,000 square foot development area.
62 l
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 20 ends

Prior to Occupancy

87. Prior to, or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the prope1ty owner / applicant shall submit to the Planning Division the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation signed off by the Building Safety Division.

88. Prior to the issuance of a Ce1tificate of Occupancy, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all Planning Division conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

89. Prior to a final Building inspection, the applicant shall provide a Recycling Summary Repo1t (Summary Repo1t) and obtain the approval from the Environmental Sustainability Division.

Applicant must provide haul tickets and diversion information. The final Summary Report shall designate the specific mate1ials that were land filled or recycled, and state the facilities where all materials were taken.

90. 91.

The applicant shall request a final Planning Division inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until the Planning Division has determined that the project complies with this CDP. A temporary Certificate of Occupancy may be granted at the discretion of the Community Development Director, provided adequate security has been deposited with the City to ensure compliance should the final work not be completed in accordance with this permit.

Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

Deed Restrictions

92. Prior to final Planning Division approval, the applicant shall be required to execute and record a deed restriction reflecting lighting requirements set forth in Condition Nos. 18 -

25. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final Planning Division approval.

93. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by recordation of a deed restriction, that the property is subject to wave action, erosion, flooding, landslides, or other hazards associated with development on a beach or bluff, and that the property owner assumes said risks and waives any future claims of damage or liability against the City of Malibu and agrees to indenmify the City of Malibu against any liability, claims, damages or expenses arising from any injury or damage due to such hazards. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final Planning Division approval.

94. The prope,ty owner is required to execute and record a deed restnct1on wh_ich shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, and employees against any and all claims, demands, damages, costs and expenses of liability arising out of the acquisition, design, construction, operation, maintenance, existence or failure of the permitted project in an area where an extraordinary potential for damage or destruction from wildfire exists 63 I
l
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 21 ends

as an inherent risk to life and property. The property owner shall provide a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division prior to final planning approval.

95. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by the recordation of a deed restriction, that new development on a bluff-top lot, or where demolition and rebuilding is proposed, where geologic or engineering evaluations conclude that the development can be sited and designed so as to not require a shoreline protection structure as part of the proposed development or at any time during the life of the development, tbe property owner shall be required to record a deed restriction against the property that ensures that no shoreline protection structure shall be proposed or constructed to protect the development approved and which expressly waives any future right to construct such devices that may exist pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30235.

96. The property owner is required to acknowledge, by recordation of a deed restriction, that no more than one secondary residential unit is permitted to exist on the subject property.

Said document shall include the definitions of a second unjt and guest house as defined by the LIP Section 2. I, and shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder's Office.

The applicant shall submit a copy of the recorded document to the Planning Division.

Fixed Conditions

97. 98.

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

Violation of any of the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination of all rights granted there under.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17111 day of February 2026.

ELIZABETH RJDDICK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

REBECCA EVANS. Recording Secretary
64 [
Resolution No. 26-10

Page 22 ends

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

13.20. l (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org, in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, ext. 246.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission's approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City's Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or 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.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.1 2.0 IO of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 1 CERTCFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 26-10 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 17th day of February 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
4 0
I
0 REBECCA
~Q~ EVA~g Secretary
Commissioners: Leonard, Mazza, Kamins, Riddick
Commissioner: Peak

EXHIBIT C
65 Docusign Envelope ID: D6C3CFCO-C335-41B6-9205-D5BA9CF56E05 City of Malibu

RECEIVED
FEB 2 6 2026
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California • 90265-4861 PLANNING DIVISION Phone (3 10) 456-2489 • Fax (310) 456-3356 • www.malibucity. rg

PLANNING DIVISION

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

NOTICE OF APPEAL CHECKLIST
Actions Subject to Local Appeal: Pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a decision or any portion of the decision of the Community Development Director may be appealed to the Planning Commission by an aggrieved person, and any decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person.

Deadline and Fees: Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1, an appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days following the date of action for which the appeal is made, as indicated in the decision. If the tenth day falls on a weekend or a City-recognized holiday, the deadline shall extend to the close of business at City Hall on the first business day (whether whole or partial) following the weekend or a City-recognized holiday. Appeals shall be accompanied by the filing fee of $750 as specified by the City Council.

To perfect an appeal, the form must be completed, together with all the necessary attachments, and must be timely received by the City Clerk either in person or by mail addressed to City of Malibu, Attn: City Clerk, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA 90265. For more information, contact Patricia Salazar, Development and Operations Manager, at (310) 456-2489, extension 245.

Part I. Project Information

1. What is the file number of the Coastal Development Permit you are appealing? CDP No. 23-034; Minor Modification No. 25-009

2. On what date was the decision made which you are appealing? February 17, 2026

3. Who made the decision you are appealing?
D Community Development Director

4. What is the address of the project site at issue?
33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, CA 90265
Page I of4
P:\Forms\COUNTER FORi\llS\PLN Appeal Checklist_ CDP_ 2205 18.docx IX! Planning Commission
66 Docusign Envelope ID: D6C3CFCO-C335-41 B6-9205-D5BA9CF56E05 Part II. Appeal Summary

1. Indicate your interest in the decision by checking the appropriate box.

D I am the Applicant for the project
IXl I am the neighbors; Mark Mackey, Tamara Mackey
D Other (describe)

2. If you are not the applicant, please indicant the applicant's name:

BluffTop I LLC

3. Indicate the nature of your appeal.
a) Are you appealing the IXl approval or D the denial of the application or D a condition of approval?
b) Each approval is accompanied by a list of specific conditions. If you are appealing one or more of the conditions of approval, list the condition number and state the grounds for your appeal. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.)

4. Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate which of the following reasons forms the basis of your appeal:

IX! The findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings: or
D There was a lack of fair or impartial hearing: or
The decision was contrary to law.

You must next provide a specific statement in support of each of the bases for appeal that you have checked above. Appeals that are stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.) See Appeal Justification Letter

Page 2 of 4 ends

67 Docusign Envelope ID: D6C3CFC0-C335-41 B6-9205-D5BA9CF56E05 Each coastal development permitting decision made by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission is accompanied by written findings. The written findings set forth the basis for the decision. If you have checked the first box in this section as a ground for your appeal, you must indicate the specific finding(s) you disagree with and give specific reasons why you believe the finding(s) is/are not supported by the evidence or why the decision is not supported by the findings. Appeals stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.)
See Appeal Justification Letter
Part Ill. Appeal Checklist
ALL of the following must be timely filed to perfect an appeal.

1. IX! Completed Appeal Checklist (This form with appellant's signature)

2. !XI Appeal Fee $750
The appeal fee must be submitted in the form of a check or money order made payable to the City of Malibu. Cash will not be accepted.

3. IX! Mailing Labels and Radius Maps for Public Notice to Property Owners and Occupants Public Notice of an appeal must conform to the manner in which the original notice was given. The notice radius for appealable CDPs and non-appealable CDPs that do not require a public hearing is 100 feet for property owners and residents. The notice radius for non-appealable CDPs that require a public hearing is 300 feet for property owners and 100 feet for residents.

The mailing labels and radius map must be certified by the preparer (a form is available at the public counter): certification may not be more than six months prior to the date of submittal; the radius map must be provided on an 8½" x 11" paper; the mailing labels must be printed on 8½" x 11" paper, 3 columns, 10 rows (e.g. Avery 5160).

Page 3 ends

68 Docusign Envelope ID: D6C3CFC0-C335-41 B6-9205-D58A9CF56E05 Part IV. Signature and Appellant lnfonnation
I hereby certify that the appeal submittal contains all of the above items. I understand that if any of the items are missing or otherwise deficient, the appeal is ineffective and the filing fee may be returned. IN ORDER TO PERFECT AN APPEAL, ALL APPEAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE COMPLETE BY THE DEADLINE. NO

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR APPELLANTS INHO ONLY PART/ALLY COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS AS OF THE DEADLINE. IF AN APPEAL IS NOT PERFECTED BY THE DEADLINE, THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL.

