Malibu City Council
March 11, 2024

Finding 4. If the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conforms with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

The subject property is not designated as containing ESHA or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. However, Addendum No. 3 to the Case project’s Final EIR and the subject skatepark project were reviewed by the ERB and recommendations were made. All recommendations made by the ERB were assessed and addressed. An additional sound review was prepared by a third-party consultant who concluded the proposed design is in line with the design reviewed during the Final EIR and no additional mitigation is required.

B. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) The subject property is not designated as containing ESHA, or ESHA buffer, as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. Based on site-specific analysis by the City Biologist, it has been determined that there is no ESHA on the property. On September 9, 2023, the City Biologist approved the project and determined that it is not expected to result in any adverse impacts to significant biological resources. As conditioned, the proposed project will result in less than significant impacts to sensitive resources, and no significant loss of vegetation or wildlife, or encroachments into an ESHA. Therefore, the findings of LIP Section 4.7.6 are not applicable.

C. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)
There are no native trees on or adjacent to the subject parcel. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 5 are not applicable.

D. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those coastal development permit applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road or public viewing area. The subject property is located along PCH, an LCP-designated scenic road, and is located adjacent to Malibu Bluffs Park. The required findings are made below.

Finding 1. The project, as proposed, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

An analysis of the project’s visual impact was conducted through site inspections, architectural plans and review of the Final EIR and Addendum No. 3. The skatepark will have limited visibility from PCH, does not block ocean views, and fits within the recreational context of Bluffs Park. The parking area and skate features will be constructed at an elevation lower than the Case project and out of site from PCH, minimizing their 52

visibility. Furthermore, the skate park elements will not exceed eight feet in height. The park will only be open during daylight hours and does not include outdoor lighting other than a small light for the restroom which will be used for maintenance purposes only or otherwise turned off. The skatepark project is not expected to result in significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, will have no significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

As discussed in Finding 1, the project is not expected to have significant adverse visual impacts.

Finding 3. The project, as proposed or conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As discussed in Section A, Finding 3, the project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

Finding 4. There are no feasible alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

There are no alternatives considered to lessen significant impacts as the proposed project is not expected to result in any significant visual impacts.

Finding 5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse scenic and visual impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained within the LIP.

The project site was cleared of sensitive biological resources and the project design elevation and the height of skate features will not result in adverse visual impacts. No other siting alternatives are necessary.

E. Transfer of Development Credit (LIP Chapter 7)
The proposed project does not include a land division or multi-family development.

Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 7 are not applicable.

F. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity, or other potential hazards listed in LIP Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site or in an area where it is determined that the proposed project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon site stability or structural integrity.
53

The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, and City geotechnical staff have analyzed the proposed development for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9. The required findings are made as follows:

Finding 1. The project, as proposed will neither be subject to nor increase instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or fire hazards due to project design, location on the site or other reasons.

The proposed skatepark, which will include exempt grading, paving, street improvements and minimal landscaping, will have no adverse effect on the structural integrity of the site.

The site is not located in a flood hazard area. The Initial Study prepared in advance of the Final EIR determined that the approved project would not have the potential to impact most of the geology and soils factors addressed under CEQA. However, the Final EIR determined that the approved project had potential impacts related to geology and soils and on Lots 1 through 6. No impacts were identified on Lot 7.

As there are no known geology or soils issues on Lot 7 and no habitable structures would be constructed onsite, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact related to geotechnical hazards. The project, as conditioned, will incorporate all the conditions required by the City Public Works Department, and City geotechnical consultant reviewers. As such, the proposed project will not increase the instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.

Fire Hazard
The entire City of Malibu is designated as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, a zone defined by a more destructive behavior of fire and a greater probability of flames and embers threatening buildings. The subject property is currently subject to wildfire hazards.

The scope of work proposed as part of this application is not expected to have an adverse impact on wildfire hazards.

The project would include paving, skate park elements, street improvements and minimal landscaping. The project was reviewed by the LACFD who determined that a fuel modification plan was not required. The project would not include any above ground habitable structures which could be subject to fire risk. As such, the potential fire risk associated with the proposed project would be low. Nonetheless, the project would increase the use of the site which could generate an incremental increase in calls for fire response. The Final EIR determined that proposed project would be required to adhere to those portions of Mitigation Measures 7-1 through 7-4 applicable to Lot 7 including maintaining access through the site during construction and maintaining access to fire hydrants.

Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse impacts on-site stability or structural integrity from geologic, flood or fire hazards due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.
54

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

Finding 3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

As discussed in Section A, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

Finding 4. There are no alternatives to development that would avoid or substantially lessen impacts on-site stability or structural integrity.

The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, and City geotechnical consultant reviewers analyzed the proposed development for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9. The proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. There are no environmentally superior feasible alternatives.

Finding 5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance with sensitive resource protection policies contained in the certified Malibu LCP.

As 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.

I. Shoreline and Bluff Development (LIP Chapter 10)
The project site is not located on or along the shoreline, a coastal bluff, or bluff top fronting the shoreline. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 10 are not applicable.

J. Public Access (LIP Chapter 12)
LIP Section 12.4 requires public access for lateral, bluff-top, and vertical access near the ocean, trails, and recreational access for the following cases:

A. New development on any parcel or location specifically identified in the Land Use Plan or in the LCP zoning districts as appropriate for or containing a historically used or suitable public access trail or pathway.

B. New development between the nearest public roadway and the sea.

C. New development on any site where there is substantial evidence of a public right of access to or along the sea or public tidelands, a blufftop trail or an inland trail acquired through use or a public right of access through legislative authorization.

D. New development on any site where a trail, bluff top access or other recreational access is necessary to mitigate impacts of the development on public access where 55

there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging, project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.

As described herein, the property is not located between the first public road and the sea, no trails are identified on the LCP Park Lands Map on or adjacent to the property. The proposed project does not meet any of the criteria above. The requirement for public access in LIP Section 12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.

K. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)
This proposed project does not include a land division. Therefore, the findings of LIP Chapter 15 are not applicable.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The final EIR was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA to examine the potential environmental effects of the original project (Final EIR for the Case project). The City Council Certified the Final EIR on February 24, 2014, making the required findings under CEQA. An Addendum to the Certified Final EIR has been prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 to address the proposed skatepark project. The Addendum must be considered by the Planning Commission with the subject application for Coastal Development Permit No. 23- 001.

CORRESPONDENCE: Staff received correspondence from the Case development owner (Attachment 8) stating their concerns over the skatepark’s potential noise impacts. In summary, a noise study recently prepared shows that the proposed skate park will not have a significant increase in noise as most of the noise in the immediate area is attributed to traffic along PCH and, while the traffic noise subsides at nighttime, the park will also be closed during this time.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On October 26, 2023, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and on October 26, 2023, a notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Attachment 9).

SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the proposed project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Department’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 5 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-52. The proposed project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City and County departments.

DRAFT 56

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-52

2. Project Plans

3. Project Renderings

4. Department Review Sheets

5. Addendum No. 3 to the Final Environmental Impact Report for Crummer Site Subdivision, including Appendix A – Crummer Subdivision Mitigation Measures

6. Parking Study Dated May 4, 2023

7. Additional Noise Study Dated November 3, 2023

8. Correspondence

9. Public Hearing Notice
DRAFT 57

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-52

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MALIBU CONSIDERING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE CRUMMER SITE

SUBDIVISION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23-001 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,500 SQUARE FOOT IN-GROUND PERMANENT SKATEPARK, 146 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STALL RESTROOM BUILDING, 36

STALL PARKING LOT, TWO BIORETENTION BASINS, LANDSCAPING,

CROSS-WALK OVER WINTER MESA DRIVE, VARIOUS SKATING
EQUIPMENT, FENCING, AND BENCHES LOCATED ON LOT 7 OF THE CASE (FORMALLY CRUMMER) PROPERTY IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICTS LOCATED AT 24250

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CITY OF MALIBU)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On January 9, 2023, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-001 for a new permanent skatepark, landscaping, and associated required parking was submitted to the Planning Department by the City Community Services Department. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29) for review.

B. On October 4, 2023, a Notice of CDP was posted on the subject property and the project was deemed complete.

C. On October 11, 2023, the project went before the Environmental Review Board (ERB) for recommendations on the proposed project and Addendum No. 3 of the Crummer Site Subdivision Project.

D. On October 26, 2023, 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 properties.

E. On November 30, 2023, 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.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgment and analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project was adequately studied in the Case (formally Crummer) Site Subdivision Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). On February 24, 2014, the City of Malibu certified the Case Final EIR (State Clearing House No. 2008091155), that it will result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT 58
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
and that no further evaluation under CEQA is required.

Nevertheless, the Commission also evaluated the proposed application and determined the permanent skatepark will not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts as compared to those that were identified; and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 have occurred. The proposed project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the certified Final EIR or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the approved project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of identified effects. There is no new information that shows that the proposed project would cause new significant environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the certified Final EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to the Final EIR (Addendum No. 3) was prepared and no supplemental environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. The certified Final EIR and Addendum No. 3 were considered prior to approval of the project. Together they are determined to adequately satisfy all the requirements of CEQA.

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on November 30, 2023, and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 23-001 for the construction of a 12,500 square foot in-ground permanent skatepark, 146 square foot two-stall restroom building, 36 stall parking lot, two bioretention basins, landscaping, cross-walk over Winter Mesa Drive, various skating equipment, fencing, and benches located on Lot 7 of the Case (formally Crummer) property in the Planned Development (PD) and Public Open Space (OS) zoning districts located at 24250 Pacific Coast Highway (City of Malibu).

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 proposed project is located in the PD and OS zoning districts, which are areas designated for recreation. The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, and City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and Los Angeles County Waterworks District. No. 29 (WD29) have reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. 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 development standards.

2. The project will not result in adverse biological or visual impacts and involves only the necessary amount of grading to construct the 12,500 square foot skatepark as analyzed in the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR. The site has already been disturbed in accordance with the DRAFT 59
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
approved Case site improvements CDP as well as the improvements for the temporary skatepark constructed in 2020. There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment as no significant effects are expected. The proposed project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

3. The subject property is not designated as containing Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map.

However, Addendum No. 3 to the Case project’s Final EIR and the subject skatepark project were reviewed by the ERB and recommendations were made. All recommendations made by the ERB were assessed and addressed. An additional sound review was prepared by a third-party consultant who concluded the proposed design is in line with the design reviewed during the Final EIR and no additional mitigation is required.

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

1. An analysis of the project’s visual impact was conducted through site inspections, architectural plans and review of the Final EIR and Addendum No. 3. The skatepark will have limited visibility from PCH, does not block ocean views, and fits within the recreational context of Bluffs Park. The parking area and skate features will be constructed at an elevation lower than the Case project and out of site from PCH, minimizing their visibility. Furthermore, the skate park elements will not exceed eight feet in height. The park will only be open during daylight hours and does not include outdoor lighting other than a small light for the restroom which will be used for maintenance purposes only or otherwise turned off. The skatepark project is not expected to result in significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

2. The project has been designed to avoid any adverse or scenic impacts. The project proposes skatepark elements situated at or below the elevation of nearby residential structures and landscaping and proposes minimal outdoor lighting, minimizing visual impacts. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in significant adverse scenic visual impacts.

3. The project, as proposed or 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 therefore, no feasible alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. The project site was cleared of sensitive biological resources and the project design elevation and the height of skate features will not result in adverse visual impacts. No other siting alternatives are necessary.

F. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The entire City of Malibu, including the project, is located within an extreme fire hazard zone. The proposed skatepark will include minor landscaping and exempt grading, neither of which will affect the structural integrity of the site. No habitable structures are proposed. The project, as conditioned, will incorporate the conditions required by the City Public Works Department and City geotechnical consultant reviewers. As such, the proposed project will not DRAFT 60
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
increase the instability of the site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.

2. The project, as designed, conditioned, and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD and does not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or fire hazards due to the project design. The project meets City and County requirements and standards.

3. The project, as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative, in that the skatepark complies with the requirements of both the MMC and LCP, and no environmentally superior alternatives have been identified.

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department. These specialists determined that the proposed project does not adversely impact site stability or structural integrity.

There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would result in less site disturbance.

5. As discussed herein, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not have adverse impacts on sensitive coastal resources, as none are present on Lot 7.

SECTION 5. Planning Commission Approval.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 23-001, subject to the following conditions, including the Mitigation Measures from the Crummer Subdivision Project Final EIR (certified by City Council Resolution No. 14-11) that are applicable to the project, as noted below.

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. 12,500 square foot in-ground permanent skatepark;
b. 146 square foot, 12-foot tall, two-stall restroom structure; c. Parking and drop off area including 28 standard parking spaces, six carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, and two ADA spaces; d. Two bioretention basins;
e. New crosswalk across Winter Mesa Drive;
f. Landscaping;
g. 8-foot-tall perimeter fencing; and
h. 3,022 cubic yards of exempt grading.

DRAFT 61
Resolution No 23-52

______________________

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be in substantial compliance with plans on-file with the Planning Department, signed by Public Works Engineering staff on August 16, 2023. In the event the project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

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 Department within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

5. This resolution, signed Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit and all Department Review Sheets attached to the Planning Commission agenda report for this project shall be copied in their entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet behind the cover sheet of the development plans submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department for plan check.

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 Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and City Public Works Department, 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 Planning 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 have been exhausted.

Cultural Resources

11. 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 DRAFT 62
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
Planning 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.

