1. CCC Hearing January 7, 2015 Item W33a

2. Subject Site 2

3. California Coastal Records Project Image 201309537, September 2013 Residence to be substantially remodeled 3

4.  Land-locked parcel with access provided via CCC approved cart path also serving adjacent home  Zoned “Rural Residential”  Original residential structure constructed in 1950s  Current proposal conforms to all development standards for new “Rural Residential” development 4

5.  Bluff repair and improvements consisting of drainage swale, retaining walls, revegetation and cart path to serve homes at 28118 & 28126 PCH approved by CCC in 2003 (CDP# 4-01-169)  Applicants purchased subject parcel (28118 PCH) and adjacent parcel (28126 PCH) in Fall 2010  Applicants initiated local approval process for development at each individual parcel under separate applications (per City direction) 5

6.  Current application involves development at 28118 PCH (beachfront parcel) only, including: Substantial remodel of existing single-family residence with new foundation; and Removal of unpermitted development, including beach level decking and stairs along downcoast property line.  Development at 28126 PCH approved under separate CDP (Feb. 2013) and is currently under construction 6

7. Beachfront Elevation 7

8.  Applicants worked closely with City staff and conducted extensive outreach to neighbors (see letters of support)  City of Malibu Planning Commission unanimously approved current project May 5, 2014  Appealed to City Council by downcoast neighbor (AGB Trust) 8

9.  Unanimous denial of neighbor’s appeal by City Council on Aug. 11, 2014 Resolution upholding approval authorized substantial remodel of beachfront residence, but required unrelated upslope development to be addressed under separate CDP  Appealed to CCC by neighbor (AGB Trust) on Sept. 8, 2014 despite efforts to reach cooperative resolution 9

10.  Applicants have made extensive efforts to meet with appellant (AGB Trust) to discuss unpermitted development and possible cooperation to remove  City delayed final action to provide additional time for coordination between parties  Despite multiple efforts and City involvement, only one meeting took place with appellant’s reps (appellant not present) in April 2014; potential course of action identified  No further response since April, except filing of local and CCC appeals 10

11. BEACH Portion of residential development addressed under current CDP Unpermitted development (including stairs and retaining walls) to be addressed under separate CDP PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Address: 28118 PCH Owner: Ryan Family Address: 28106 PCH Owner: AGB Trust 11 Property line Address: 28126 PCH Owner: Ryan Family Property line

12.  Applicants proposing to remove all unpermitted development on their property; cannot remove development on adjacent AGB Trust property Current application addresses development at beach level portion of property Subsequent application will address upslope development separately Applicants able to complete project and remove unpermitted development on subject property without adversely affecting adjacent properties 12

13. 2002 Ryan Property (acquired Fall 2010) AGB Trust Property (acquired January 2003) 13

14. 2004 14

15. 2005 15

16. 2006 16

17. 2008 17

18. CONTENTION RESPONSE  Fire Hazard Fire Department should review as new construction instead of remodel  Geologic/Structural Hazards Removal of unpermitted development will adversely affect adjacent property  Fire Department has reviewed in plan check and confirmed project meets definition of remodel; no further review required per LA Building Code  All proposed work has been reviewed by geotechnical consultant, civil engineer and structural engineer. Project construction and removal can occur without affecting adjacent properties, consistent with Building & Safety Codes 18

19. CONTENTION RESPONSE  Wave Uprush  Site Restoration on AGB Trust property  Structure Size  No impact, no scour (technical report prepared April 2014)  Applicant cannot undertake work on property they do not own  Over 50% of existing exterior walls to be utilized; square footage consistent w/zoning requirements 19

20.  Staff recommends NSI “The project approval will not be an adverse precedent for future residential development. Further, the approved development is supported by substantial evidence in the record and will not have an adverse effect on significant coastal resources. Because the development is relatively small in scope, it will not have a significant adverse effect on significant coastal resources, and does not raise issues of regional or statewide significance, and the local action does not set an adverse precedent for future coastal development permits.” Staff Report, p. 3 20

21.  Proposed project will improve safety, increase public access and enhance public views: Existing dilapidated structure presents dangerous condition adjacent to public beach; Increased lateral public access will be provided through OTD seaward of residence; and Project results in removal of unsightly unpermitted development on beachfront level 21

22.  Appeal does not raise a substantial issue of consistency with LCP or Coastal Act  Project results in removal of unpermitted development and improved safety and public access NSI  Applicant requests Commission find NSI Thank you 22

23. 23

24. 24