Mark Mackey, for Mark and Tamara Mackey

PRINT APPELLANT'S NAME
l~;k~lkt:ll
~ ..... S..... S-IG_N_A_T_U_R_E __
Appellant's mailing address:

Appellant's email address:

OFFICE USE ONLY
~ TELEPHONE NUMBER
2/24/26
DATE
Action Appealed: Cb?l\/2, ~3-D3 i ) Ar (\/4 I :)_ ~-000 Appeal Period: .24?</afJ - ';)._/a_7/~0
Appeal Completion Date: :Z~ (., /.) ~ l
Date Appeal Form and required documents submitted: 1/¾/~ ~ Received by:lC'~q fu6 by:kobic c,E.vqo':?rfiontzc/1aa,r.'tfotAA±Axw, (~st- (Nam , itle)

Page 4 ends

69 :::( ELKINS KALT Jackson D. McNeill
D: (3 I 0) 746-4424
[email protected]
Ref: 1616&-O0O I
a.
__J
...J
(l)
"O
V,
....,
~
ro
lJ
C:
<lJ
.0
:::::l
Q)
0::
..0
:::::l
....,
~
C
Q)
s:
ro
::,::::

V,
C
.::,;:_
UJ

VIA HAND DELIVERY
City of Malibu City Council
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
February 25, 2026
Kelsey Pettyjohn
Emai 1: [email protected]
City of Malibu, City Clerk
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re:

Address:

Email: [email protected]
Appeal of CDP No. 23-034 and Minor Mod. No. 25-009
33008 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California
Dear Mayor Silverstein and Honorable City Councilmembers:

Our firm represents Mark and Tamara Mackey (collective! our "Clients" the owners of the real property and single-family residence located at in Malibu, California. 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"). On February I 7, 2026, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 26-10 ("Resolution") approving the Application and determining that the Project is exempt from CEQA ("Decision"). Through this letter and the documents submitted herewith, our Clients appeal the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council pursuant to LIP section 13.20 et seq.

As discussed below, the Project violates the plain language of LCP, and the administrative record does not contain substantial evidence to support the required findings. Moreover, the City's erroneously detennined that the project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). For these reasons, discussed in more detail below, the City Council should grant the appeal and deny the Project.

I. Statement of Aggrieved Person(s).

Appeals may only be made by aggrieved persons. (LIP § 13.20.1.) The LIP defines "Aggrieved Person" as:
8065090.2
(A]ny person who, in person or through a representative, appeared at a public hearing of the City of Malibu or the California Coastal Commission in connection with the decision or action on a Coastal T 310.746.4400 C 310.746.4499
10345 W. Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064 I e!kinskalt.com 70 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 2 ends

(LIP § 2.1.)
Development Permit application, or who, by other appropriate means prior to a hearing, informed the City of Malibu or the California Coastal Commission of the nature of his/her concerns or who for good cause was unable to do either. "Aggrieved person" includes the applicant for a Coastal Development Permit.

Our Clients individually and collectively qualify as an "aggrieved person" or "aggrieved persons" in that, either personally or through their representatives, including our firm, they: (1) submitted written testimony, records, and objections to the project informing the City of Malibu of the nature of their concerns; (2) met with City staff in person and telephonically in order to the City of Malibu of the nature of their concerns; and (3) appeared at the public hearing of the Planning Commission and provided oral testimony informing the City of Malibu of the nature of their concerns.

II. Grounds for Appeal.

A. LCP Grounds for Appeal.

1. The Decision is Contrary to Law and the Evidence Fails to Support the Findings Because the Planning ESHA Analysis Relies on an Incorrect Measurement Methodology; When Correctly Measured, an ESHA Buffer Exists that Conflicts with the Project.

The Project lies close to a ESHA-designated blue line stream. While fuel modification zones exist around the stream, the presence of fuel modification zones does not affect whether or not a stream is designated ESHA. Indeed, neither the Staff Report nor the Applicant's biology materials contest that the stream constitutes ESHA. (February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 3-4; Forde Memorandum, November 12, 2025.)
The LCP requires a 100-foot ESHA buffer measured from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, not from the edge of the stream. (LIP § 4.6. l (A).) This buffer area exists regardless of whether fuel modification zones lie within the buffer area. This was confirmed during the Planning Commission in live testimony by City Biologist Courtney McCammon, who reviewed the project.

Except for limited exceptions not applicable here, no development is permitted within the buffer area. (LIP § 4.5.4.)
Instead of calculating the ESHA buffer from the edge of the riparian habitat, however, the Applicant's biologist "determined that at its closet point the distance from top of bank to the 8065090.2
71 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 3 ends

property line is 104 feet." (Forde Memorandum, November 12, 2025, p. 2, emphasis added.) At the same time, the Applicant's own biological assessment opines that "[a]long the perimeter of the stream various trees and associated riparian areas are present" and that the "ESHA area is a riparian woodland community." (Moorman Biological Assessment, July 2023, p. 10.) Clients' biologist, likewise, testified during the Planning Commission hearing that riparian vegetation exists south and east of the stream all the way to the easement road.

Thus, by measuring from the stream edge rather than from the outer edge of riparian vegetation, the Applicant's analysis systematically undermeasures the ESHA buffer. When the buffer is correctly measured, it overlaps the Property and multiple Project components. The Decision was therefore contrary to law because it failed to measure or account for the ESHA buffer.

The Decision's findings were also not supported by the evidence. To approve a CDP, the Planning Commission had to find that the Project conformed to the LCP and that the Project was the least environmentally damaging alternative. (LIP § 13.9; February 17, 2026, Staff Report p.

14.) However, City biologist Courtney McCammon and Applicant admitted during the hearing that the Applicant had presented no evidence as to whether riparian vegetation existed or that it had properly measured the ESHA buffer. Accordingly, the evidence does not support the findings.

2. The Project Fails to Account for Coastal ESHA.

Our Clients' biologist inspected the coastal bluff along the Property and concluded it qualifies as ESHA, providing a detailed, multi-page analysis. The applicant biologist's 1.5-page memorandum on November 12, 2025, and Applicant's previous biological assessment predate that analysis and do not rebut it. The presence of coastal bluff ESHA means that the Applicant must provide a 100-foot buffer from the top of the bluff, and its request for a 50-foot setback instead cannot be approved. (LIP§ 4.6.1 (D).) Similarly, the Project as approved includes various elements that conflict with the 100-foot required ESHA buffer. Accordingly, the Planning Commission's decision was contrary to law and the Planning Commission could not have appropriately found that the Project conformed with the LCP or that it constituted the least environmentally damaging alternative. (LIP § 13 .9; February 17, 2026, Staff Report p. 14-15 [Findings Nos. 3-4 improperly omitting consideration of Coastal ESHA].)

3. The Decision Violates the LCP's Archaeology Requirements.

LIP section I I (F)(l) provides that " [i]f 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: (1) an evaluation of limited shovel test pits to determine whether a subsurface deposit is present and a negative declaration shall be prepared." (LIP § l l.5(F)(l ), emphasis added.) The 8065090.2
72 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 4 ends

record establishes that significant cultural resources were found at the Project site. The November 3, 2025 Staff Report states that "cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools," and the City's original Archaeology Review Sheet confirms that "potential cultural resources are located on the project site." The City's ovv11 Archaeology Review Letter imposed conditions "[t]o mitigate potential impacts on unknovv11 archaeological resources to a level of insignificance," reflecting the City's recognition that significant resources are present.

On this record, the predicate condition in LIP § 11 (F)(l) was satisfied.

Consistent with that finding, the City required an extended Phase I study that included subsurface testing. The February 17, 2026 Staff Report confirms that the extended study "incorporated subsurface testing, including auger borings, laboratory analysis, and Native American monitoring by Chumash representatives." In addition, both David Paul Dominguez, a Chumash elder, and Chester King, Ph.D., a professional archaeologist, opined that the Property likely contains human remains based on the original Phase I report, artifacts found in the immediate vicinity (including human remains), and burial-associated beads. Their opinions have not been meaningfully addressed or rebutted in the record, and the Applicant testified at the hearing that Mr. Dominguez was not permitted access to the site during the extended Phase I investigation.