12. 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.

13. Mitigation Measure 4-1: For adequate coverage and the protection of potentially significant buried resources, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards (48 Federal Register 44738-39) shall be retained by the applicant to monitor all ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to all grading, excavation, and site preparation. The project archaeologist shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant resources.

Any significant archaeological resources found shall be preserved as determined necessary by the project archaeologist and offered to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton or repository willing to accept the resource. Any resulting reports shall also be forwarded to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.

Should paleontological soils be uncovered during grading, a paleontological monitor shall also be retained by the applicant, upon the archaeological monitor's request, to oversee ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to all grading, excavation, and site preparation. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant resources. Should fossil-bearing formations be uncovered, the monitor shall professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Any paleontological artifacts recovered shall be preserved, as determined necessary by the project paleontologist, and offered to an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. This mitigation measure shall also apply to trenching for utilities, geological testing, and any other grounddisturbing activities associated with the proposed project.

14. Mitigation Measure 4-2: A Native American Monitor of Chumash descent shall be retained to monitor all ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to all grading, excavation, and site preparation. Any artifacts recovered shall be curated at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the designated repository for Los Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties. The extent and duration of the archaeological monitoring program shall be determined in accordance with the proposed grading or demolition plans. If human remains are uncovered, the Los Angeles Coroner, Native American Heritage Commission, local Native American representatives, and archaeological monitor shall determine the nature of further studies, as warranted and in accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the City's standard conditions of approval. This mitigation measure shall also apply to trenching for utilities, geological testing, and any other ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project.

DRAFT 63
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
Site-Specific Conditions

15. Only outdoor Dark Sky compliant lighting for the restroom is approved with this application.

Biology/Landscaping

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

17. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

18. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance 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.

19. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

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

21. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

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

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

24. Grading 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.

25. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 – September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities.

Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site DRAFT 64
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
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 the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

26. The (landscape and fuel modification plan) has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Malibu General Plan. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the (restoration plan, landscape and fuel modification plan).

Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

27. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited.

28. 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.

Geology

29. Submit a geotechnical report that addresses the grading for the skatepark, including subgrade preparation, overexcavation (as appropriate), design of flatwork (concrete and shotcrete), foundations for structures, and drainage control. The report will be reviewed as part of the Building Plan Check submittal.

Street Improvements

30. The project proposes to construct street improvements within the City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed work within the City’s right-of-way.

31. The project proposes to construct a new driveway within the City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed driveway. The driveway shall be constructed of either six inches of concrete over fourinches of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over six-inches of aggregate base.

The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs.

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology (Geology/ Public Works)
DRAFT 65
Resolution No 23-52

______________________

32. 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.
c. 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.

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

Erosion Controls Scheduling Erosion Controls Scheduling Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
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.

34. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP 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 of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A). The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project. 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.

DRAFT 66
Resolution No 23-52

______________________

35. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. 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 of the site. The WQMP 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 (BMP’s)
b. Source Control BMP’s
c. Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the 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 BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
f. 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

36. The project engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of construction permits.

37. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu’s standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.

38. 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.

Construction

39. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Environmental Sustainability Department with a WRRP Final Summary Report. The Final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were landfilled or recycled, broken down by material types. The Environmental Sustainability Department shall approve the Final Summary Report.

40. 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.

41. 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 will be rinsed off prior to leaving the property.

42. A construction management plan shall be approved by the Public Works Director to DRAFT 67
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
manage construction traffic, including grading truck trips, in order to minimize impacts on traffic and emergency access.

43. Mitigation Measure 2-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce construction exhaust emissions during grading and construction activities:
a. The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards to reduce operational emissions. b. The construction contractor shall limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
c. Where feasible, use of haul trucks with engines that are 2010 or newer for soil import and export activities.
d. The construction contractor shall limit soil hauling activities associated with the site grading trips to a maximum of 38 trucks per day (76 one-way soil haul trips per day for haul trips).
e. The construction contractor shall use USEPA-rated Tier 3 construction engines for equipment rated at 50 horsepower or greater for general site grading activities. Tier 3 engines between 90 and 750 horsepower are available for 2006 to 2008 model years.
f. A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor onsite.

44. Mitigation Measure 7-1 (applicable portions): In addition to compliance with existing requirements and standards of the LACFD, the project must comply with all applicable requirements detailed in letters dated March 16, 2012, from the LACFD, included in Appendix L of the Draft EIR that are applicable to Lot 7. Where the two letters differ, the more conservative approach shall be taken. The letters include the following requirements, among others:
a. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all-weather access. All-weather access may require paving.
b. Where driveways extend farther than 150 feet and are of single-access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure their integrity for fire department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. c. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. d. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants.
e. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction.

Prior to Final Sign-Off

45. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department. A final approval shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this CDP.

DRAFT 68
Resolution No 23-52

______________________

46. 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.

Fixed Conditions

47. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.

48. 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.

Operations

49. The approved hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to sunset,seven days a week.

50. At least 36 parking spaces shall be provided at all times.

Signs

51. No other new signage is permitted under this application; a sign permit shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation of any new sign.

SECTION 7. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30
th day of November 2023.
__________________________________________
SKYLAR PEAK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section

13.20.1 (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.

DRAFT 69
Resolution No 23-52

______________________
I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 23-52 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 30 th day of
November 2023 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
DRAFT 70
ATTACHMENT 2
71 72
73 74
75 76
77 City of Malibu Permanent Skate Park Preliminary Design Malibu Bluffs Park 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy
78 City of Malibu Permanent Skate Park Preliminary Design Malibu Bluffs Park 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy
79 City of Malibu Permanent Skate Park Preliminary Design Malibu Bluffs Park 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy
80 City of Malibu Permanent Skate Park Preliminary Design Malibu Bluffs Park 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy
81 City of Malibu Permanent Skate Park Preliminary Design Malibu Bluffs Park 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy
82 83
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
City of Malibu
Project Address: 24250 PACIFIC COAST HWY
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 23-001
Project Description: New Skate Park
Date of Review: September 9, 2023
Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

Contact Information: Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext 277 Email: [email protected]

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan:

Site Survey:

Landscape Plan: 8/17/23
Hydrozone Plan:

Irrigation Plan:

Fuel Modification Plan:

Grading Plan:

OWTS Plan:

Bio Assessment: EIR Addendum (City of Malibu) January 2020 Bio Inventory:

Native Tree Survey:

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous:

Previous Reviews: 2/19/23 (Incomplete), 4/19/23 (Incomplete)

REVIEW FINDINGS
Review Status: INCOMPLETE: Additional information and/or a response to the listed review comments is required.

APPROVED: The project has been approved with regards to biological impacts.

CANNNOT APPROVE AS SUBMITTED: The proposed project does not conform to the requirements of the MMC and/or LCP.

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 84 City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-001
24250 Pacific Coast Highway
September 9, 2023

DISCUSSION:

1. The approved EIR stated that “seeded portions of the landscape need to be irrigated with temporary overhead irrigation” in the approved Mitigation Measures. Therefore, an irrigation plan is required prior to final plan check. One has not been provided prior to this Biology Review.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. The project is recommended for APPROVAL with the following conditions:

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

B. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division.

C. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off (as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance (MMC Chapter 9.22). 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 9.22. (form attached) D. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

For approval contact:

Roberto Perez Sandoval
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (Preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-1389
Paul Van Suchtelen
Address: 23533 West Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265-4804 Email: [email protected] (Preferred)
Phone: (310) 317-0209
Please note this action may require several weeks. As such, the applicant should submit their approved landscape plans to DPW as soon as feasible in order to avoid a delay at plan check.

E. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height. Three sequential 85 City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-001
24250 Pacific Coast Highway
September 9, 2023

violations of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

F. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

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

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

I. Grading 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.

J. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed 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 the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

K. The (landscape and fuel modification plan) has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Malibu General Plan. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the (landscape and fuel modification plan). Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

L. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited.

2. UPON COMPLETION OF PLANTING, the City Biologist shall inspect the project site and determine that all planning conditions to protect natural resources are in compliance with the approved plans.

3. ERB REQUIRED
Pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4, the proposed project will require review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB) as it has the potential to impact special status biological resources. 86 City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 23-001
24250 Pacific Coast Highway
September 9, 2023

-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
87 FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4804 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:

TO: Los Angeles County Fire Department
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 01/09/2023
JOB ADDRESS: 24250 PACIFIC COAST HWY
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Kristen Riesgo, City of Malibu Community Service APPLICANT ADDRESS: 23825 Stuart Ranch Road
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310)456-2489
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Skate Park
Malibu, CA 92065
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 23-001
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: 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 Plan Review ______ The required fire flow for this project is ________ gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch for a 1 hour duration. (Provide flow information from the water dept.) ______ The project is required to have an interior automatic fire sprinkler system. ______ Final Fuel Modification Plan Approval is required prior to Fire Department Approval ______ Conditions below marked “not approved” shall be corrected on the site plan and resubmitted for Fire Department approval.

App’d N/app’d
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 _____ ______ *County of Los Angeles Fire Department Approval Expires with City Planning permits expiration, revisions to the County of Los Angeles Fire Code or revisions to Fire Department regulations and standards. **Minor changes may be approved by Fire Prevention Engineering, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project maintains compliance with the County of Los Angeles Fire Code valid at the time revised plans are submitted. Applicable review fees shall be required. __________________________________ _____________________

SIGNATURE DATE
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of complete architectural plans.

The Fire Prevention Engineering may be contacted by phone at (818) 880-0341or at the Fire Department Counter:
26600 Agoura Road, Suite 110, Calabasas, CA 91302; Hours: Monday – Thursday between 7:00 AM and 11:00 AM Rev 04/21/10 mr
88 89

PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW

REFERRAL SHEET
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd., Malibu, California CA 90265-4861 (310) 456-2489 FAX (310) 456-7650
FROM:

TO:

City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
DATE: 01/09/2023
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Kristen Riesgo
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 23825 Stuart Ranch Road
APPLICANT PHONE #: (310)456-2489
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New Skate Park
Malibu, CA 92065
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 23-001
JOB ADDRESS: 24250 PACIFIC COAST HWY
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.

The project was reviewed and found to be in conformance with the City’s Public Works and LCP policies and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
3/6/2023
90 1
Document1 Recycled Paper
City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Public Works Department
Nadia Farhoum, Assistant Civil Engineer
Date: March 6, 2023
Re: Proposed Conditions of Approval for 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy CDP 23-001 The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for the above referenced project.

Based on this review sufficient information has been submitted to confirm that conformance with the Malibu Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) can be attained.

Prior to the issuance of building and grading permits, the applicant shall comply with the following conditions.

GRADING AND DRAINAGE

1. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 31) shall be prohibited for development LIP Section 17.3.1 that:
 Is located within or adjacent to ESHA, or
 Includes grading on slopes greater than 4:1
 Approved grading for development that is located within or adjacent to ESHA or on slopes greater than 4:1 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

2. Exported soil from a site shall be taken to the County Landfill or to a site with an active grading permit and the ability to accept the material in compliance with the City’s LIP Section 8.3. A note shall be placed on the project that addresses this condition.

3. A grading and drainage plan shall be approved containing the following information prior to the issuance of grading permits for the project.
 Public Works Department General Notes
91 2
Document1 Recycled Paper
 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).  The limits of land to be disturbed during project development shall be delineated on the grading plan and a total area shall be shown on the 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.
 The grading limits shall include the temporary cuts made for retaining walls, buttresses, and over excavations for fill slopes and shall be shown on the grading plan.
 If the property contains trees that are to be protected they shall be highlighted on the grading plan.
 If the property contains rare and endangered species as identified in the resources study the grading plan shall contain a prominent note identifying the areas to be protected (to be left undisturbed). Fencing of these areas shall be delineated on the grading plan if required by the City Biologist.
 Private storm drain systems shall be shown on the grading plan. Systems greater than 12-inch diameter shall also have a plan and profile for the system included with the grading plan.
 Public storm drain modifications shown on the grading plan shall be approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading permit.

4. 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 BMP’s 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, outlet, postconstruction BMP’s and other applicable facilities. The digital drawing shall also show the subject property, public or private street, and any drainage easements.

5. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu’s standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.

STORMWATER

6. A Local Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be provided prior to the issuance of the Grading/Building permits for the project. This plan shall include an Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) that includes, but not limited to:

Erosion Controls Scheduling
Preservation of Existing
Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
92 3
Document1 Recycled Paper
Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Non-Storm Water Water Conservation Practices
Management 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.

7. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17.3.2.B.2. The SWMP 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 of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A).

The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project.

8. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. 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 of the site. The WQMP 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:
 Site Design Best Management Practices (BMP’s)
 Source Control BMP’s
 Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the Stormwater Quality Design Volume (SWQDv). Or where it is technical infeasible to retain on-site, the project must biofiltrate 1.5 times the SWQDv that is not retained on-site.  Drainage Improvements
 A plan for the maintenance and monitoring of the proposed treatment BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
 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 93 4
Document1 Recycled Paper
measures installed during construction prior to the issuance of grading or building permits.
 The WQMP shall be submitted to Public Works Department and the fee applicable at time of submittal for the review of the WQMP shall be paid prior to the start of the technical review. The WQMP shall be approved prior to 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 County Recorder. A copy of the WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the certificate of occupancy.

