1. California Coastal Commission Appeal No. A-4-MAL-12-006
Duplex Structure
25360 Malibu Road
Malibu
Applicant’s Support for Staff Recommendation
Of No Substantial Issue

3. The City’s 87 Special Conditions (Staff Report Exhibit 8) fully implement the Local Coastal Program and mirror the actions that the Commission would take on the project.
16. No grading during rainy season.
17. Final plans reviewed and approved by City Geologist
18. Final plans substantially conform to approved plans
20. Project engineering shall comply with City Engineer requirements.
28. Drainage plan required.
29. Erosion and sediment control plan required.
30. Storm Water Pollution Prevention plan required.
35. Septic System shall meet all LIP requirements.
79. Transfer of Development Credit required
80. Recorded Notice of Hazard
82. Deed Restriction waiving future seaward encroachment of seawall.
83. Deed Restriction limiting lighting.
84. Dedication of Lateral Access to dripline of structure.

4. MCE/Geotechnical Engineers - 2000
The subject site is adversely impacted by an offsite landslide from the north and by the wave action from the south. However, if the recommendations presented in this report are implemented, the subject site will not be affected by landsliding, slippage, settlement, or wave action. Furthermore, the proposed improvements will not adversely affect the geologic stability of adjoining offsite properties.

5. Sassan Geosciences 2005
Construction of the proposed improvements is safe and will not cause landslide(s), settlement and slippage. The proposed improvements will not have an adverse effect on the geologic stability of the properties outside the building site. In addition, we find that the proposed construction will be safe from a geotechnical engineering standpoint against hazards such as landslides, settlement, and slippage. Further, the proposed status of the building or grading, as known, will not adversely affect the stability of adjacent properties, provided that the recommendations presented in our reports and approved by the City are followed.

6. Johnsson Memo - p. 10
Nevertheless, I asked the applicant to perform a three-dimensional slope stability analysis of the relatively small portion of the landslide lying west of the proposed stabilized area to assess its stability if it was essentially isolated from the main landslide mass by the stabilized wedge being retained by the proposed pile system. This analysis (reference 40) showed that the wedge of material, taken in isolation, has a factor of safety against sliding of 2.06, far exceeding the industry standard of I have reviewed this analysis and concur with it.

7. Johnsson Memo – p. 11
Although no one can guarantee that the landslide retention system will not affect offsite properties, in my judgment, the project geotechnical team has been held to a very high standard, and the proposed design meets or exceeds the standard of care commonly exercised in the profession. Further, the alternatives suggested by me, and the appellant, do not appear to be feasible.

9. Appellant’s response from Engineering Geologist Joshua Feffer

10. None of the nine letters from geologists for the Appellant present any evidence to the City or to the Coastal Commission that the proposed project will have any impact on any offsite property.