Under the plain language of LIP § 11 (F)( l ), once significant cultural resources are identified and subsurface testing is required, "a negative declaration shall be prepared." The provision does not condition this requirement on whether additional resources are ultimately discovered; it is triggered by the finding of significant resources and the need for subsurface evaluation. Because the City identified cultural resources on the Project site, and then required shovel test pits and other subsurface testing without preparing a negative declaration, the record does not contain substantial evidence supporting a finding that the Project complies with the LIP and the Decision is contrary to law.

4. The Project Violates County Fire Requirements.

The Project is required to comply with all applicable state and local law. (LIP §

13.27.5(8).) It is therefore required to comply with the LA County Fire Code requirements for fire access. (See also Resolution No. 26-10, p. 8 [Condition of Approval No. 8: Project must comply with LACFD requirements].) Further, the Fire Department Plan (Sheet A-0.5) expressly incorporates notes associated with the approval of the Fire Department Plan.

Fire Code section 503 and Note No. 1 both require a minimum unobstructed fire apparatus access road with a 20-foot width. The plans submitted to the Commission show fire vehicle access as narrow as eleven (11) feet at certain locations. There is no evidence in the record that a 20-foot unobstructed width can be achieved, secured, or legally improved within the shared access easement. Nor is there any evidence that the Fire Department granted a modification or waived the 8065090.2
73 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 5 ends

20-foot requirement. Absent such evidence, the record does not support a finding of compliance with Fire Code§ 503.

The Project likewise fails to demonstrate compliance with Note No. 15 and Fire Code § 503.2.3, which requires that fire apparatus access roads consist of asphalt, concrete, or approved driving surface capable of supporting imposed loads of not less than 75,000 pounds. The original Fire Department Plan included paving over existing decomposed granite within the shared private access easement, which would have complied with Section 503.2.3. However, as the February 17 Staff Report confirms, the Project was revised to eliminate development within the shared easement. (February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 3 ["Revised plans have been submitted to further clarify that no development will be proposed within the portion of the shared easement").) The paving component was removed. (Id.) The Fire Department Plan is dated November 12, 2025, while the Fire Department Review Sheet confirm that the plan was approved on April 24, 2025.

There is no evidence that the Fire Department reviewed or approved this material revision, and no evidence that the remaining decomposed granite surface satisfies the all-weather structural load requirements of Section 503.2.3.
finally, the Project does not demonstrate compliance with Note No. 8 and Fire Code§ 325.

Notably, Fire Code § 325.2.1 , requires maintenance of 100 feet of defensible space in wildfireprone regions. The proposed residence is located less than 20 feet from a proposed Island Oak that will grow to approximately 35 feet in height, and four Big Berry Manzanita are proposed approximately 20-36 feet of the structure, and bordered with shrubs and perennials. The Landscape Plan was submitted on May 30, 2025, one month after the Fire Department Plan was approved. and there is no indication that defensible space requirements were evaluated, satisfied by the LA County Fire Department. In the absence of evidence showing compliance with the entirety of Fire Code § 325, the Commission lacked substantial evidence to conclude that the Project meets mandatory fire safety standards.

Accordingly, the Decision was contrary to law.

5. The Decision Was Improper Because the Applicant Failed to Consult with the State Lands Commission and the LIP Does Not Permit Staff to Substitute Its Own Judgment for the SLC's.

The Project qualifies as "shoreline development" under the Coastal Act and Malibu's 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 8065090.2
74 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 6 ends

the ocean per LIP Section 10.5(C) a Determination from the California State Lands Commission is required."
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."].)
No such determination was obtained. In fact, 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."
Staff attempted to address this issue in the Staff Report, which stated: The requirement to obtain written determination from the State Lands Commission is only applicable to beachfront properties.

While the subject property is oriented toward the ocean, a steep bluff is located between the proposed building pad and the ocean. The proposed development further incorporates the blufftop setback requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D). Being setback far from the mean high tide line and the beach below the bluff, there is no indication that the proposed development would encroach into State Lands. Further, there is no development proposed along the shoreline or bluff, nor does the project propose a shoreline stabilization device or other development along the bluff such as drainage devices or beach access.
(February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 2.)
In other words, City staff determined, on its own, that this bluff-top project along the ocean would not affect state tidelands. The LIP, however, does not give the planning director or anv other Citv personnel discretion to avoid the consultation requirement, which states in black and white that applicants "shall" submit written evidence of a determination (LIP § I O.S(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 8065090.2
75 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 7 ends

rendered the application incomplete as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Decision was procedurally improper and contrary to law.

6. The Applicant and City Failed to Invite Parties with Easement Interests to Join as Co-applicants; Abstaining from Erecting New Structures Within the Easement Did Not Cure This Issue.

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, staffs incomplete letter, dated February IO, 2025, stated 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).)
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 ofland to the end," stating " that said easements shall be used and enjoyed by said owners and their successors and assigns." 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. .. "].) 8065090.2
76 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 8 ends

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

I
\ PCH
\
\
\
\
\
9 City staff and Applicant purportedly addressed this issue prior to the Planning Commission hearing by removing any paving or "development" from the easement area. The February 17, 2026 staff report stated, for example: "Revised plans have been submitted to further clarify that no development will be proposed within the portion of the shared." (February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 3.)
This failed to address the issue. While Applicant has apparently agreed not to build any new structures in this area (legal or otherwise), both the LIP and the Coastal Act define "development" to include any "change in density or intensity of use of land," not just structures. (LIP§ 2.1; Coastal Act§ 30106.)
Here, a part of the easement that lies within the Property is presently not used for regular vehicular access, but instead is made of decomposed granite on the shoulder of access road. Once the Applicant builds the Project, however, this currently unused shoulder area will become a driveway and will be used for residential use, thereby dramatically increasing the intensity of the 8065090.2
77 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 9 ends

use. The density of this area will also increase: it will go from having zero density (because no residential uses currently exist) to having residential density, as the shoulder will become a driveway that serves as part of the residential use. Thus, this still constitutes "development" within the easement area and the Applicant's failure to invite our Clients' to join as applicants was procedurally improper and contrary to law. (LIP§ 13.6.2.)

7. The Project Landscaping Violates the MMC and LCP.

One of our Clients, the upslope neighbor at has a Primary View Oetennination, PYO No. 17-0036 ("PYO"). The PYO captures the view looking south from - directly over the Property in question.

The PVD protects our Client from landscape that would significantly obstruct our Client's view as documented in the PVD. (See MMC§ l 7.40.040(A)(l 7).) Our Clients also recognize that the Planning Commission Resolution includes a condition of approval that ostensibly prohibits the Project's landscaping from obstructing primary views. (Resolution No. 26-10, p. 12 Condition #43 ["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 IO 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:
8065090.2
78 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 10 ends

Plant Palette
~nlcNBme
Tnoea & LBrge Shrub•
=· ,pp.
common Name
!Ilg !leny i.t....:snts.
l"8ndO<I<
SIZe Qumtlty WUCOLS IIAX Height

16.!l 4
3 ilted
2 u,,, 36'-0'
Although staff attempts to address this issue by referencing Condition of Approval Nos. 43 and 44 (prohibiting vegetation from blocking private views and limiting vegetation 6 feet in height), the current architecture and landscape plan inherently conflicts with that condition and the visual-resource 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. In the alternative, if the Applicant deviates from this landscaping, they will have violated the conditions of approval requiring them to proceed in accordance with the approved plans. (Resolution No. 26-10, p. 12.) Either way, they will have violated the LCP. Accordingly. The Decision is contrary to law. (See LIP§ 6.6.4(A)(l).)

8. The Decision Violates Longstanding Policy on Processing Code Enforcement Cases and the Decision Failed to Address the Un permitted Bluff Development.