MISCELLANOUS

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

COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT

10. Prior to the approval of any grading and drainage permit, the applicant shall submit a PDF of the final plans. If there are further modifications to the plans, the applicant shall provide the City with an updated PDF.
94 95
Addendum No. 3 to the
Crummer Site Subdivision
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2008091155
Permanent Skatepark Project
Coastal Development Permit No. 23-001
Prepared by:

City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
August 2023
ATTACHMENT 5
96 97
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
iii
Table of Contents
I. Introduction....................................................................................................................................................... 1 A. Project Overview ...................................................................................................................................... 1 B. Statutory Authority and Requirements.................................................................................................... 1 II. Background and Project Description................................................................................................................. 2 A. Project Site................................................................................................................................................ 2 B. Background............................................................................................................................................... 5 C. Proposed Project ...................................................................................................................................... 7 III. Crummer Site Subdivision CEQA Process/EIR.................................................................................................. 10 IV. Environmental Impacts of the Approved Project and Proposed Project ......................................................... 12 A. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................... 14 B. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................... 14 C. Biological Resources............................................................................................................................... 15 D. Cultural Resources.................................................................................................................................. 16 E. Geology and Soils.................................................................................................................................... 16 F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions..................................................................................................................... 17 G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials.......................................................................................................... 18 H. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................. 18 I. Land Use and Planning............................................................................................................................ 19 J. Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 19 K. Transportation and Traffic...................................................................................................................... 20 L. Recreation............................................................................................................................................... 21 V. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................... 22 VI. References....................................................................................................................................................... 23 Appendix
Appendix A – Mitigation Measures Included in the Final EIR List of Tables
Table 1 – Approved Project – Topics Found Not Significant by the 2012 Initial Study and not Addressed in the Final EIR.................................................................................................................................. 10 Table 2 – Approved Project - Topics Addressed in the Final EIR and Level of Significance ............................. 10 Table 3 – Comparison of Environmental Factors Between the Approved Project and Proposed Project....... 12 List of Figures
Figure 1 – Crummer Site Subdivision Regional Project Location....................................................................... 2 Figure 2 – Crummer Site Subdivision ................................................................................................................ 3 Figure 3 – Aerial Photograph of the Project Site............................................................................................... 3 Figure 4 – Drone Photographs of the Project Site............................................................................................. 4 Figure 5 – Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, Lot 7 Baseball Option Schematic ...................................... 6 Figure 6 – Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, Lot 7 Skatepark Option Schematic.................................... 6 Figure 7 – Site Plan/Landscape Plan.................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 8 – Project Renderings ........................................................................................................................... 8 98 Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
1 I. Introduction
A. Project Overview
The Proposed Project includes Coastal Development Permit (CDP) 23-001 for the construction of a 12,500-square-foot in-ground permanent skatepark, two-stall restroom building and related parking and improvements on Lot 7 of the Crummer Site Subdivision in the central core of the City of Malibu.

The permanent skatepark and restroom would be located on the eastern portion of the project site, an existing drop-off/parking area would be retained and reconfigured in the central portion of the site, and a temporary skatepark in the western portion of the site would be converted to parking upon opening of the permanent facility. The project would also include fencing, picnic tables, benches, landscaping, bioretention basins and a crosswalk over Winter Mesa Drive.

B. Statutory Authority and Requirements
This document is Addendum No. 3 to the 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Crummer Site Subdivision (State Clearinghouse No. 2008091155), which was certified by the Malibu City Council in February 2014. The EIR addressed the development of five homes and related facilities on Lots 1-6 and two potential recreational uses on Lot 7. The two potential uses studied were ball fields and a 12,500-square-foot skatepark, with related parking to serve the recreation use and entire Malibu Bluffs Park. The EIR determined that with included mitigation measures, the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts.

This Addendum has been prepared in accordance with relevant provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3 §14000, et seq.). According to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an Addendum to a previously certified EIR or Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document in instances when “only minor technical changes or additions are necessary” and when the new information does not require major revisions to the previous EIR, involve new or substantially increased significant environmental effects, or when mitigation measures previously determined to be infeasible are available, or new mitigation is identified which would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project.

Based on the analysis of potential environmental consequences anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Project, the City of Malibu has determined that the project would involve only minor technical changes to the Final EIR that would not result in new significant effects or a substantial increase in the severity of significant effects previously identified in the Final EIR. In addition, the City has determined that the project would not require any new mitigation measures or alternatives, including measures or alternatives that would differ considerably from those analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, as Lead Agency, the City has determined that preparation of an Addendum is appropriate.
99 Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
2 II. Background and Project Description
A. Project Site
The 1.74-acre project site is located within Malibu Bluffs Park and the civic core of the City. The site is within the 24-acre Crummer Site Subdivision property located at 24120 Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) on the south side of PCH east of Winter Mesa Drive. Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the regional location of the Crummer Site Subdivision and the location of the project site on Lot 7 within the subdivision. The project site includes Assessor Parcel Numbers 4458-018-907 and 4458-018-904, addressed as 24250 Pacific Coast Highway, and is located immediately southeast of the intersection of PCH and Winter Mesa Drive.

Figure 1 – Crummer Site Subdivision Regional Project Location Source: Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, The Planning Center/DC&E, 2013 Land uses surrounding the project site include Case Court and PCH to the north, single family homes under construction within the Case Project to the east, and Winter Mesa Drive and Malibu Bluffs Park to the south and west.

The project site is relatively flat and ranges from approximately 195 feet above mean sea level (MSL) at the southeastern corner of the site to 207 feet above MSL at the northern boundary of the site.

The entire site has been graded and the driveway/drop-off area and temporary skatepark are located on the paved central and western portions of the site. The eastern portion of the site is not paved and has been periodically used for parking. Figure 3 and Figure 4 include current recent aerial and drone photographs of the project site.
100
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
3 Figure 2 – Crummer Site Subdivision
Source: Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, The Planning Center/DC&E, 2013 Figure 3 – Aerial Photograph of the Project Site
Source: Bing Maps, 2023
101
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
4 The project site is designated Planned Development (PD) by the Malibu General Plan, the Local Coastal Program (LCP), and the Zoning Ordinance. The property is within the Coastal Zone but outside the Appealable Jurisdiction as depicted on the City of Malibu Post-LCP Certification Permit and Appeal Jurisdiction Map. According to the LCP Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) Overlay Map, the project site is not designated as ESHA; however, ESHA is located to the southwest of the subject property.

Figure 4 – Drone Photographs of the Project Site
City of Malibu Community Services Division, April 2023
102
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
5 B. Background
The Crummer Site Subdivision was approved by the City Council on February 24, 2014. Project approvals included CDP No. 07-144 for development in the Coastal Zone, Vesting Tentative Map No. 07-033 to subdivide one lot into 7 lots, and Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 12-0001 to correct an inconsistency between LUP Policy and the zoning designation and incorporate the Planned District Ordinance in the LCP and MMC. The project included single-family residences on Lots 1 through 5; a private street, gatehouse, onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS) package plant and open space on Lot 6; and seepage pits and a recreational use on Lot 7. On May 18, 2014, the Planning Commission approved CDPs on Lots 1 through 5 for single-family residences contingent upon approval of the LCPA by the California Coastal Commission (CCC). On August 12, 2015, the CCC approved the LCPA with modifications which were later accepted by the City of Malibu in September 2015.

The 2013 Final EIR for the Crummer Site Subdivision (Final EIR) (SCH No. 2008091155) was certified by the City Council concurrently with project approvals on February 24, 2014. The EIR included a number of mitigation measures needed to reduce the identified potentially significant effects (Attachment A). The EIR determined that with mitigation, the project would not result in any significant environmental impacts.

In 2016, the Planning Commission approved CDP Amendment Nos. 15-008 through 15-012 to amend the previously approved CDPs on Lots 1 through 5 in response to LCPA modifications made by the CCC in 2015. No changes were made to Lots 6 or 7. The approval included consideration of Addendum No. 1 to the Final EIR documenting that the changes would not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts and that no new mitigation measures were available to further reduce impacts.

On February 3, 2020, the Planning Commission approved CDP No. 19-083 for the installation of asphalt on the western and central portions of Lot 7, construction of a 12,320-square-foot aboveground temporary skatepark on the western portion of Lot 7, construction of a drop-off/pick-up area including two ADA parking spaces on the central portion of the site, and a dirt parking lot with 40 spaces on the eastern portion. The Commission also considered Addendum No. 2 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR documenting that the changes would not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts that were identified and that no new mitigation measures were available to further reduce impacts. The temporary skatepark opened in July of 2020 and remains operational.

Approved Lot 7 Development Overview
As outlined above, the Approved Project included seepage pits and a recreational use that would serve as an expansion of Malibu Bluffs Park on Lot 7. The seepage pits would be located in the southeastern corner of the site adjacent to Winter Mesa Drive and the recreational use, parking and related improvements would be located on the remainder of the site. Lot 7 has been dedicated to the City per the terms of project approval together with a voluntary $1 million developer donation for park improvements. The park improvements were not designed at the time and were not a part of the Approved Project. However, active recreation, passive recreation and an expanded parking lot were all identified as possible uses. In addition, the City anticipated that a baseball field or skatepark 103
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
6 with related parking and improvements would be the likely uses on Lot 7 and those uses were analyzed in concept in the EIR. Figures 6 and 7 from the Final EIR illustrate conceptual layouts for both options on Lot 7.

Figure 5 – Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, Lot 7 Baseball Option Schematic Source: Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, The Planning Center/DC&E, 2013 Figure 6 – Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, Lot 7 Skatepark Option Schematic Source: Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision, The Planning Center/DC&E, 2013 104
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
7 C. Proposed Project
The Proposed Project involves the installation of a permanent skatepark, a two-stall restroom and related facilities on the eastern portion of the project site, improvements to the drop-off/parking area in the central portion of the site, conversion of the temporary skatepark into a parking lot in the western portion, and installation of a crosswalk across Winter Mesa Drive at the southwest corner of the site, as shown in Figure 7. These elements are discussed in detail below.

Figure 7 – Site Plan/Landscape Plan
Source: rrm design group, 2023
As shown in Figure 7, the permanent skatepark would be developed on the eastern portion of the project site. Grading would include 2,636 cubic yards of cut and 386 cubic yards of fill to create the topographic framework for the skatepark and drainage features of the site. Drainage features would include storm drains and a bioretention basin in the southernmost portion of the skatepark site and the western limit of Lot 7.

Following grading, concrete and shotcrete would be laid to create the skatepark architecture including the various skatepark obstacles or “elements” such as ramps, stairs, banks and transitions.

Other smaller elements such as grind rails would be made of steel. The skatepark would be built at, below and above-grade with above-grade features extending no more than 6 feet above natural grade. Figure 8 includes representative renderings of the skatepark.

Anticipated user groups for the permanent skatepark would be the same as currently use the temporary skatepark including youth and adult skateboard, bicycle and inline-skate participants with skill levels ranging from beginner to professional. The hours of operation for the skatepark would be from 8:00 a.m. to sunset or 7:00 p.m. (whichever is earlier), 7 days a week, excluding holidays.

Like the temporary skatepark, the permanent skatepark would be classified as an unsupervised skatepark. The City’s Community Services Department staff would not be on-site at all times during the hours of operation although staff from the nearby Michael Landon Center would visit the 105
106
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
9 A small restroom building would be located near the entrance to the skatepark. The restroom would include a 146-square-foot, 12-foot-high concrete block structure with two unisex stalls accessible from the west side of the building. The restroom will be available to all park users and would be open only during daylight hours when the skatepark is open. The restroom building would have two exterior wall mounted lights that would be motion-activated from 11:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m. to assist with custodial services. Lighting would be fully-shielded, directed downward and would comply with the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance. The restroom will be connected to the City’s Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Facility which serves Malibu Bluffs Park.

Other improvements on the eastern portion of the site would include sidewalks, benches, picnic tables, planter areas, a bicycle parking area and water fountain. Landscaping would include various native shrubs, groundcovers and 17 Coast Live Oak trees. Temporary irrigation would be installed upon planting to provide consistent moisture for seeds and plants and would be removed upon plant germination/establishment. Areas immediately surrounding the skatepark features would be covered with a fire-resistant engineered wood fiber mulch.

The existing drop-off/parking area in the central portion of the project site would be retained and expanded to the western portion of the site when operation of the temporary skatepark ceases upon the construction of the permanent skatepark. The temporary skatepark obstacles would be removed from the western portion of the site and the combined asphalt lot would be restriped to include 26 standard parking spaces, 6 carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, and two ADA parking spaces.

Parking would be available for the skatepark and entire Malibu Bluffs Park. Additional offsite parking also exists on the neighboring lot for Malibu Bluffs Park visitors.

In terms of walls and fencing, an existing concrete wall would be retained along the north, west and east sides of the overall project site. A galvanized steel “wave” fence up to 8 feet high would be installed along the western and southwestern boundary of the permanent skatepark area. No lighting would be installed as part of the project except for the motion-activated restroom lights outlined above.

Proposed Project - Required Approvals/Certifications
The Proposed Project requires the following City of Malibu approvals/certifications:

1. Consideration of Addendum No. 3 to the 2013 Final EIR for Crummer Site Subdivision

2. Approval of CDP No. 23-001 for the permanent skatepark, restroom and related facilities. 107
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
10 III. Crummer Site Subdivision CEQA Process/EIR
The City of Malibu prepared the 2013 Final EIR for the Crummer Site Subdivision (SCH No. 2008091155) in accordance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was filed with the California Office of Planning and Research and was distributed to involved public agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period on May 10, 2012.

In addition, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review period from April 3, 2013 to May 20, 2013. During the public review period, the City received comments from public agencies and private citizens. The comments letters and responses to comments were included in the Final EIR, which was certified by the Malibu City Council on February 24, 2014.

A 2012 Initial Study prepared prior to the preparation of the Final EIR determined that there was no potential that the Approved Project would significantly impact the environmental topics outlined in Table 1. Therefore, these topics were not addressed in the Final EIR. The rational for these determinations can be found in Chapter 5.0 – Environmental Analysis, Chapter 8.0 – Impacts Found Not to Be Significant, and Appendix A – Notice of Preparation of the Final EIR.

Table 1 – Approved Project – Topics Found Not Significant by the 2012 Initial Study and not Addressed in the Final EIR
Environmental Factor Thresholds Found Not significant
Agricultural Resources All
Air Quality Odors
Cultural Resources Historic, Human Remains
Geology and Soils Fault Rupture, Seismic Shaking, Liquefaction Hazards and Hazardous Materials All except Wildland Fires Hydrology and Water Quality Flood Hazard, Inundation, Levee or Dam Failure, Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow Land Use and Planning Physically Divide Community, Habitat Conservation Plan Mineral Resources All
Noise Airports
Population and Housing All
Public Services All
Transportation and Traffic Air Traffic, Emergency Access Utilities and Service Systems All
Table 2 below outlines the environmental factors that were evaluated in the Final EIR. The EIR determined that all potential impacts would be less than significant, or less than significant with mitigation. The rationale for these determinations can be found in the Final EIR in Chapter 5.0 - Environmental Analysis and Appendix A - Notice of Preparation and Initial Study. The mitigation measures contained in the Final EIR are included as Appendix A of this Addendum.

Table 2 – Approved Project - Topics Addressed in the Final EIR and Level of Significance Environmental Factor Significance Level
Aesthetics
Scenic Vista Less than significant
Scenic Resources Less than significant
Visual Character Less than significant
Light and Glare Less than significant
108
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
11 Environmental Factor Significance Level
Air Quality
Consistency with AQMP Less than significant
Violation of Standards Less than significant with mitigation Criteria Pollutant Increase Less than significant with mitigation Sensitive Receptors Less than significant
Biological Resources
Special Status Species Less than significant with mitigation Sensitive Habitat Less than significant
Jurisdictional Waters Less than significant
Wildlife Movement Less than significant
Biological Resource Policies Less than significant with mitigation Habitat Conservation Plan Less than significant
Habitat Reduction/Species Elimination/Wildlife Population Less than significant Cultural Resources
Archaeological Less than significant with mitigation
Paleontological Less than significant with mitigation
Geology and Soils
Landslides Less than significant with mitigation
Erosion Less than significant with mitigation
Unstable Soils Less than significant with mitigation
Expansive Soils Less than significant with mitigation
Wastewater Disposal System Less than significant with mitigation Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Less than significant
Consistency with Plan, Policy or Regulation Less than significant Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Wildland Fires Less than significant with mitigation
Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality Standards/Waste Discharge Requirements Less than significant Groundwater Supplies Less than significant
Drainage Pattern/Siltation Less than significant with mitigation Drainage Pattern/Flooding Less than significant with mitigation Excess Runoff Less than significant with mitigation
Substantially Degrade Water Quality Less than significant Land Use and Planning
Conflict with Land Use Plan Less than significant
Noise
Noise Levels in Excess of Standards Less than significant Vibration Less than significant
Permanent Increase in Noise Levels Less than significant Temporary Increase in Noise Levels Less than significant Recreation
Increase Use Less than significant
Expansion of Existing Facilities Less than significant
Transportation and Traffic
Trip Generation Less than significant with mitigation
Conflict with CMP Less than significant
Increase in Hazards Less than significant
Adopted Policies Less than significant
Parking Less than significant with mitigation
109
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
12 IV. Environmental Impacts of the Approved Project and Proposed Project This section addresses each of the environmental issues discussed in the 2013 Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR to determine whether the Proposed Project has the potential to create new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the significance of a significant impact as compared to what was identified in the document. Table 3 below contains a summary of impacts comparing the Approved Project with the Proposed Project and is based on the information and analysis contained in the 2012 Initial Study and the Final EIR.

Table 3 – Comparison of Environmental Factors Between the Approved Project and Proposed Project
Environmental Factor Approved Project Proposed Project Conclusion Aesthetics
Scenic Vista LTS LTS No change
Scenic Resources LTS LTS No change
Visual Character LTS LTS No change
Light and Glare LTS LTS No change
Air Quality
Consistency with AQMP LTS LTS No change
Violation of Standards LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Criteria Pollutant Increase LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Sensitive Receptors LTS LTS No change
Objectionable Odors LTS LTS No change
Biological Resources
Special Status Species LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Sensitive Habitat LTS LTS No change
Jurisdictional Waters LTS LTS No change
Wildlife Movement LTS LTS No change
Biological Resource Policies LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Habitat Conservation Plan LTS LTS No change
Habitat Reduction/Species Elimination/Wildlife Population LTS LTS No change Cultural Resources
Historic NI NI No change
Archaeological LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change
Paleontological LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Human Remains LTS LTS No change
Geology and Soils
Fault Rupture LTS LTS No change
Seismic Ground Shaking LTS LTS No change
Liquefaction LTS LTS No change
Landslides LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change
Erosion LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change
Unstable Soils LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change
Expansive Soils LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Waste Water Disposal System LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas Emissions LTS LTS No change
Consistency with Plan, Policy or Regulation LTS LTS No change 110
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
13 Environmental Factor Approved Project Proposed Project Conclusion Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Transport, Use, or Disposal LTS LTS No change
Release into the Environment LTS LTS No change
Within ¼ mile of a School LTS LTS No change
List of Hazardous Materials Sites LTS LTS No change
Within 2 miles of a Public Airport NI NI No change
Within Vicinity of a Private Airstrip NI NI No change
Emergency Response Plan LTS LTS No change
Wildland Fires LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change
Hydrology and Water Quality
Water Quality Standards/Waste Discharge
Requirements
LTS LTS No change
Groundwater Supplies LTS LTS No change
Drainage Pattern/Siltation LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Drainage Pattern/Flooding LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Excess Runoff LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change
Substantially Degrade Water Quality LTS LTS No change
100-Year Flood Hazard NI NI No change
Impede or Redirect Flood Flows NI NI No change
Levee or Dam Failure NI NI No change
Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow LTS LTS No change
Land Use and Planning
Physically Divide Community LTS LTS No change
Conflict with Land Use Plan LTS LTS No change
Conflict with Habitat Conservation LTS LTS No change
Noise
Noise Levels in Excess of Standards LTS LTS No change
Vibration LTS LTS No change
Permanent Increase in Noise Levels LTS LTS No change
Temporary Increase in Noise Levels LTS LTS No change
Airport Land Use Plan NI NI No change
Private airstrip NI NI
Recreation
Increase Use LTS LTS No change
Expansion of Existing Facilities LTS LTS No change
Transportation and Traffic
Trip Generation LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change Conflict with CMP LTS LTS No change
Change in Air Traffic NI NI No change
Increase in Hazards LTS LTS No change
Emergency Access LTS LTS No change
Adopted Policies LTS LTS No change
Parking LTS/Mitigation LTS/Mitigation No change
SA = Significant and Unavoidable PSI = Potentially Significant Impact LTS/Mitigation = Less than significant with mitigation LTS = Less than significant NI = No Impact
Table 3 above outlines that the Proposed Project would have the same environmental impacts as the Approved Project. The Proposed Project would not create any new significant environmental impacts or increase the severity of any impacts identified in the Final EIR. In addition, no new mitigation is available to further reduce impacts.
111
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
14 The following pages provide a discussion of the environmental impacts outlined in the Final EIR for the Approved Project, compared with those anticipated by the Proposed Project.

A. Aesthetics
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would not obstruct any scenic views or alter any scenic resources. In addition, the project would not result in any aesthetic conflicts with surrounding areas and would only be visible from limited vantage points. The Approved Project would also not introduce a significant source of light and glare and the Final EIR specified that any future recreational use on Lot 7 would not include nighttime lighting while the associated parking lot would include only the minimum required security lighting. Thus, the Approved Project was determined to have a less than significant impact regarding visual resources and aesthetics and no mitigation measures were required.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Proposed Project would include a permanent skatepark, restroom, parking and related facilities on the project site. The skatepark would replace a temporary skatepark that has been operating on the western portion of the site since 2020. The proposed skatepark elements would be no more than 6 feet above grade and the restroom building would be up to 12 feet high. All other improvements would be at or below grade and the Proposed Project would only be visible from limited vantage points. The project would not block any scenic or important views or create any aesthetic conflicts with surrounding areas. In addition, the skatepark and parking lots would not include nighttime lighting. The proposed restroom building would have motion detection lighting on the west side of the building to accommodate nighttime cleaning operations. However, this lighting would be activated only for short periods of time and would not create a significant source of light and glare.

Thus, like the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on visual resources and aesthetics and no mitigation is required.

B. Air Quality
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR determined that because the Proposed Project was consistent with the Malibu General Plan land use designations, it was consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) which relies on general plans for its land use and emissions forecasts. Furthermore, vehicle trips generated by long-term operation of the project would not generate emissions in exceedance of SCAQMD’s regional threshold criteria or expose sensitive receptors to carbon monoxide hotspots or substantial concentrations of pollutants.

However, construction activities associated with grading and heavy-duty vehicles and equipment would exceed the SCAQMD regional construction threshold for nitrogen oxides (NOx) which is a precursor to both the formation of ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Thus, the Approved Project would have a potentially significant air quality impact related to construction emissions. However, the Final EIR included Mitigation Measure 2-1 that required measures such as the use of newer trucks and equipment and a limitation on idling to reduce construction exhaust 112
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
15 emissions during grading and construction. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 2-1, the Final EIR determined that construction emissions would be less than significant.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
As previously identified, implementation of a permanent skatepark and related facilities would be consistent with the Approved Project which anticipated a skatepark or other recreational use on the project site. Like the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Malibu General Plan and the AQMP. Vehicle trips generated by operation of the site would be the same as those anticipated by the Proposed Project and thus vehicular emissions would be the same.

Construction activities associated with installation of the skatepark and construction of the restroom building and related facilities would be limited in scale and duration but would generate emissions.

Thus, like the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would include Mitigation Measure 2-1, which includes requirements to limit construction emissions emanating from the site and a less than significant air quality impact would result. Refer to Appendix A for a list of Mitigation Measures for the project.

C. Biological Resources
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
According to the Final EIR, Lot 7 and most of the overall Crummer project site contained disturbed non-native grassland including a substantial component of nonnative Mediterranean grasses as well as a variety of forbs. The EIR stated: “Essentially all of the species within this land cover are considered weeds and are nonnative.” No sensitive habitat, jurisdictional waters, designated ESHA or wildlife corridors exist on Lot 7 or the broader site and the project was designed to stay a minimum of 100 feet away from designated ESHA offsite to the southwest. Other portions of the site (i.e., outside of Lot 7) contained mixed sage scrub, coastal sage chaparral scrub, and mature trees which could provide foraging and breeding habitat for a number of small mammals, and five black walnut trees on the eastern boundary of the site which are protected by the Malibu’s Native Tree Protection Ordinance. In addition, the EIR identified that other non-native trees on the project site could provide seasonal nesting habitat for native birds. The Final EIR included Mitigation Measures 3-1 through 3-3 to reduce impacts to biological resources. Of these, only portions of Mitigation Measures 3-1b and 3- 1c would apply to the project site. These measures call for the prohibition of certain invasive ornamental plants and the irrigation of any seeded areas. With the incorporation of mitigation, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Proposed Project involves the installation of a permanent skatepark, restroom and related facilities on the project site. The site has been graded and does not contain any native or sensitive plant or wildlife species and development of the site would not impact any of these resources. The project’s landscape plan includes the installation of native shrubs, trees and groundcovers in and around the skatepark, in the drop-off area, western drainage basin and along Winter Mesa Drive.

Thus, Mitigation Measure 3-1(b) prohibiting the use of certain ornamental plants would be met. In addition, Mitigation Measure 3-1(c) requiring irrigation of seeded areas would be fulfilled as 113
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
16 temporary irrigation would be provided for consistent moisture upon planting/seeding to ensure germination and establishment of plants and seedlings. Thus, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on biological resources.

D. Cultural Resources
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Malibu area was historically occupied by the Chumash Indians although there are no archeological resources known to exist on the overall Crummer site. However, due to the historic occupation, grading and site preparation activities could encounter archeological resources. Likewise, although the project site does not contain any geologic features or known palaeontologic resources, portions of the Crummer site are underlain by older Quaternary alluvial sediments and Monterey Formation deposits which have produced paleontological remains (fossils) on other sites. Thus, the Final EIR included Mitigation Measures 4-1 and 4-2 requiring that a qualified archeologist and Native American monitor of Chumash descent be present to monitor all ground disturbing activities and coordinate the disposition of any resources. In addition, should grading occur within Quaternary alluvial sediments or Monterey Formation deposits, a paleontological monitor shall be present to monitor earthmoving capabilities and direct the handling and disposition of any resources identified.