While the Resolution and Project purport to resolve some code enforcement violations, it fails to address other ones. Specifically, our Clients documented substantial unpermitted development on the Property's coastal bluff, including unpermitted trees and erosion control devices such as straw wattle, jute netting, sandbags, and fencing. The February 17, 2026 Staff Report acknowledges that the owner installed these measures to "protect the property and prevent erosion," and states that prior to installation, the owner of the Property inquired whether permits were required. (February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 4.) According to staff, in consultation with the Building Safety Division, the Public Works Department advised that "temporary erosion control measures could be placed on the property." (Id.)
8065090.2
79 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 11 ends

This response is legally insufficient. Even assuming City staff informally indicated that temporary erosion control measures could be placed on the bluff, that informal assurance does not render the development lawful or exempt it from required coastal development, grading, or building permits. Nowhere does staff state that such development on a sensitive coastal bluff is categorically exempt from permitting requirements. Nor does the Staff Report identify any statutory or regulatory authority authorizing these installations without discretionary review.(February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 4.)
The Staff Report further asserts that the trees in question "existed prior to the fire and were not replanted," yet staff concedes that after reviewing historical aerial photographs from several sources, it was "unable to confirm the origins of these trees." (February 17, 2026, Staff Report p. 4) In other words, staff cannot verify whether the trees were lawfully established, whether they constitute unpermitted development, or whether they altered bluff conditions in violation of applicable coastal regulations. The Resolution nevertheless proceeds without resolving these uncertainties.

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.

Only once the owner of 25040 PCH fully addressed all of 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. Any other approach constitutes selective enforcement. The Decision violates this policy by failing to first resolve all of the outstanding code enforcement prior to Project approval.
8065090.2
80 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 12 ends

9. The Project Does Not Comply With the Certificate of Compliance and Non-Compliance 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"). 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.

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.

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. [fit did, it would have said so. Instead, it required the County to retain authority to restrict the erection of buildings throughout the Property. By limiting the dedication to one comer 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"].)
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. Accordingly, the Decision is contrary to law.

B. CEQA Grounds for Appeal.

1. The Decision Improperly Relies Upon Mitigation Measures to Support a Categorical Exemption from CEQA.

The Planning Commission approved a Class 3 categorical exemption from CEQA. The Class 3 exemption generally applies to minor new construction, including single family homes. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15303; see also February 17, 2026 Staff Report, p. 23 ("the proposed 8065090.2
81 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 13 ends

project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections l 5303(a) and (e)"]; Resolution No. 26-10, p. 2 [stating a Class 3 exemption applies].) The Class 3 categorical exemption does not apply to this Project. Importantly, " [a]n agency may not evade CEQA by adopting mitigation measures simply to qualify a project for a categorical exemption." (Sunflower Alliance v. Department of Conservation (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 771 , 789; see also Azusa Land Reclamation Co. v. Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 1165, 1199-1200.) That is exactly what the City did here. (a) The Record Demonstrates that the Property Contains Tribal Cultural Resources.

The record incontrovertibly shows that tribal cultural resources exist at the Property. The November 3, 2025, Staff Report, for example, explicitly acknowledges that the Applicant discovered Chumash tools and shells on the Property. (November 3, 2025, Staff Report, p. 8 ["The cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools .... ").) The City's original Archaeology Review Sheet, likewise, also states "that potential cultural resources are located on the project site."
Further, Mr. David Paul Dominguez, a Chumash elder, and Chester King, PhD, a professional archaeologist, both opined that the Property likely contains human remains. Mr.

Dominguez based this upon the original Phase I archaeology report prepared for the Property, the artifacts found in the immediate vicinity (including human remains), the discovery of certain beads that are consistent with Chumash burials and trading, among various other facts.

The testimony of neighbors confirms this result and is legally relevant. (See Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 932 [relevant personal observations by area residents are properly considered in order to determine whether a reasonable possibility exists that a project will have a significant adverse impact on the environment]; see also Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 583 ["[s]tatements of area residents who are not environmental experts may qualify as substantial evidence if they are based on relevant personal observations or involve 'nontechnical' issues"].)
Specifically, cultural artifacts were found on the property immediately east of the subject Property-including mortar, pestles, and hand tools. Neighbors also report that human remains have been found upslope of the Project at 33004 PCH. (Indeed, given the cultural resources found in the late 1990s, 33004 PCH remains undeveloped to this day.) This further demonstrates that tribal cultural resources exist at the Property.
8065090.2
82 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 14 ends

At the hearing, the Applicant also presented testimony from an individual, Julie TumamaitStenslie, who identified herself as a member of the Chumash community but who is not a federally recognized tribal member. She testified that she had never made a statement to Mr. Dominguez regarding the sacred significance of the Project site. That testimony created an unnecessary "he said, she said" dynamic that obscured the record rather than clarified it. The relevant issue before the Commission was not whether a particular individual had previously used specific terminology, but whether substantial evidence supports the conclusion that the site may contain or be associated with culturally significant resources. Our expert and Mr. Dominguez, a federally registered Chumash elder, both raised concerns regarding the Project site's potential sacred significance. That evidence was never meaningfully analyzed or rebutted with competent study; instead, the discussion devolved into a credibility dispute that should never have supplanted formal cultural resource evaluation.

Importantly, Mr. Dominguez- who is a registered tribal member- was not permitted to access the Property to conduct a site visit. The Applicant testimony suggested that they believed he may have had an interest in the outcome of the decision. Denying access to a qualified tribal elder while simultaneously questioning the evidentiary weight of cultural concerns effectively foreclosed the very investigation that could have clarified the issue.

Allowing Mr. Dominguez a site visit could have resolved questions regarding the sacred or cultural significance of the Property in a professional and culturally appropriate manner. Instead, the record reflects resistance to independent review, leaving unresolved uncertainty that should have triggered further analysis rather than approval. This underscores the absence of substantial evidence and the failure to conduct the level of cultural resource evaluation required under the LCP and CEQA.
(b) The Project Presents the Reasonable Possibility of an Adverse Impact on Cultural Resources; the Extended Phase I Does Not Change this Conclusion.

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

Archaeologist Chester King, PhD, meanwhile- who previously served the City's archaeologist from 1993 to 2000, did his PhD dissertation on the Chumash tribe, and has conducted and inspected various excavations in Malibu and Southern California-opines that " [t]he 8065090.2
83 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 15 ends

construction of the house as planned is expected to cause substantial damage to suspected site deposits." He stated in his written restomny/report:

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.

Chumash Elder and former cultural resources monitor David P. Dominguez described this as a "sacred area" and likewise opined in his written testimony that:
[T]his proposed project will have extreme damage to unknown archeological and cultural resources and more than likely, will hit and discover unknown burials, that are consistent in the immediate bluff area.

Clearly, Dr. King and Mr. Dominguez' statements represent "expert opinion supported by facts" that each constitute substantial evidence of an adverse environmental impact under CEQA. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (t)(5) [ substantial evidence of adverse environmental impacts includes expert opinion supported by facts].)
Moreover, it does not matter that the Applicant has refused to let them access the Property directly: Expert opinion may qualify as substantial evidence under CEQA if supported by facts, even if not based on specific observations as to the site under review. (Taxpayers for Accountable School Bond Spending v. San Diego Unified School Dist. (2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1013, 1036; Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 [ expert opinion qualifies as substantial evidence "even if not based on specific observations as to the site under review").) We understand, of course, that the Applicant prepared an extended Phase I archaeology report. According to the staff report, "[t]he extended study concluded that the subsurface soils within the project area are 'archaeologically sterile' meaning that the project site does not contain intact or significant cultural resources." (February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 5.) This matters little.

Dr. King and/or Mr. Dominguez to testified at the hearing and disagreed with the extended Phase 8065090.2
84 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 16 ends

I's conclusions. In any event, to the to the extent the Applicant's Phase I archaeology report or extended Phase I contradicts Dr. King or Mr. Dominguez' conclusions, the City must err on the side of preparing an EIR. (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (g) [" in marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: If there is disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR"]; see also Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas ( 1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1607 [ expert testimony indicated that there would be a significant impact upon views and even though this was contradicted expert testimony, city was required to prepare EIR]; Pocket Protectors, supra, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 ["Where such expert opinions clash, an E[R should be done."].)

2. The City Unlawfully Attempted to Mitigate Impacts to Cultural Resources in Order to Utilize a Categorical Exemption from CEQA.

Unsurprisingly, the City all but admitted the potential adverse impact of the Project on these tribal resources by requiring the Applicant "[t]o mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeulugical resources to a level of insignificance" through two proposed mitigation measures. (See Archaeology Review Letter, Exh. A, p. 1.) The previous, December 1, 2025, Staff Report likewise stated that in light of the shells and tools, "a condition of approval has been added ... that requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist for all earthmoving activities .... " (December 1, 2025, Staff Report, p. 8.) The December l, 2025, Staff Report further acknowledges that "Staff has included the recommendations of the archeologist as conditions of approval (Condition Nos. 12-17) addressing cultural resources." (Id. at 3.) The updated, February 17, 2026, staff report made similar changes to the conditions of approval in light of archaeological concerns. (See February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 12 ["archaeological monitoring was recommended for all earthmoving activities. Accordingly, a condition of approval has been added to Resolution No. 26-10 that requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist for all earthmoving activities, which include gradings, trenching, potholing, shoveling, and soil core boring."].) In other words, the City did exactly what it is not supposed to do: It acknowledged that the Project presents potential environmental impacts and then attempted to evade CEQA by adopting project-related measures to mitigate those impacts, both in the Archaeology Review letter1 and through the conditions of approval.
1 Our Clients assert that the Archaeology Review letter's requirement to avoid ground disturbing activities within a certain distance of the northern property boundary constitutes one such 8065090.2
85 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 17 ends

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 l 098, 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 1 165, 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 was required to prepare a mitigated negative declaration or EIR instead. (Salmon Protection & Watershed Network v. County of Marin (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1108 ("Reliance upon mitigation measures (whether included in the application or later adopted) ... must be conducted under established mitigation measures. City staff stated that this measure only applies to the geologic excavation permit, not the Project itself. It matters little: There are a number of conditions of approval in the Planning Commission Resolution that indisputably apply to the project. 8065090.2
86 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 18 ends

CEQA standards and procedures for EIRs or negative declarations.").) By proceeding by way of a categorical exemption, the City violated CEQA.

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

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

1. The Project Will Have a Significant Environmental Effect.

Substantial evidence in the record demonstrated that the Project will have a significant environmental effect. Notably, as previously discussed, Mr. Dominguez' expert opinion-based upon the Phase I archaeology study, prior excavations and resources found in the immediate vicinity, his knowledge as a Chumash elder, and various other facts-concluded that "this proposed project will have extreme damage to unknown archeological and cultural resources and more than likely, will hit and discover unknown burials, that are consistent in the immediate bluff area." Likewise, Dr. King's expert opinion, based upon the plans, excavations in the immediate area, his academic specialty in Chumash culture and history, and his decades-long experience with tribal excavations in Southern California- similarly concluded that "[t]he construction of the house as planned is expected to cause substantial damage to suspected site [tribal resource! deposits." This constitutes substantial evidence that the Project will have a 8065090.2
87 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 19 ends

significant effect on the environment. (See Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15064, subd. (t)(5) [substantial evidence of adverse environmental impacts includes expert opinion supported by facts].)
Because substantial evidence exists that the Project will have a significant adverse environmental effect, the unusual circumstances exception applies without further analysis, and the City improperly relied upon the Class 3 categorical exemption. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643; see also Walters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, 820 [" In other words, a showing by substantial evidence that a project will have a significant effect on the environment satisfies both prongs of the unusual circumstances exception under the second method of establishing the exception."].)

2. Alternatively, Features of the Project Create Unusual Circumstances and the Project Presents the Reasonable Possibility of an Adverse Environmental Impact.
(a) Unusual Circumstances Exist.

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

Among other things:
8065090.2
• First and foremost, unlike other projects in the exempt class, the Project contains identified tribal cultural resources and lies within a "sacred" Chumash area. • Unlike other projects in the exempt class, the Project site is not consistent with the applicable land use regulations in that the Project indisputably requires a Minor Modification to the front yard setback in order to build the Project. (See October 9, 88 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 20 ends

2025, Staff Report, p. 9 ["A minor modification is proposed for a 37 percent reduction in the required front yard setback to allow a 28. 75-foot setback where a 47-foot setback is required."]; see also Citizens for Environmental Responsibility v.

State ex rel. 14th Dist. Ag. Assn. (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 555, 586 [in determining whether unusual circumstances exist, courts may look at whether project is consistent with zoning regulations].)
• The Project requires an unusually large amount grading and disturbed area-nearly the entire bluff top-which dramatically increase the risk posed to cultural resources.

These conditions constitute "unusual circumstances."
(b) The Project Presents the Reasonable Possibility of Significant Effect on the Environment Due to Unusual Circumstances.

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

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

Because the reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances, the City cannot rely on the Class 3 categorical exemption. An MND or EIR should have been prepared. (Berkeley Hillside, supra, 60 Cal.4th at p. 1105, 184 Cal.Rptr.3d 643.) 8065090.2
89 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 21 ends

D. The LCP Independently Requires Additional CEQA Review.

The LCP also prohibits utilizing a CEQA exemption. UP section 11 (F)( l) states that, " [i]f 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: l. An evaluation of limited shovel test pits to determine whether a subsurface deposit is present and a negative declaration shall be prepared." (LIP§ 11.S(F)(l), emphasis added.)
Here, the Applicant's archaeologist prepared a Phase I inventory that found one or significant cultural resources. This is beyond reasonable dispute. To reiterate: The November 3, 2025, Staff Report stated that "cultural resources found during the field survey included subsistence shell and stone tools .... " The City's original Archaeology Review Sheet, likewise, also stated "that potential cultural resources are located on the project site." These resources were significant. Notably, the City's prior Archaeology Review Letter imposed conditions on earthmoving activities in order "[t]o mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance. (Archaeology Review Letter, p. 1 [emphasis added].) Similarly, the Applicant's own memorandum offered "mitigation measures" in order to "mitigate potential impacts on unknown archaeological resources to a level of insignificance." Why would the City and the Applicant need to mitigate impacts to a "level of insignificance" if the potential impacts weren't significant to begin with?
Given the existence of significant resources, the City ordered an extended Phase I study.

This included subsurface testing, such as shovel test pits. (See February 17, 2026, Staff Report, p. 5 ["This extended study incorporated subsurface testing, including auger borings, laboratory analysis, and Native American monitoring by Chumas representatives."].) According to the plain language of the LIP, once an applicant must prepare an extended Phase I study and subsurface testing occurs, "a negative declaration shall be prepared." (LIP § 1 l(F)( l ).) It does not matter if the extended Phase I study ultimately does not determine any additional resources exist. The plain language requires a negative declaration, and it was improper for the City to ignore this provision and rely upon a CEQA exemption.

E. Additional Grounds for Appeal.

In addition to the above-described grounds for appeal, our Clients further assert the following and reserve the right to supplement these and every other grounds for appeal with additional evidence:
• The Decision improperly found that the
Project is in conformity with the public
access and recreation policies of Chapter 3
8065090.2
of the Coastal Act of 1976. (LIP§ 13.9.)
Among other bases, prescriptive rights
exist on the currently undeveloped
90 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 22 ends

Property that enhance and/or provide
public access to the coast, and such access
would be impaired or in conflict with the
Project.
• Because the Project lies partially within
ESHA buffer, and (separately) because
Coastal ESHA exists, the Project has failed
to undergo review by the Environmental
Review Board as required by the LIP (see
LIP § 13.9) and fails to comply with the
ESHA overlay standards in Chapter 4 of
the LIP.
• The Project is not the least environmentally
damaging al temati ve because it: ( 1)
proposes hazards to the coastal bluff; (2)
increases water discharge to the coastal
bluff; (3) endangers and/or threatens the
coastal bluff with erosion or slope
instability; and ( 4) proposes a large project
where other, smaller or better situated/sited
projects remain possible. For similar
reasons, the Project increases instability of
the site or structural integrity from
geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to
project design location on the site or other
reasons. (See LIP ch. 9.)
• To the extent any grounds for appeal rely
on state or local law not otherwise
contained in the LCP, the Decision
inappropriately found that the proposed
project complies with all applicable
requirements of state and local law, as
required for the Minor Modification. (See
LIP§ 13.27.5(B).)
8065090.2
• The Project adversely affects
neighborhood character due to, among
other reasons: (l) its interference with
ESHA buffer and riparian and coastal
vegetation typical for the neighborhood;
(2) the unusual size and bulk of the Project;
(3) its reduced coastal bluff and/or front
yard setbacks; and ( 4) its interference with
Bluewater views of neighbors. (See LIP §

13.27.5(B).)
• The Project does not comply with the
relevant LA County Code provisions for
fire access, nor can the Project comply with
conditions of approval requmng
compliance with LACFD development
standards.
• There are feasible alternatives to
development that would avoid or
substantially lessen any significant adverse
impacts on scenic and visual resources.