With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4-1 and 4-2, the Final EIR determined that impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would be less than significant.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
As outlined above, there are no known archaeological or paleontological resources known to exist on Lot 7 or the overall Crummer site. Construction and installation of a permanent skatepark, restroom and related facilities will require approximately 2,636 cubic yards of excavation which is considered limited and is not expected to expose archaeological or paleontological resources. Nonetheless, because there is a small chance that grading activities could uncover cultural resources, Mitigation Measures 4-1 and 4-2 would apply to the Proposed Project requiring monitoring during earthmoving activities and the appropriate handling of any resources. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 4-1 and 4-2, impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources would be less than significant.

E. Geology and Soils
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The 2012 Initial Study prepared in advance of the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would not have the potential to impact most of the geology and soils factors addressed under CEQA.

However, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project had potential impacts related to geology and soils and on Lots 1 through 6; no impacts were identified on Lot 7. Impacts included potential slope instability and soil erosion on sloping areas and the potential for the OWTS on Lot 6 to contaminate groundwater and contribute to slope instability. Mitigation Measures 5-4, 5-5 and 5-6 requiring setbacks, City approvals and conformance with geotechnical recommendations were included which would mitigate impacts below significance. 114
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
17 Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR did not identify any potential impacts related to geology and soils on Lot 7. The Proposed Project would include limited grading with approximately 2,250 cubic yards of cut material to be removed from the site. Improvements would include the installation of a skatepark, restroom and related facilities and no habitable structures would be developed on the project site. The project would conform with Mitigation Measures 5-4, 5-5 and 5-6 requiring setbacks, City approvals and conformance with geotechnical recommendations and impacts would be less than significant.

F. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The earth’s atmosphere is a collection of atmospheric gases, known as greenhouse gases (GHGs) that trap a sufficient amount of solar energy to keep the global average temperature in a suitable range.

These gases, mainly water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3) and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) all act as effective global insulators, reflecting back to earth visible light and infrared radiation. Human activities such as producing electricity and driving vehicles have contributed to the elevated concentration of these gases in the atmosphere. This, in turn, is causing the earth’s temperature to rise. A warmer earth may lead to changes in rainfall patterns, much smaller polar ice caps, a rise in sea level, and a wide range of impacts on plants, wildlife, and humans.

The Final EIR determined that the residential and recreational uses included in the Approved Project would generate direct and indirect GHG emissions during construction and operation. GHGs would be generated by construction equipment, vehicles, energy consumption, water and wastewater generation, and waste disposal sources. However, these sources would generate a nominal amount of GHG emissions and would not exceed SCAQMD’s screening threshold of 3,000 metric tons per year. In addition, since the Approved Project was consistent with the General Plan, it would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Proposed Project involves the development of a permanent skatepark, restroom and related facilities. The uses were anticipated by the Approved Project, would be consistent with the General Plan and would not conflict with plans adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Like the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would generate a nominal amount of GHG emissions during construction and operation. However, emissions from the project would not exceed SCAQMD’s screening thresholds. In addition, the skatepark use would generate the same number of vehicle trips and GHG emissions as those analyzed for the temporary skatepark and evaluated in the Final EIR for the Approved Project. Thus, like the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to GHG emissions.
115
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
18 G. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR identified that the entire City of Malibu is in a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) and that the Approved Project would place residences and recreational uses in a setting that could be impacted by wildland fires. The Approved Project included standard fire prevention measures, as well as the requirement for a fire protection plan which evaluates the project’s vulnerability to fires and identifies fire prevention measures. However, even with these measures, the Final EIR identified that the Approved Project would have a potentially significant impact regarding fire risk to residences and future recreational uses.

The Final EIR also evaluated the Approved Project’s impact on the response capability of Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) fire stations. The Approved Project would generate a minimal increase in fire service demand due to the small number of new structures and people living in or using the area. However, this incremental increase in demand, when coupled with other projects in the area, could have a cumulatively significant impact on fire response services.

To mitigate the identified impacts to fire risk and fire response services, the Final EIR included Mitigation Measures 7-1, 7-2, 7-3 and 7-4 which are outlined in Appendix A. The Mitigation Measures primarily relate to fire protection measures around the five single-family residential structures on Lots 1 through 5 including providing clear spaces around buildings, adequate turn around spaces, fire equipment access, adequate fire flow and a financial contribution for fire protection facilities. Other measures related to maintaining access to fire hydrants as well as maintaining access throughout the site during construction. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measures 7-1 through 7-4, the Final EIR determined that impacts related to wildfire and fire response services would be less than significant.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
As previously identified, the Proposed Project would include the development of a permanent skatepark and related facilities, including skatepark elements, a concrete block restroom building and native landscaping. The project would not include any habitable structures which could be subject to fire risk. As such, the potential fire risk associated with the Proposed Project would be low.

Nonetheless, the project would increase the use of the site which could generate an incremental increase in calls for fire response. The Proposed Project would be required to adhere to those portions of Mitigation Measures 7-1 through 7-4 applicable to the project site including maintaining access through the site during construction and maintaining access to fire hydrants. With the incorporation of these measures, impacts related to wildfire and fire response services would be less than significant.

H. Hydrology and Water Quality
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The project site does not lie within a 100-year flood zone. As such, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would have no impacts related to 100-year flood hazards or levee/dam failure and would not impede or redirect flood flows. Regarding water quality, during construction and operation, development projects have the potential to degrade water quality through sheet erosion 116
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
19 of exposed soils and subsequent deposition of particles and pollutants in drainage areas. However, standard conditions of approval require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and the incorporation of best management practices (BMPs) such as the use of gravel bags, stormwater basins and waste management practices to minimize stormwater pollution. Thus, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact regarding water quality.

The Final EIR also determined that the Approved Project would generate increased runoff from urban surfaces which could increase the intensity of flooding and erosion and have a potentially significant impact. However, detention tanks will be installed on each residential lot and beneath the private street to ensure that peak flows during storm events will not exceed predevelopment peak flows.

Mitigation Measure 8-1 requires that the tanks be installed and maintained to acceptable standards, and that BMPs be incorporated to minimize stormwater pollution. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure 8-1, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
During construction of the permanent skatepark, restroom and related facilities, BMPs including sandbags and silt fencing would be installed to reduce and filter runoff from the site and minimize stormwater pollution. During operation, the restroom and drinking fountain would use minimal amounts of potable water but would not contribute to runoff, erosion or flooding. Thus, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to hydrology and water quality.

I. Land Use and Planning
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR determined that the Approved Project, including recreational uses on Lot 7, were consistent with the Planned Development (PD) designation of the Malibu General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Local Coastal Program (LCP). In addition, the project was determined to be consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan, and the development regulations of the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact related to land use and planning.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Proposed Project would be consistent with the Approved Project in that it includes a permanent skatepark on Lot 7 that was planned for a skatepark or other recreational use. In addition, the project is consistent with the Malibu General Plan, Zoning Ordinance and LCP’s PD designation, as well as General Plan policies and Zoning Ordinance development regulations. As such, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to land use and planning.

J. Noise
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR examined whether construction and operation of the Approved Project would have a significant noise and/or vibration impact at sensitive receptors on and off-site. The EIR identified that 117
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
20 noise would be generated during construction of the Crummer Site Subdivision by vehicles and equipment. However, construction noise and vibration would not exceed acceptable City standards and would have a less than significant impact. During long term operation of the site, noise would be generated primarily by vehicles accessing the site, as well as by mechanical equipment, the OWTS and recreational uses. The EIR included an analysis of both a baseball field on Lot 7 as well as a skatepark up to 12,500 square feet in size which would be open only during daylight hours. The Final EIR concluded that long term operation of the Approved Project, including either a baseball field or skatepark, would not cause noise levels to exceed acceptable thresholds. Thus, the Final EIR concluded that the Approved Project would have a less than significant impact related to noise.

A neighbor expressed a concern that the above ground elements could result in new sound impacts as the original design contained no above ground features. The skate park consultant has not indicated that the revised design would result in new noise impacts.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Proposed Project would include a 12,500-square-foot permanent skatepark that would replace the 12,320-square-foot temporary facility on the western portion of the site. During construction of the project, noise would be generated by construction and equipment but would not exceed applicable City standards. In terms of long-term operation of the project, the permanent skatepark would be the same size as that analyzed in the Final EIR and would be open only during daylight hours.

Thus, the determination made in 2013 that a skatepark on Lot 7 would have a less than significant impact related to noise would apply to the Proposed Project.

K. Transportation and Traffic
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR examined the impact of the Crummer Site Subdivision on existing and future traffic volumes and levels of service and examined whether the project would create unsafe traffic conditions or interfere with emergency access and operations. The EIR included an analysis of both the baseball field and 12,500-square-foot skatepark on Lot 7. In addition, the EIR examined whether the Approved Project would have adequate parking under both the baseball field and skatepark options.

The Final EIR concluded that the baseball field option could have potentially significant impacts on both traffic and parking due to a large number of vehicles projected to travel to Malibu Bluffs Park for baseball games and other events. The Final EIR included Mitigation Measure 11-1 requiring improvements to the Malibu Canyon Road/PCH intersection which have been implemented by the developer. In addition, Mitigation Measure 11-2 for the baseball field option required preparation of a parking management plan to ensure there would be adequate parking during baseball and other events.

For the skatepark option, the Final EIR concluded the project would have a less than significant impact on traffic and parking. With a peak use of 20 persons at any given time, there would be a limited number of vehicles traveling to the site which would not affect roadway or intersection conditions.

Likewise, the skatepark option was determined to have a maximum parking need of 10 vehicles based on an assumption of two persons per vehicle which could be more than accommodated by the 118
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
21 proposed parking lot. Thus, the Final EIR determined that the Approved Project with the skatepark option would have a less than significant impact and no mitigation was required for this option.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Proposed Project would construct a permanent skatepark on the project site with the same size and operational parameters as the skatepark examined in the Final EIR. The skatepark would replace the temporary skatepark on the project site which has been operational since July of 2020. The Proposed Project would have the same effect on traffic as the Approved Project with the skatepark option which was determined to be less than significant by the Final EIR.

The anticipated use of the permanent skatepark would be consistent with the assumptions in the Final EIR which projected there would be a maximum peak use of 20 persons at any given time. In addition, the project would provide 26 parking spaces, 6 carpool/vanpool/electric spaces and 2 ADA spaces for Malibu Bluffs Park which would accommodate the anticipated 10 parking spaces needed for the skatepark at peak use. A less than significant impact would result.

L. Recreation
Approved Project – Summary of Impacts
The Final EIR identified that, based on an average household size of 2.87 people, the addition of five single family homes with the Approved Project could increase the population of the City by 15 people.

The EIR determined that the minor increase in population would not cause a significant strain on recreational facilities in the City of Malibu. Nonetheless, the project also included the dedication of the 1.74-acre Lot 7 to the City of Malibu for the future expansion of Malibu Bluffs Park. The type of use of Lot 7 was not precisely determined at the time; however, the EIR examined the use of the site as a baseball field or a skatepark with ancillary uses such as parking, public seating and picnic tables.

The EIR determined that the development of such uses on the site would not adversely impact the environment and would in fact benefit the City by providing additional park land, active recreation space, and vehicle parking.

Proposed Project – Summary of Impacts
The Proposed Project would develop a permanent skatepark, restroom and related facilities on the project site. The skatepark would replace the temporary skatepark that currently exists on the site and would be converted to parking upon the opening of the permanent facility. The project is consistent with the Approved Project which anticipated a skatepark and related facilities on the subject site. The project would not adversely impact the environment and would benefit the City by providing active recreation space, a restroom and parking. Thus, like the Approved Project, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact related to recreation. 119
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
22 V. Conclusion
The Proposed Project would not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts as compared to those identified in the 2013 Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR. In addition, no new information of substantial importance was identified that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project and no new mitigation measures were identified that would further reduce impacts identified in the Final EIR. Therefore, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 and Section 15162, an Addendum is the appropriate environmental document under CEQA for the Proposed Project.
120
Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR CDP No. 23-001
23 VI. References
City of Malibu. Addendum (No. 1) to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final Environmental Impact Report.

May 2016.

City of Malibu. General Plan. November 1995.

City of Malibu. Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan. September 13, 2002.

City of Malibu, Zoning Ordinance.

The Planning Center/DC&E. Final Environmental Impact Report for Crummer Site Subdivision.

December 2013.
121
122
93123
94124
95125
96126
97127
98128
99129
100 130
131
132
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
250 East 1st Street, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, California 90012
213-788-4842
www.rinconcons ultants.com
November 3, 2023
Project No: 22-13311
Kristin Riesgo, Community Services Director
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
Via email: [email protected]
Subject: Malibu Bluffs Skate Park Noise Review
Dear Kristin:

This letter report presents the findings of the noise review completed by Rincon Consultants at the request of the City of Malibu for the proposed Malibu Bluffs Skate Park. Rincon Consultants reviewed the Crummer Site Subdivision EIR, the Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision FEIR, and the project plans dated October 31, 2022.

The Crummer Site Subdivision EIR analyzed potential operational noise impacts from a skate park at Lot 7. The EIR used a reference noise level of 64 dBA Leq at a distance of 50 feet as the basis for estimating noise impacts at nearby planned residences, with the closest being Lot 4. While skate park noise can be variable, this is a reasonable conservative estimate. For instance, reference skate park noise measurements were conducted at Harvard Skate Park in Irvine and found to be only 54 dBA Leq at a distance of 25 feet.1
As noted in the Addendum No. 3, “a neighbor expressed a concern that the above ground elements could result in new sound impacts as the original design contained no above ground features.” However, as discussed on Page 5.10-14 the EIR, project operational noise impacts were noted to be conservative because they did not factor in, “the design consideration that the majority of the skate facilities would be sunken into the ground.” Therefore, the above ground elements of the latest version of the skate park site plans would not result in greater noise impacts than previously discussed in the EIR and Addendum No. 3, and skate park operational noise impacts would remain less than significant.

Thank you for requesting this noise review from Rincon Consultants. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about this review.

Sincerely,
Rincon Consultants, Inc.

Josh Carman, INCE-USA
Director
1 Tustin Unified School District, 2021. Heideman Elementary School Joint-Use Park Project Initial Study. 133
ATTACHMENT 7
134
2 professional privilege, proprietary, or protected from disclosure for other reasons. If you are not the intended addressee, then please delete it, notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, disseminate or reproduce any part of it."
135
Robert Gold <[email protected]>
Permanent Skatepark
1 message
Robert Gold > Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:13 PM
To: Jesse Bobbett <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>, Scott Gillen <[email protected]> JesseAs you know I have been involved with The Case (formerly Crummer) project (the “Project”) since its inception in 2006, first as one of the owners and its Development Partner and thereafter working with Scott after he purchased the property on June 29, 2017.  As such, I managed the entire entitlement process, including the design of both the Project’s residential component and the recreational component on the 1.74-acres of land that we had agreed to donate to the City for recreational use (the “Donated Land”), the Project’s EIR and all negotiations with the City, Coastal and other stakeholders, giving me a unique understanding of the Project.

With this background, Scott Gillen asked me to reach out to you on three items, the operation of the temporary skatepark, the design and operation of the permanent skatepark and the overall use of Bluffs Park and how these relate to The Case.

As you also know, Scott, as owner of The Case, expressed concerns about the design and operation of the temporary skatepark, some of which were addressed and some of which were not, during the temporary skatepark’s approval process.

As the design of the permanent skatepark moves forward, Scott hopes that the knowledge gained from the design and operation of the temporary skatepark can be incorporated into the design and operational aspects of the permanent facility consistent with the Project’s EIR.  It is disappointing that despite your assurances after the temporary skate park was approved, that Scott, one of the biggest stakeholders with respect to the design and operation of the permanent skatepark would have a seat at the table during the design process, to work through potential design and operational concerns prior to presentation of the project to the Planning Commission or to Scott as a fait accompli.

I clearly remember my meeting with then City Manager, Jim Thorsen, when he asked me what I thought of having a skatepark located on the Donated Land as a possible alternative use to the baseball (multipurpose) field that had always been contemplated.  My response was that I was concerned about noise and visual impacts, traffic including drop off, skating outside of the facility, and the perception, whether right or wrong or somewhere in between, about the nature of activities other than skating that take place in and around skateparks.  As I point out later, it is telling that the temporary skatepark, and I presume the permanent skatepark, unlike a ball-field or other parks, requires published Rules of Use and a Code of Conduct with penalties for their violation. Clearly some of these concerns are warranted.

Jim Thorsen told me that he respected my concerns, but it was a rhetorical question as the 136
City Council was requiring that a skatepark be included in the project’s EIR as an alternative use on the Donated Land.  Given that I would have to inform my partners about this potential significant change in the Project, I knew that I needed to get an education on the design and operation of skateparks.   I may have gone straight from my meeting with Jim to your predecessor, Bob Stalling’s office.

When I met with Bob, he explained the difference between the design and construction of a “legacy” skateparks, like the City’s then Papa Jacks, and how skateparks are now being designed, constructed and the best practices for siting and operation, such as building the parks in bowls below grade and the use of materials and landscaping to mitigate noise and visual impacts. Bob suggested that I speak with Zach Wormhoudt, who you know is a preeminent skatepark designer, and that I visit the newly opened skatepark in Venice Beach that was designed by Zach.

I met with Zach, and we ultimately hired him to design the skatepark that was studied in the Project’s EIR.  During our first meeting, Zach told me that the two most important considerations for a successful skatepark are that the location of a skate park must be (i) compatible with the adjacent uses and (ii) that the skate park is visible, including lines of sight from the street and parking areas and for supervision.

With respect to compatible uses, I told Zack we have a mixed bag.  To one side of the skatepark site is Bluffs Park, a compatible use, and to the other side, there will be five single-family homes, a potentially incompatible use.  And with respect to the siting of the skatepark, I told Zach that the Project originally contemplated putting a baseball field on the Land Donation.  To accommodate the configuration of a baseball field with the balance of the Project, including addressing access issues and integration of the new ball-field with the existing facilities at Bluffs Park, the only location that would work for a baseball field, is the current location and configuration of the Land Donation.  While this location was more suitable for a ball-field, it was a less than ideal location for a skatepark because it is at the end of Winter Mesa Drive with no visibility from the Landon Center and limited visibility from the rest of the park and street.

After Zach and I walked the Project site and reviewed the site plans he felt if the skatepark was designed and constructed properly, conflicts between the skatepark and the homes could be reduced.    To that end, Zach designed a skateparkin which all of the skating elements were entirely in a bowl with the potentially noisier and visually impactful elements furthest from the homes and he would use materials and landscaping to mitigate the sounds inherent in a skatepark.  In retrospect, perhaps the better location for the skatepark would be where the temporary skatepark is now located, further from the homes.

Designing a skatepark in a bowl, i.e., below grade also minimizes its visual impacts.  You just have to look at the temporary skatepark, which is entirely above grade, to understand visual impacts of the skatepark being entirely above grade with some of the elements five or more feet above grade.

I had to re-design the Project’s homes several times to address concerns about visual impacts from property owners in the Malibu Knolls or Malibu Colony, to name a few, properties that are significant distances from the Project site.  Given the proximity of the skatepark to The Case homes, ensuring that the visual (and noise) impacts are reduced to maximum extent feasible is certainly a reasonable request and which is how the skatepark analyzed in the Project’s EIR was designed.
137
My civil engineers designed the grading and drainage plans for the skatepark to be entirely in a bowl, and demonstrate that such a design was consistent with the City’s development standards contained in the LCP, all of which was included in the EIR.

Please refer to page 5.10-14 of the Crummer DEIR which discusses the potential noise impacts from the skatepark noting that the conclusion that the noise levels from the skatepark were below the City’s applicable limit in part because of the “soft site’ ground attenuation from envisioned turf and vegetation between the park and the residential lots” and “the design consideration that the majority of the skate facility would be sunken into the ground, thereby providing some shielding benefits”.

We also worked with our architect and civil engineer on the overall site plan to address traffic, parking, and general safety concerns including drop off and pick-up, which further addressed both the compatible use and visibility issues, although the City has chosen not to use that site plan.

It was the totality of the design that was analyzed in the EIR that   gave my partners and I, comfort that if properly designed, a skatepark and the five homes could, from a design perspective, co-exist with minimum conflict, including noise and visual impacts.  It was also the totality of the design that enabled the Planning Commission and City Council to make the Findings that potential environmental impacts were either insubstantial or if there were impacts, those impacts could be mitigated.

The Project’s EIR was adopted by the City Council on February 24, 2014, more than eight years ago.   Scott is concerned, based on the preliminary designs that are available on the City’s website, the experiences he is having with the temporary skatepark, and the apparent increase in the intensity of the use of Bluffs Park since 2014, that to date the design alternatives of the permanent skatepark presented to the public are not consistent with the design intent of the proposed skatepark analyzed in the EIR.  He is also concerned that the assumptions and other considerations that were used to analyze and mitigate the potential impacts of the skatepark in the Project’s EIR are not being fully implemented and/or are outdated.

With respect to noise, the most recent designs of the skatepark show significant portions would be at or above grade rather than “sunken into the ground” as studied in the EIR and there is no indication of what other methods are being considered to attenuate sound or visual impacts.   In addition, as mentioned the Wormhoudt design kept a majority of the skateparks elements furthest from the homes and it does not appear that this design principle is being followed to the maximum extent feasible.

With respect to line of site and visibility, there is some visibility of the temporary skatepark from the Landon Center, however it was stated at a recent Parks and Recreation Committee hearing, there is very limited supervision of the temporary skatepark with a staff member walking from the Landon Center to the skatepark every hour or so.  This is concerning, given that the permanent skatepark will be even further from the Landon Center and presumably will have a much higher use, raising the question how will the skatepark be supervised? There have been several instances of graffiti on the Project’s site walls, urination on the site walls, and skating after the park has closed.   In addition, many of the Rules and Code of Conduct are violated daily.  I do not believe I have ever seen skaters wearing a helmet, elbow 138
pads, and knee pads (or even just helmets), we have seen children that look to be under age 12 skating apparently unaccompanied by an adult, skating in the parking lot, skaters have gotten into arguments with Scott’s security who were simply trying to make sure that there was safe access to an active construction site, men skating without shirts, women skating with only bathing suit tops and loud music.

As mentioned, there are published Rules for Use and a Code of Conduct for using the skatepark which specifies consequences for violation of the Code.   Other than the graffiti on the walls (and from a safety perspective the failure to wear required safety gear), none of the individual violations that we are aware of standing alone are overly offensive. However, it is the totality of these violations, how the City has addressed and will address the violations in the future that is concerning.

Scott appreciates that a skatepark is for recreation and a place to have fun and that rules sometimes get broken.  He also appreciates that if the skatepark gets a reputation as a place with little or no supervision and therefore anything goes, especially as more people use the permanent facility in the post-Covid world, there will be problems.

Simply stated, the purpose of this email is to engage with the City in a collaborative effort, just as was done during the Project’s EIR, to think about how to prevent or minimize problems before they manifest so that the skatepark will be a success.

To better understand some of the operational issues, Scott is requesting an itemized breakdown of all violations, warnings, and suspensions for such violations, if any, since opening of the skatepark of course with the names of the violators redacted.

As the permanent skatepark project proceeds Scott would also like to have some input on the Rules and Code of Conduct.   Currently all violations have equivalent consequences and are applied in the same manner regardless of the age of the offender.  We think this warrants further discussion.    As an example, is a verbal warning a sufficient way to address putting graffiti on or other destruction of property or sale of possession of illegal drugs by an adult as currently provided in the Code of Conduct?  As we know, lots of adults use the facility.

The Project’s EIR included a Mitigation Monitoring Report (the “MMR”) to mitigate potential impacts from the Project.  The MMR contains two requirements to address traffic and parking impacts from adding one ball field on the Donated Land  The traffic generated by one additional ball field required that the striping and traffic signals at the Malibu Canyon/PCH intersection be modified, which has been done.

The MMR also requires that “prior to obtaining the last Building Permit for the recreational facilities, the City Parks and Recreation Department shall prepare and implement a Parking Management Plan that demonstrates that adequate onsite and/or offsite parking shall be provided during special events and/or other times when it is anticipated that Malibu Bluffs Park would operate at over-capacity conditions relative to parking demand.

The Parking Management Plan shall preclude the use of the proposed baseball field when Malibu Bluffs Park would operate at over-capacity conditions relative to parking demand. In addition, the Parking Management Plan will require the City Parks and Recreation Department to schedule baseball games with at least a half-hour to 45 minute interval between games so that the parking demand of two consecutive games would not overlap. To accommodate this longer interval between games, less than 10 games per 139
day would be permitted.”
While this requirement in part references a proposed baseball field, the concerns also apply to a skatepark.   Will there be enough parking and how will the park be accessed during special events or other high use conditions?  As you are aware, Scott has had issues from time with getting access to the construction entrance during special events. A system of how the residents of The Case and their guests will be able to have unrestricted access to their homes during special events and other high-volume events, such as Malibu Little League’s opening day, need to be established.  Does the City envision special events that use the skatepark? With respect to trip generation for the skatepark, the parking study in the DEIR estimated “30 people per day on weekdays, 60 people per day on weekends…10 people during afternoon peak hours on weekdays, 20 people during the peak hour on weekdays”.  At the Parks & Recreation Committee hearing referenced earlier, actual numbers on the use of the skatepark were reported and showed a significant amount of use.  Are the trip generation and use assumptions in the EIR consistent with the actual use of the temporary skatepark?  The actual use numbers were also generated during the pandemic, and as mentioned above, one would assume that the number of users post pandemic and with a permanent facility would certainly increase.

We must also keep in mind that the Traffic Study included in the EIR is dated December 7, 2012, and is clearly outdated and does not take into consideration new uses created or contemplated in and around the Civic Center area since that date.  There also appears to be significantly more activity in Bluffs Park today than there was 10 years ago when the traffic study was completed.    A few examples, Cars & Coffee, staging area for bikers on the weekends, seemingly significantly more and larger rentals of the park and parking lot for movie and tv productions, use of the park for commercial vehicles to offload goods, the advent of the food truck culture and food trucks that are now appearing with regularity, day and night parking of RVs.  In other words, there seems to be an ever-increasing number of instances when Bluff Park is operating near or over capacity. Or just in greater capacity compared to 2012.   We assume that you have this information, and we would appreciate a comparison of the usage of Bluffs Park in 2012 and 2021/2022, of course you would need to take into consideration how COVID reduced the intensity of use at Bluffs Park during the last two plus years.