Further, the Project does not eliminate,
minimize, or otherwise contribute to
conformance to sensitive resource
protection policies in that it proposed
development in a stream/wetland ESHA
buffer and adjacent to coastal bluff ESHA.
(See LIP ch. 6.)
• The Project does not comply with the
native plan species landscape requirements
ofLIPChapter3. Section3.12.l oftheLIP
requires landscape consisting of plant
species identified in the Recommended List
of Plants for Landscaping in the Santa
Monica Mountains, dated February 5, 1996
over areas disturbed by construction
activities. The Landscape Plan includes
91 City Council
February 25, 2026

Page 23 ends

several specifies of plants not in
compliance with Section 3.12.1 , including
Island Oak and citrus trees. (See LIP §

3.12.1.)
III. Conclusion.
• The Project's slope stability analysis is
incomplete and/or inaccurate and/or
otherwise violates LIP Chapter 9
In sum, the administrative record is riddled with inconsistencies, incomplete analysis, and conclusory recommendations that do not withstand scrutiny. The Project was initially advanced for approval by a departing staff member, and when the matter was later re-noticed and reconsidered, no meaningful additional due diligence was undertaken to ensure that the requisite findings were supported by facts in the record. Instead of curing the defects, the City reaffirmed earlier assumptions without independently verifying whether the evidence substantiated each mandatory finding. The result is a record that lacks coherence, fails to grapple with material issues, and does not demonstrate that the Planning Commission's decision was grounded in substantial evidence.

Findings must be supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Here, they are not. Nor can they be contrary to law. Here, as discussed above, the Project plainly violates the LIP and CEQA. In other cases, the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the required. Where the evidentiary foundation is deficient, and where the Project is contrary to law, the approval cannot stand. For these reasons, the City Council should overturn the Planning Commission's decision on appeal and deny the Project, or, at minimum, remand the matter for proper analysis and factual substantiation consistent with applicable law.

Very truly yours,
JACKSON D. McNEILL
Elkins Kalt Weintraub Reuben Gartside LLP
8065090.2

Page 1 of 24 ends

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Riddick and Members of the Planning Commission Prepared by: Didier Murillo, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Joseph Smith, AICP, Contract Principal Planner Approved by: Yolanda Bundy, MS, PE, CBO, CFCO, Community Development Director and Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director Date prepared: February 5, 2026 Meeting date: February 17, 2026 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 23-034 and Minor Modification No. 25-009 – An application for the construction of a new single-family residence and accessory development
Location: 33008 Pacific Coast Highway, within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4473-017-009
Owner: Bluff Top 1 LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 26-10 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-034 for the construction of a 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 unit, landscaping, hardscape, grading, fire department turnaround area, vehicular access gate, and the installation of a new onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS); including Minor Modification (MM) No. 25-009 for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback located in the Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2) zoning district at 33008 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) (Bluff Top 1 LLC).

DISCUSSION: This agenda report provides a project overview, a summary of the surrounding land uses and project setting, description of the proposed project, staff’s analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) provisions, and environmental review pursuant to CEQA. The analysis and findings contained herein demonstrate the proposed project is consistent with the LCP and MMC.

Planning Commission
Meeting
02-17-26
Item

5.A.
92 EXHIBIT D
I I

Page 2 of 24 ends

Project History
The project was originally scheduled for the October 6, 2025, Regular Planning Commission meeting. However, the public hearing notice did not include the MM request for up to a 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback and the project was removed from the agenda and re-noticed for the October 20, 2025 Planning Commission Regular meeting. After the October 20, 2025 agenda report was published, the Planning Division received comments from California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff, who suggested sitespecific details be included in the Shoreline and Bluff Development Findings required in LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 10.3(A), specifically related to reduction of the bluff edge setback from 100 feet to 50 feet pursuant to LIP Section 10.4(D). This correspondence is included with the previous correspondence provided in Attachment 5.

Additionally, one new condition of approval was added to the Planning Commission resolution related to construction personnel being informed about the potential for discovery of archaeological resources and measures to follow in such an event.

At the October 20, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting, the Commission was not able to open the public hearing for the item prior to 10:30 p.m. and continued the item to the November 3, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the November 3, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting, the project was reassigned due to staffing changes in the Planning Division. The City also received correspondence from the north adjacent neighbor and other members of the public raising various concerns about the project, including private view blockage. At the November 3, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting, the Commission continued the item to the December 1, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting prior to opening the public hearing to allow staff time to investigate the concerns raised. Those concerns and staff’s responses are provided below:

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.

Staff Response: The requirement to obtain written determination from the State Lands Commission is only applicable to beachfront properties. While the subject property is oriented toward the ocean, a steep bluff is located between the proposed building pad and the ocean. The proposed development further incorporates the blufftop setback requirements of LIP Section 10.4(D). Being setback far from the mean high tide line and the beach below the bluff, there is no indication that the proposed development would encroach into State Lands. Further, there is no development proposed along the shoreline or bluff, nor does the project propose a shoreline stabilization device or other development along the bluff such as drainage devices or beach access.

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.
93

Page 3 of 24 ends

Staff Response: The subject project does not propose any development within the shared private access easement with other properties. Revised plans have been submitted to further clarify that no development will be proposed within the portion of the shared easement. See partial screen shot below (Figure 1) of the area within the easement which will remain as is. The prior version of the plans erroneously stated that the area was existing pavement to remain but confirmed to be existing decomposed granite (DG) to remain.

Figure 1 – Shared Easement Illustration
Source: Project Plans - Burdge Architects
Comment 3 – ESHA and Bluff EHSA: The project is proposing development within the required 100-foot buffer from a mapped blue line stream.

Staff Response: The project’s distance from the stream is in conformance with LIP Chapter 4 as demonstrated by additional materials submitted by the applicant including a letter from Ford Biological Consulting (Attachment 6) and a drone exhibit (Attachment 7). These items were reviewed by the City’s Biologist to confirm that the development is approximately 104 feet away from the mapped blue line stream to the west. Further, it was confirmed that the project area and bluff are located within the existing fuel modification 94 •72.58

TO PACIFIC COAST HWY

72.38G8
33006 PACIFIC C°'5T HWY
4473-017-008 - - - -- - -
OF EASE ~E TFOR 20 00' WIDE SES

TYPURPO
ROAD UT I 18119571 BOOK
RECORDED 31 0 R (PARCEL 2
53956 PG 173. P

Page 4 of 24 ends

zones of adjacent single-family residences. Bluff vegetation is dominated by non-native species and not found to include any species in support of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA); therefore, the bluff is not considered ESHA.

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.

Staff Response: Following the Woolsey Fire, much of the vegetation on the property burned. The loss of vegetation covering the property from the fire resulted in conditions making the bluff susceptible to erosion. The owner sought to protect their property and prevent erosion. Prior to installing erosion control measures, the owner inquired with the City to verify if permits were needed to implement the erosion control measures. In consultation with the Building Safety Division, the Public Works Department advised the owner that temporary erosion control measures could be placed on the property to prevent further erosion. Temporary measures installed included sandbags, jute netting, straw waddles and silt fencing oriented in a manner to protect the bluff. The owner has also confirmed that the trees in reference existed prior to the fire and were not replanted. Staff reviewed historical aerial photographs from several sources but was unable to confirm the origins of these trees.

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.

Staff Response: The buffer mentioned in the comment was provided as a precaution implemented by City staff prior to obtaining an excavation permit for geotechnical borings through City geotechnical staff. The submitted Archaeological Report did not recommend that further archaeology study was needed. Planning Division staff included recommendations from the archeologist’s report as conditions of approval in order to address the potential of cultural resources on the project site.