In summary, Scott requests:
(i) the design of the permanent skatepark be completely in a bowl, consistent with the design of the skatepark that was studied in the Project’s EIR, and that facility incorporate design and construction techniques that minimize noise and visual impacts to the maximum extent feasible; (ii) appropriate traffic and parking studies be conducted reflecting the current uses at Bluffs Park, including current rental schedule and other uses approved or contemplated in the Civic Center;
(iii) preparation of a traffic and parking plan for Bluffs Park, which will include how the residence at The Case will be able to have readily available access to their homes, just like any other Malibu resident, especially during special events;
(iv) provide an itemization of violations of Rules of Use and Code of Conduct since the temporary skatepark was put into operation and the penalties for each violation.   We would 140
141
Robert Gold <[email protected]>
Skatepark Follow up
1 message
Robert Gold < Fri, May 27, 2022 at 1:04 PM
To: Jesse Bobbett <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Gillen <[email protected]>
Jesse-Thank you again for your time Wednesday. I thought it was a really good conversation, and I hope you did as well. Although, when I left your office, I thought it was 4:30 and did not realize that it was almost 5:30 until I got into my car. I apologize for taking up so much of your afternoon and hope that you did not get home too late.

I want to briefly (certainly compared to my prior email) reiterate my thoughts in a more cohesive fashion than I may have expressed Wednesday regarding the design of the skatepark, which I told you is Scott’s primary concern.

First and foremost, while Scott, as the current owner of The Case, is requesting that the skatepark have all of the skating elements in a "bowl", in order to mitigate noise and visual impacts given its proximity the homes at The Case (a request that he made to the Planning Commission and City Council during hearings approving the temporary skatepark) this request was initially made by me during the EIR process, when my partners and I owned the property.

Importantly, the City and its EIR consultant agreed with our request. Neither the Planning, the City’s EIR consultant nor Bob Stallings asked me to have Zach Wormhoudlt design a skatepark that was all or partially above grade, which they certainly could have done, either as the primary or an alternative design. Rather, they recognized, as Zach did, the potential impacts to the homes from an above grade skatepark. Accepting the validity of these concerns, the only skatepark design requested and analyzed in the EIR had all the skating elements in a bowl, which design the EIR concluded would minimize impacts to the homes. As mentioned in my prior email, the feasibility and consistency with the LCP of this design was supported by, among other things, grading and drainage plans requested by Planning and the EIR consultant, prepared by my consultants and reviewed by all City departments.

The EIR also pointed out that proper landscaping would also help mitigate noise impacts with the added benefit of providing screening to reduce visual impacts, so we are glad to hear that the current plan includes additional screening landscaping. For this project, I think the more landscaping the better, plus the park has recycled water.

It is true that the skatepark design analyzed in the EIR was only a conceptual plan, this was also true of the homes, as their final design would not be prepared until after the project was approved. Nevertheless, as typically done, the EIR was able to analyze potential impacts of both the residential and recreational components of the project based on the conceptual designs and/or not a complete set of plans.

As you know the biggest concern with the homes was visual impacts. To address those potential impacts design standards were incorporated into the project. Great consideration was taken to where the homes were sited, locations that cannot be changed. The height of the homes was limited to 18’ and portions of two homes closest to neighboring properties were limited to 15’. Screening trees were also required.

After our meeting I checked (I can't believe that I had forgot), and I am proud that the City Council certified the EIR by a 4-1 vote and unanimously approved the subdivision for a project that had strong opposition (as well as strong support) from not an insubstantial number of their constituents and 142
143
Robert Gold <[email protected]>
The Case
1 message
Robert Gold < Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:54 PM
To: Jesse Bobbett <[email protected]>, Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Gillen <[email protected]>
JesseI am sure that Kristin has shared the text message that I sent to her Sunday seeking assistance for Scott to enter The Case because the authorities had blocked the entrance to Bluff’s Park and told Scott that he could not enter with his car.  To make matters worse, Scott was on this way to show The Case to a potential buyer. Ultimately, Scott knew one of the sheriffs working at the event who let him drive to the construction gate but not through the main entrance which remained blocked.

This was just a day after access to The Case was almost completely blocked by cars and food trucks for an AYSO event.

This is not the first time that we have raised concerns about access to The Case during events at Bluffs.  However, after Sunday, where a potential buyer saw first hand potential access issues, Scott needs to be able to assure buyers that they and their guests, just like any other resident in Malibu, will be able to go to and from their homes as they choose and there will always be emergency access.

Therefore, we would like to have the meeting before the end of next week, with you, Richard Mollica, Rob Duboux and perhaps the City Manager and whoever else at the City you or your colleagues think is necessary, to create a system that will permit the residents of The Case and all their guests unfettered access to their homes at all times.

Ultimately, I think we will need the buy-in of the Sheriffs and Fire Department, so it might make sense to have them at the meeting as well.

I am sure that we can reach a satisfactory solution, which now that the homes have started to come to market doing so has become urgent and understandably, the failure to do so could have serious financial consequences to Scott.

The access concerns extend to the skatepark. We have had numerous conversations about our shared concerns for public safety of people in Bluffs and the dozens of construction workers at The Case every day, and how public safety is compromised when parking and traffic at events is not adequately supervised, or emergency access is blocked.   The issue of maintaining emergency access does not end when construction is completed.

If you recall, when construction started your office provided quarterly schedules of events at Bluffs Park, so to the extent feasible, Scott could avoid large deliveries on those days.   Neither Scott nor I have received an event schedule since well before the start of COVID.  If Scott had a large delivery on Saturday, at a minimum it would have been chaotic and clearly, he should have been made aware that it was the intent to limit all vehicle access to Bluffs on Sunday.

Scott has also raised concerns about the operation and supervision of both the temporary and permanent skatepark, as well as Bluffs Park as a whole.  Scott feels that each year more and larger events are taking place at Bluffs putting further stress on the critical PCH/Malibu Canyon intersection.  And while Scott and I truly appreciate the time and efforts of you and your staff to provide data on the use of Bluffs Park, the data does not capture all the uses of the park.  For example, it did not include Cars and Coffee and we all understand that counts of those using the skatepark are not precise.

Finally, the design of the permanent skatepark. We look forward to seeing the next iteration of the plans once you receive them.

We think it warrants repeating, that Zach Wormhouldt and I designed the skatepark analyzed in the EIR, the design 144
145
1 Tyler Eaton
From: Robert Gold <r
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2023 5:17 PM
To: Kristin Riesgo
Cc: Rob Houston; Tyler Eaton; Scott Gillen; Paul Grisanti; Marianne Riggins; Steve McClary; Richard Mollica
Subject: Re: Plan for Onsite Visual Skatepark Model
Attachments: image005.png
KristinThank you again for following up and I apologize for not responding sooner.

While we understand that the "exercise" discussed at our last meeting is meant to exploratory, and without prejudice, to either party, after conversations with his consultants, including his attorney, the consensus was the approach was putting the onus on Scott to demonstrate that the skatepark, as currently design, will cause impacts to The Case.

Rather, the onus should be on the City, as applicant, like any other applicant, to demonstrate to the stakeholder that the proposed design is consistent with the Crummer EIR and Ordinance No. 398 and will not otherwise result in significant impacts. Scott and I have stated numerous times, over many years, we do not believe the design is consistent with either, and we still do not.

As pointed out, when The Case project was going through the entitlement process, the onus was always on the owner to respond to stakeholders’ comments and concerns about potential impacts, even if the comments were patently and objectively without merit and/or raised by parties without standing, and our responses included the preparation of visual simulations of the project from 26 different locations. Here we have meritorious concerns from a stakeholder that will be directly impacted.

While we are not requesting that the City prepare 26 visual simulations, please consider whether some might be helpful. It would also be helpful to provide sections though various elements, confirming the elevations on the plans of the skatepark because questions about their accuracy were raised at that meeting and perhaps a color-coded site plan of the design so the elevations of the entire skatepark are clear.

Scott is open to other suggestions on how the City can help analyze the potential impacts from the proposed design and of course he will allow the City access to The Case whenever requested to help prepare analysis.

Three things bear repeating.
146
2 First, it is unfortunate that the City and California Skateparks appear not has not given any serious consideration and analysis (other than limiting its size and the size of the temporary skatepark to 12,500 sf) of how to minimize the potential impacts from the permanent skatepark to The Case, as required by Ordinance No.398, despite years of raising our hands. Notwithstanding, the City’s apparent willingness to now do so is very much appreciated. We want to continue to work with the City now that it appears Scott finally has a seat at the table, which we hope will also include discussion of operational issues of the skatepark.

Second, Scott is not trying to derail or delay the completion of the skatepark. To the contrary, he wants to minimize conflicts between the skatepark and the homeowners at The Case and the way to do that is to respect the analysis in the EIR and comply with the requirements of Ordinance No. 398 and utilize the tools provided in the Ordinance to do so.

Third, the City should be held to the same standards and requirements as any other property owner in the City who wants to develop their property.

One question concerning the temporary skatepark, which we noticed just completed an extensive renovation. When the City Council approved the temporary skatepark at its August 21, 2019, meeting, the staff report stated that the project would require both a CDP and a CUP (M.M.C.

Chapter 17.47). However, when the temporary skatepark was approved by the Planning Commission on February 3, 2020, it appears from the Staff Report only a CDP was required and approved. Am I correct that no CUP or TUP was issued for the temporary skatepark? I could not find one in On-Base. If there is one, please forward a copy to me.

Finalloy, I have added Marianne, Paul, Steve and Richard to the email so everyone can stay in the loop.

Thank you.

On Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 9:08 AM Kristin Riesgo <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning, Robert –
Do you have any updates regarding the permanent skatepark model set-up and visit? As a reminder, we are completing landscape maintenance on the Malibu Bluffs Park dirt lot tomorrow, Thursday, September 28. Please ask your crew to refrain from parking on the site. We will install signage and barricades today. 147
3 m m
m m V

Thank you,
Kristin Riesgo
Community Services Director
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 350
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Kristin Riesgo
Sent: Wednesday, September 20, 2023 10:12 AM
To: Robert Gold <r
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Plan for Onsite Visual Skatepark Model
Good Morning, Robert –
It has been four weeks since our meeting regarding the Permanent Skate Park. As agreed upon during the meeting, the CASE property would install a temporary visual model of the skatepark. Please provide dates you’d like to access the site so we can plan the site closure. As stated previously, we need to ensure that Councilmembers Grisanti and Riggins and staff can attend the meeting.
m m
m m V

Thank you,
Kristin Riesgo
Community Services Director
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 350
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
148
4 From: Kristin Riesgo
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2023 5:19 PM
To: Robert Gold <
Subject: RE: Plan for Onsite Visual Skatepark Model
Hi Robert –
Is there any progress on the visual Skatepark model? We have staff and Council attending a conference next week, and we’d like to get this on their calendar before then.
m m
m m V

Thank you,
Kristin Riesgo
Community Services Director
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 350
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Robert Gold <
Sent: Friday, September 8, 2023 10:17 AM
To: Kristin Riesgo <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Plan for Onsite Visual Skatepark Model
Kristin-My stay on the east coast got unexpectedly extended. I will be back in LA Sunday and get together with Scott.

Have a great weekend.

Robert Gold
Sent from my iPhone, I apologize for the typos
149
5 On Sep 8, 2023, at 1:06 PM, Kristin Riesgo <[email protected]> wrote:

Good Morning, Robert –
I am following up regarding my email on August 24. We hope to meet with you at the Skatepark site next week. Can you please provide an update so we can review and schedule meeting times with Councilmembers and staff?
<image001.png>
Thank you,
Kristin Riesgo
Community Services Director
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 350
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
From: Kristin Riesgo
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2023 1:50 PM
To: Robert Gold >
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Plan for Onsite Visual Skatepark Model
150
6 Hi Robert –
Are there any updates regarding accessing the site and viewing the visual Skatepark model? We want to get the meeting on the Councilmember’s and staff’s calendars. <image001.png>
Thank you,
Kristin Riesgo
Community Services Director
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 350
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
From: Robert Gold
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2023 2:40 PM
To: Kristin Riesgo <[email protected]>
Cc: Rob Houston <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Plan for Onsite Visual Skatepark Model
151
7 Understood. Let me discuss with Scott.

Thank you.

Robert Gold
Sent from my iPhone, I apologize for the typos
On Aug 24, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Kristin Riesgo <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Robert –
It was nice seeing you yesterday. Do you have a general plan regarding the visual skatepark model? We need to work out the details regarding the use of the site and access. Since the site is an active parking lot, we want to ensure it is safe. We can close the section of the parking lot for a few hours (4 hours maximum) while the temporary model is in place and viewed by Councilmember Riggins and Grisanti.

Please get back to me when you can so we can review our calendar and make the necessary arrangements.
<image001.png>
Thank you,
Kristin Riesgo
Community Services Director
Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 350
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
152
8 <image004.png>
<image005.png>
--
Robert Gold
Confidentiality Notice: "This communication is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.

The information contained in it may be confidential, subject to professional privilege, proprietary, or protected from disclosure for other reasons. If you are not the intended addressee, then please delete it, notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, disseminate or reproduce any part of it."
153
1 Tyler Eaton
From: Robert Gold
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2023 6:13 PM
To: Tyler Eaton; Richard Mollica; Kristin Riesgo
Cc: Scott Gillen
Subject: ERB Meeting October 11-Item 3.A Comment Letter Attachments: 2023-10-10 600 Spring ERB Comment Letter with Exhibits.pdf TylerAttached please find 600 Spring LLC's comment letter for tomorrow's meeting.

I would appreciate it if you could distribute it to the Board members so they have sufficient time to consider it before the meeting.