Prior to the December 1, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting, Planning Division staff received additional correspondence from the adjacent neighbor’s legal counsel stating that the applicant’s Phase I Archaeology Report was insufficient and that human remains and other cultural resources likely exist on the site. A letter was also submitted from a Chumash Elder (David Dominguez) who cited another Chumash Elder (Julie Tumamait-Stenslie) allegedly in support of the concern raised. As a result, the project was continued to a date uncertain to allow the applicant time to pursue further archeological study and consultation with Chumash representatives.

After the continuation, staff received further correspondence from Chumas Elder Julie Tumamait-Stenslie stating that she was misquoted by Chumash Elder David Dominguez 95

Page 5 of 24 ends

and further stated that she did not make statements in support of the concerns raised regarding the subject property (33008 PCH). Chumash Elder Julie Tumamait-Stenslie stated that she had a phone conversation with Chumash Elder David Dominguez asking him to retract his letter. To date, Chumas Elder David Dominguez has not retracted his letter and no further information was received.

As a result, the applicant opted to continue to work with their qualified archaeologist and pursue an Extended Phase I Archaeological Study to further investigate the potential for archaeological resources onsite. The extended study was prepared on January 2, 2026 by Matthew A. Boxt, Ph.D. and included an intensive evaluation of the same project area included in the original Phase 1 Report. This extended study incorporated subsurface testing, including auger borings, laboratory analysis, and Native American monitoring by Chumas representatives. The extended study concluded that the subsurface soils within the project area are “archaeologically sterile” meaning that the project site does not contain intact or significant cultural resources. The extended study characterized the project site as an “artificial or pseudo-site” created by earth-moving decades earlier on other property, that the project did not exhibit indicators that would reflect past human activity, and confirmed that the proposed development would not adversely affect cultural resources.

Nonetheless, precautionary measures were recommended in the extended study and these are included as conditions of approval in the Planning Commission resolution.

Project Overview
As shown in Figure 2, the subject parcel is a vacant, parallelogram-shaped blufftop lot of approximately 0.67 acres in size. The property is accessed from a private driveway easement from PCH, which is designated as a scenic road in the LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) where proposed development must be assessed for potential visual impacts on a scenic area. Residential development is permitted on the parcel, subject to the nonbeachfront residential development standards of the MMC and LCP. Beachfront development standards do not apply to the proposed development because it is not considered beachfront development due to its orientation at the top of a steep coastal bluff.
96

Page 6 of 24 ends

Figure 2 – Aerial Map
Source: City GIS 2025
The project site is not designated as ESHA as shown on the LCP ESHA Overlay Map; however, stream ESHA exists offsite approximately 104 feet west of the project site and warrants protection as ESHA pursuant to LIP Chapter 4. To minimize potential ESHA impacts, LIP Section 4.6.1 requires a minimum 100-foot buffer from ESHA.

Located between the stream ESHA and the project site are residentially developed properties with existing fuel modifications zones and recurring fuel modification activities.

Because the proposed residence is located approximately 104 feet from the stream, the project will not result in new ESHA impacts from the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)-approved fuel modification required for the proposed residence.

The parcel is currently vacant, except for an unpermitted nonconforming six-foot-high solid gate along the front property line.1 City records show the current fence was constructed around November 2022. The proposed scope of work would replace nonconforming fence with a compliant visually permeable fence up to six feet in height within the front yard setback.
1 An active code violation case (CV No. 23-047) is open for the unpermitted gate and would be resolved if the CDP is approved and the project constructed. An inspection would be conducted to verify the violation was remediated. If the CDP is not approved, code enforcement staff will require the gate be addressed immediately. 97

Page 7 of 24 ends

The proposed site plan is depicted in Figure 3 and as part of the project plans (Attachment 2). Due to topography and existing development, the project site is not visible from PCH but would be visible from El Matador State Beach to the east and a public beach located downcoast (southeast) of the subject property. Accordingly, the project has been assessed for potential impacts to scenic resources as required by LIP Chapter 6. The property has descending slopes from the access easement to the bluff edge that orients along the ocean, with an elevation difference across the flatter portion of the project of approximately 30 feet. Two of the four residentially zoned properties that separate the subject property from PCH are developed with two-story homes and obstruct bluewater public views over the subject property from PCH. In accordance with LIP Section 6.5(E)(1), the proposed two-story development would not exceed the PCH road grade elevation, thereby further ensuring the maximum protection of potential bluewater views even though public views are not impacted as a result of development from PCH. Zoning conformance is discussed in the LIP Conformance Analysis section below.

Figure 3 – Site Plan
Source: Project Plans
In August 2025, story poles representing the location and height of the proposed residence were installed (Attachment 3 – Story Pole Photos). Staff conducted an inspection of the story poles and visually assessed the proposed structure’s potential to affect public views from scenic viewing areas. Based 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 98 PIAN
NORT)t
:.
. '
' \ .,
' . ' ·I 'J'
'I' \.l.. \ , ... ,
' I
' '.
' \ .
' ' \
'

Page 8 of 24 ends

impact to public views from PCH, El Matador State Beach, and nearby public beaches.

Staff found the proposed residence would impact sensitive resources, as discussed in the Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection section below.

In February 2018, a primary view determination (PVD) was recorded on the neighboring property immediately north of the project site at 33006 PCH, which currently has private ocean views across the vacant project site. In September 2025, staff received an email from the neighbor at 33006 PCH, who expressed concerns about the obstruction of private bluewater views from the proposed project. Staff conducted a visual analysis of the proposed project from the neighbor’s primary viewing area to document the view obstruction. However, it was determined that the project would obstruct private bluewater views regardless of structure location or height on the lot due to the configuration of the parcel. Nonetheless, the proposed project does not exceed the otherwise allowed 18-foot height limit and is not requesting additional height over 18 feet pursuant to a site plan review.

Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
The project is proposed on a residentially zoned blufftop parcel located on the ocean side of PCH in a residentially developed neighborhood.

Table 1 provides a summary of the lot dimensions and lot area of the subject parcel.

Table 1 – Total Property Data
Lot Depth 236 feet
Lot Width 142 feet
Gross Lot Area 33,786 square feet (0.78 acres)
Area Comprised of 1:1 Slopes 4,761 square feet
Area Comprised of Public Street Easement 0 square feet
Net Lot Area* 29,025 square feet (0.67 acres)
*Net Lot Area = Gross Lot Area minus the area of 1 to 1 slopes and public street easements.

The project site is located within the Appeal Jurisdiction of the CCC as depicted on the Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map and confirmed per the definition of Appealable Coastal Development Permit in LIP Section 2.1 as the proposed development is located between the sea and first public road paralleling the sea. The project site has no trails on or adjacent to it according to the LCP Park Lands Map, but vertical access between PCH and the beach and lateral access along the beach is available at El Pescador State Beach less than 200 feet east of the project site, La Piedra State Beach located approximately 1,600 feet further to the east, and Robert M. Meyer Memorial State Beach approximately a mile to the east. According to the LCP Park Lands Map, the California Coastal Trail (CCT) is oriented along the shoreline at the base of the subject property.
99

Page 9 of 24 ends

The subject parcel is zoned RR-2 as are the surrounding parcels to the north, east, and west. All adjacent parcels are currently developed with single-family residences with accessory development including the property to the immediate east between the subject property and El Pescador State Beach which is zoned Public Open Space (POS). Table 2 provides a summary of the surrounding land uses immediately adjacent to the subject property.

Source: City GIS
Project Description
The proposed scope of work is as follows:
a. 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; b. 824 square foot, second unit above the garage;
c. Construction of outdoor decks;
d. Installation of new landscaping and hardscape;
e. Grading;
f. Construction of a new OWTS;
g. Vehicular access gate; and
h. Fire department turnaround area.
i. Discretionary Request:
i. MM No. 25-009 for up to 50 percent reduction of the front yard setback (approximately 37 percent proposed).

LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of the LUP and the LIP. The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP contains provisions to carry out the policies of the LUP to which every project requiring a CDP must adhere.

There are 14 LIP chapters that potentially apply depending on the nature and location of the proposed project. Of these, five are for conformance review only and contain no findings: 1) Zoning, 2) Grading, 3) Archaeological/Cultural Resources, 4) Water Quality, and 5) OWTS. These chapters are discussed in the LIP Conformance Analysis section.

Table 2 – Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Address Lot Size Zoning Land Use
North 33006 PCH 0.36 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence South Pacific Ocean
West 33010 PCH 0.52 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence
East 32960 PCH 0.51 acres RR-2 Single-Family Residence
100

Page 10 of 24 ends

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

LIP Conformance Analysis
The proposed project has been reviewed by the Planning Division, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City Public Works Department, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29), and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) (Attachment 4 – Department Review Sheets). The project, as proposed and conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals and policies, inclusive of the requested MM.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The proposed project is subject to development and design standards set forth under LIP Sections 3.5 and 3.6. Conformance with LIP 10.4(D) in included due to blufftop setback requirements per LIP Section 3.6. Table 3 provides a summary and indicates the proposed project meets those standards, inclusive of the requested MM. 2 The ESHA, Native Tree Protection, Transfer of Development Credits, Public Access, and Land Division findings are neither applicable nor required for the proposed project. 101

Page 11 of 24 ends

Table 3 – Zoning Conformance
Development Requirement Allowed/
Required Proposed Comments
SETBACKS (ft.)
Front Yard
47 ft. (min),
reduced up to 23
ft. 5 in. (min) with
approved MM
28 ft. 9 in. MM No. 25-
009
Rear Yard 36 ft. 5 in. (min) 92 ft. 6 in Complies
Side Yard (Minimum 10%) 14 ft. 2 in. (min) 14 ft. 3 in. Complies Side Yard 21 ft. 4 in. (min) 21 ft. 4 in. Complies
Total Side Yard (Cumulative 25%) 43 ft. 3 in. 43 ft. 6 in. Complies Bluff Edge – Structures
100 ft. (min) from
bluff edge or 50
ft. (min) with City
geotechnical
approval
50 ft. with City
geotechnical
approval
Complies
Bluff Edge – Ancillary 15 ft. (min) 50 ft Complies

PARKING SPACES
Enclosed (10 ft. x 18 ft.) 2 2 Complies
Unenclosed (10 ft. x 18 ft.) 3 3 Complies
Total Development Square Footage (TDSF)
TDSF (sq.ft) 5,580 (max.) 4,856 Complies
Single-Family Residence No min 3,241 -
Second Unit 900 (max) 824 Complies
HEIGHT (ft.)
Single-Family Residence 18 ft. 18 ft Complies
IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE (sq.ft.) 8,707 4,331 Complies
NON-EXEMPT GRADING (cu.yd.) 1,000 153 Complies
CONSTRUCTION ON SLOPES 3 to 1 and
flatter
4 to 1 and
flatter Complies

FENCES/WALLS/HEDGES
Retaining Walls 6 ft. max. 12 ft.
cumulative
6 ft. max. 12
ft. cumulative
Complies
Front Yard
Impermeable 42 in. 42 in. Complies
Permeable 6 ft. 6 ft. Complies
Rear & Side Yard 6 ft. 6 ft. Complies
102

Page 12 of 24 ends

As shown in Table 3, the proposed project conforms to the development standards as set forth under LIP Chapters 3. The proposed project has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies.

Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
LIP Section 8.3 ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading to a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards for a residential parcel. The total amount of grading is approximately 2,958 cubic yards as provided for on the Total Grading Yardage Verification Certificate on the grading plan cover sheet. The total amount of proposed non-exempt grading is approximately 153 cubic yards, which is less than the maximum allowable. The remaining grading is approximately 367 cubic yards of exempt understructure, 70 cubic yards of exempt safety grading, and 2,368 cubic yards of removal and recompaction. The proposed project complies with grading requirements set forth under LIP Section 8.3.

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. 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, but it was unclear if these resources were originally deposited on the subject property or moved there by disturbance processes on other properties, including the construction of the access road and the surrounding residences, burrowing animals, and/or erosion. At the time of the initial Phase I Archaeological Study, archaeological monitoring was recommended for all earthmoving activities. Accordingly, a condition of approval has been added to Resolution No. 26-10 that requires monitoring by a qualified archaeologist for all earthmoving activities, which include gradings, trenching, potholing, shoveling, and soil core boring.

As a result of correspondence received as discussed in the Project History section of the report, including information provided by a Chumash Elder that she was misquoted regarding the potential for resources on the subject property, the applicant opted to continue to work with their qualified archaeologist and pursue an Extended Phase I Archaeological Study to further investigate the potential for archaeological resources onsite. The extended study was prepared on January 2, 2026 by Matthew A. Boxt, Ph.D. and included an intensive evaluation of the same project area included in the original Phase 1 Report. This extended study incorporated subsurface testing, including auger borings, laboratory analysis, and Native American monitoring by Chumash representatives. The extended study concluded that the subsurface soils within the project area are “archaeologically sterile” meaning that the project site does not contain intact or significant cultural resources. The extended study characterized the project site as an “artificial or pseudo-site” created by earth-moving decades earlier on other property, that the project did not exhibit indicators that would reflect past human activity, and confirmed 103

Page 13 of 24 ends

that the proposed development would not adversely affect cultural resources.

Nonetheless, precautionary measures were recommended in the extended study related to development.

Standard conditions of approval are included in the resolution, that correspond to the archaeologist’s recommendations above, which state that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Community Development Director can review this information.

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection and requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) because the property is located in an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). The ocean between Latigo Point and the west City limits has been established by the SWRCB as an ASBS as part of the California Ocean Plan. Standard conditions of approval include the implementation of approved storm water management plans during construction activities and to manage runoff from the development, including recordation of a water quality mitigation plan, and best management practices in compliance with ASBS standards. With the implementation of these conditions, the proposed project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.

Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18)
LIP Chapter 18 addresses OWTS. LIP Section 18.7 includes specific siting, design, and performance requirements. The proposed project includes a new OWTS to serve the proposed development. The proposed OWTS consists of a 3,634-gallon MicroSepTec ES12 with ultraviolet disinfection unit located at the northeastern portion of the property adjacent to the proposed residence, a 1,722 square foot dispersal field, and a 2,226 square foot future dispersal field, both of which are located between the proposed residence and the front property line to the north of the residence. The system has been reviewed by the City Environmental Health Administrator and found to meet the minimum requirements of the MMC and the LCP. The proposed OWTS will meet all applicable requirements, and operating permits will be required. An operation and maintenance contract and recorded covenant covering such must comply with the City’s Environmental Health requirements. Conditions of approval have been included in the Planning Commission resolution, which require continued operation, maintenance, and monitoring of onsite facilities.
104

Page 14 of 24 ends

LIP Findings
A. Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
LIP Section 13.9 requires that the following four findings be made for all CDPs.

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

The Planning Division, City Biologist, City coastal engineering consultant reviewer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, LACFD and WD29 reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. The proposed single-family residence, inclusive of the MM request, is consistent with the property’s RR-2 residential zoning district, a zone designated for residential uses. As discussed herein, based on submitted reports, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable non-beachfront residential development standards.

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

The project is located between the first public road and the sea. However, the project will not adversely affect public access or recreation because due to the orientation of the project site atop a coastal bluff and existing public access between PCH and the beach in the vicinity. As shown on the LCP Park Lands Map, vertical access between PCH and the beach and lateral access along the beach is available at El Pescador State Beach less than 200 feet east of the project site, La Piedra State Beach located approximately 1,600 feet further to the east, and Robert M. Meyer Memorial State Beach approximately a mile to the east. An existing single-family residence is located between the subject property and El Pescador State Beach to the east and all proposed development is located atop a coastal bluff and setback from the bluff edge. No development is proposed or required on the bluff or beach. As adequate public access exists nearby and no proposed development would adversely affect existing or planned public access in the vicinity or along the shoreline, the project conforms to the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act.

Finding 3. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment. The proposed project consists of the construction of a new single-family residence and associated development consistent with the RR-2 land use and zoning designations. Adjacent properties are 105

Page 15 of 24 ends

Malibu City CouncilOctober 21, 2026

Malibu City Council
October 21, 2026