I apologize for not getting it to you earlier today.

I also intend to make a brief public comment at the meeting.

Thank you.
--
Robert Gold
Confidentiality Notice: "This communication is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.

The information contained in it may be confidential, subject to professional privilege, proprietary, or protected from disclosure for other reasons. If you are not the intended addressee, then please delete it, notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, disseminate or reproduce any part of it."
154
Lucky Town Associates
1045 Lachman Lane
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
October 10, 2023
(By Email: [email protected])
Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90256
Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 23-001 Application for construction of a 12,500 sq ft skatepark and associated development
ERB Meeting October 11, 2023, Item 3.A
Dear Mr. Eaton:

We represent 600 Spring, LLC ("600 Spring") the owner of Lots 1-6 of Tract 70038 known as The Case (f/k/a "The Crummer Project" or the "Property") consisting of five single family homes currently nearing completion and a private road with guardhouse immediately to the north and east of the Proposed Project, i.e., the permanent skatepark and associated development.

To reiterate what has previously stated on and off the record, 600 Spring does not object to a permanent skatepark being built on Lot 7 and was aware when it purchased the Property that a permanent skatepark was one of the two recreational uses analyzed in the Final EIR for Lot 7 but did so knowing that 600 Spring and the future owners of the homes at The Case could rely on the City of Malibu to respect and enforce LIP Section 3.3 Q(1)(4)(c)(i), which mandates that "The facility [constructed on Lot 7] shall be designed to minimize noise, lighting impacts and disruption to the nearby residents." However, for the reasons set forth in this letter, Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR (“Addendum No. 3”), is legally inadequate in that it fails to make any analysis of significant design changes to the permanent skatepark that was analyzed in the Final EIR. Therefore, among other things, a Supplemental EIR must be prepared analyzing the significant changes to the project and the associated new significant environmental effects and recirculated for public comment prior to its certification by the City Planning Commission.
155
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
As will be discussed below,1 Addendum No. 3’s conclusion that (a) the Proposed Project would not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts as compared to those identified in the 2013 Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR, and (b) no new information of substantial importance was identified that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project and no new mitigation measures were identified that would further reduce impacts identified in the Final EIR, is both fundamentally flawed, in that it misstates or omits significant facts, and is devoid of any analysis in volitation of the requirements mandated by CEQA, as least as it relates to Aesthetic, Noise, Land Use Planning, Traffic and Parking impacts.

The woeful legal inadequacy of Addendum No. 3 can be captured in the following two sentences on Page 20: “A neighbor expressed a concern that the above ground elements could result in new sound impacts as the original design contained no above ground features. The skate park consultant has not indicated that the revised design would result in new noise impacts.” The neighbor being referred to is 600 Spring, who happened to have donated the land on which the skatepark will be built and $1M to help build the skatepark, has not “expressed a concern”, but rather has repeatedly expressed numerous concerns, to the City Council, to the Planning Commission, to the Parks and Recreation Commission, and to the former Community Services Director and the current acting Community Services Director, about noise and visual impacts from a proposed design because it was not designed with all skating areas below grade. Given both the undersigned and 600 Spring have extensive experience in the entitlement process (including the Crummer EIR), we understand firsthand that engaging with stakeholders early in the process to address their concerns can lead to fewer costly delays to a project. We repeatedly expressed this and we feel that we have been ignored.

One would ask how were these concerns responded to? According to Addendum No. 3 “The skate park consultant has not indicated that the revised design would result in new noise impact.” Was the skatepark consultant even asked? Did the skatepark consultant indicate affirmatively that the revised design would not result in new noise impacts or just “not indicate that the revised design would not result in new noise impacts? Where any studies or analysis done and if so, why is it not included in Addendum No. 3.

The only accurate thing about these two sentences is the acknowledgement that the Proposed Project reflects a “revised design” of the Approved Project. 1 The arguments and evidence present herein are in addition to and support of any other arguments or evidence which the City has received or may receive from 600 Spring or its consultants at any or all public hearings, or other meetings or communications with City staff concerning the Proposed Project, Addendum #2 and the Temporary Skatepark. Please see copies of emails between the undersigned and Jesse Bobbett, the former Director of Community Services.
156
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
Unlike the Final EIR, as well as the City’s historic policy of having third party consultants hired by the City, but paid for by the property owner, to prepare the Environmental Impact Report in order to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest or lack of impartiality between the EIR preparer and the property owner/applicant, both Addendum No. 2 and proposed Addendum No. 3 have been prepared by the City. So, while the undersigned and 600 Spring have immense respect for both the City’s staff and elected officials and have no reason to believe that anyone has or would act improperly, we also recognize that this is inherently a political process, and in this case the City is the applicant, the EIR preparer and the decision maker. In that light, when years of serious communication is characterized as “a concern” by an unidentified neighbor which is dismissed in one sentence without any empirical analysis, we are concerned that all voices be heard and respected.

For the purposes of this comment letter “The Case” and “Crummer” shall be synonymous and as used in Addendum No. 3, the “Approved Project” shall mean the project approved in the Final EIR and the “Proposed Project” shall mean CDP 23-011 for the construction of a 12,500 square foot in-ground skatepark, two-stall restroom building, and related parking and improvements on Lot 7 of the Crummer Site Subdivision.

I. Background
The undersigned, as a principal of PCH Project Owner, LLC, managed every aspect of the elevenyear entitlement process for The Case, including but not limited to the certification of the 2013 Final EIR for the Crummer Site Subdivision (“Final EIR”) and participated in every conversation and hearing with the City of Malibu (the “City”) and the California Coastal Commission (the “CCC”) concerning those entitlements. PCH Project Owner sold the Property to 600 Spring in 2017.

The certification of the Final EIR was one of four entitlements required for The Case. The others were (i) approval of Coastal Development Permit 07-144 and Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 07033 for the subdivision of the Crummer Property into seven individual parcels (Lots 1-5 for residential components of the subdivision, Lot 6 for the common area serving the residential lots and Lot 7 the recreational lot to be dedicated to the City), (ii) Local Coastal Plan Amendment No. 12-001, which among other things detailed the development standards for each of the seven Lots at The Case which are contained in LIP Section 3.3 (Q) (the “LCPA”), (iii) Zoning Text Amendment No. 12-001 and (iv) CDPs for Lots 1-6.

II. The Proposed Project WILL Create New Significant Impacts Or WILL Increase The Severity Of Any Impacts As Compared To Those Identified In The Final EIR Table 3 of Addendum No. 3 proports to be a Comparison of Environmental Factors Between the Approved Project and the Proposed Projects, and in each instances concludes, with no empirical analysis, that there is no change in potential impacts, including noise, visual, parking and traffic 157
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
impacts, relying solely on the fact that the skatepark in the Proposed Project and the Approved Project were both 12,500 square feet and in essence concluding that the size of the facility is the sole determining factor of its impacts.

However, Addendum No. 3 also states on page 5 the following:
“The park improvements were not designed at the time [the Approved Project was approved] and were not part of the Approved Project. However, active recreation, passive recreation and an expanded parking lot were all identified as possible uses [on Lot 7”.

If there was no design for the Approved Project and therefore, no baseline to compare the Proposed Project to, how is it possible to conclude that the Proposed Project does not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts of the Approved Project? Logic, reason and CEQA would tell us that you cannot, while Addendum No. 3 tells you that you can.

The fact that active and passive recreation and expanded parking was contemplated on Lot 7, does not, per se, mean that the Proposed Project will not create new significant impacts or increase identified impacts. If this was the case, there would never be the need to prepare an EIR for a project if its proposed use was consistent with the property’s zoning.

What Addendum No. 3 and the accompany Staff Report, intentionally neglects to fully address, is the conceptual skatepark plan included in the analysis of the Final EIR and included as Figure 6 in Addendum No. 3, was the skatepark design considered in the Final EIR. The failure to include such analysis and approving a use, without a conceptual design would be considered impermissible “piecemealing” under CEQA and would deprive PCH Project Owner, the public and all other stakeholders of their right to comment and review, since the approval of the Crummer project had to be evaluated as a single project.

By way of background, when the Crummer Project was initially filed for approval, it contemplated building an additional multipurpose athletic field in Lot 7, a long-term goal of the City, consistent with the other uses and facilities at Bluffs Park. After filing, Papa Jack’s, the City’s only skatepark, was closed and Lot 7 was identified as a possible location for a new permanent skatepark to replace Papa Jacks, and eventually included as a Project Alternative in the DEIR and Final EIR.

On behalf of PCH Project Owner, I raised concerns about possible noise and visual impacts from a skatepark, as well as potential operational issues, with both Jim Thorsen, the then City Manager and Bob Stallings, the then Director of Parks and Recreation (now Community Services). Director Stallings recommended that I speak to Zach Wormhoudt, whose company, Wormhoudt, Inc., was 158
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
at that time one of the preeminent skatepark designer in the US2 and a skatepark he designed had just opened in Venice Beach.

I met with Mr. Wormhoudt at the Crummer Site, and we discussed my concerns. To paraphrase, he stated that Rule 1 for a successful skatepark when the skatepark will be in close proximately to an inconsistent use, in this case five single-family-residences, requires it to be designed and operated in a manner that minimizes these inherent impacts, i.e., noise and visual impacts, to the maximum extent feasible, while taking into consideration the site conditions and other development restrictions.

In the case of the Crummer project, Wormhoudt incorporated three design principles to minimize the inherent impacts from a skatepark adjacent to homes. First, the size of the skatepark was limited to no more than 12,500 square feet. Second, the entire skating area would be entirely in a concrete bowl, i.e., below grade because has stated in the Wormhoudt Study this would “reduce any potential visual or acoustic impacts." Wormhoudt also located as many skating elements, especially to potentially noisiest and those which a skater might have the most “air”, furthest from the homes as possible. The third design principle included sufficient and appropriate landscaping to further minimize visual and noise impacts.

You just have to look at the temporary skatepark, which is entirely above grade, and watch the skaters, to understand the impacts to The Case from the facility being above grade.

Wormhoudt, Inc. designed the skatepark, that was included in the Crummer Skatepark Preliminary Study dated October 12, 2012 (a copy of which is attached). This design is shown in Figure 3.9 and on page 5.10-14 of the DEIR in the analysis of the potential noise impacts from the skatepark. This section concludes that the noise levels from the skatepark were below the City’s applicable limit in part because “the design consideration that the majority of the skate facility would be sunken into the ground, thereby providing some shielding benefits”. The grading analysis in the DEIR also reflects the Wornhoudt’s design of a skatepark with the entire skating area below grade (See Table 3-4)
Therefore, while the initial Crummer Project entitlements did not include CDPs for the development on Lot 7, because the City had not decided if it wanted a skatepark or a multipurpose field on Lot 7, the Final EIR did analyze the conceptual skatepark designed by Wormhoudt, and the noise impact analysis of the Approved Project was based solely on the Wormhoudt conceptual design, which had all its skating elements below grade. And the Final EIR contained no analysis of the potential visual impacts from a proposed permanent skate park 2 Wormhoudt, Inc. was subsequently purchased by California Skateparks, the designer of the proposed permanent skatepark. However, to my knowledge, Mr. Wormhoudt has not part of the team at California Skateparks that has designed the proposed permanent skatepark.
159
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
on Lot 7 because the skating elements of conceptual skatepark were designed below grade and as far from the homes as possible, mitigating potential impacts to visual resources.

In other words, the Approved Project was a 12,500 square foot skatepark, in a concrete bowl with all skating elements below grade and the majority of elements furthest from the homes at The Case.

Based on that design, the Final EIR was able to conclude that with mitigation the Crummer Project, including a skatepark on Lot 7, would not result in any significant environmental impacts under CEQA.

It should also be noted that the Final EIR with all its appendixes was well over 1,000 pages and the skatepark was barely mentioned. Therefore, any inference that the Approved Project was the subject of vigorous analysis is misplaced.

Yet despite this, inexplicably and without any empirical evidence, Addendum No. 3 concludes the size limitation of 12,500 square is the sole determining factor in whether a skatepark in this location would have significant impacts. And based on this erroneous assumption, that as long as the square footage of the Proposed Skatepark does not exceed the square footage of the Approved Skatepark, the Proposed Project will not create new or increase impacts when compared to the Approved Project. This, disregards, in a glaring omission, the other essential design feature that is necessary to reach this conclusion, having the entire skating area below grade.

In fact, according to the Staff Report the Proposed Project above grade features includes “skate paths, skate ramps within the bowl that project above the nearest existing grade, rails, and benches. No parts of the skatepark are proposed to project more than six feet above the nearest existing grade.”
The Staff Report fails to explain where nearest existing grade is located, and the Skate Park Reference Grades (Sheet SKG1) attached to the Staff Report show at least one location that appears to be 7.5’ above existing grade. In a recent meeting with City Staff, two City Council members, Scott Gillen and myself, questions were raised about the accuracy of the grades of the skatepark, and The Case shown in Sheet SKG1. To date which we have not been told that they have been reconciled.
• Any skatepark elements above grade will be an unacceptable nuisance in perpetuity to the adjacent residential properties, which include Lots 1-5 at The Case.

Both the Staff Report and Addendum No. 3 fail to point out that the walls at The Case are limited to 6’ in height. This means if someone who is 6’ tall is staking on an element that 5’ feet above 160
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
grade, most of that person’s body will be seen over the top of the wall and if that person is taking “air” even more of his body would be visible and any sound the person is making would also be more significant.

What makes this omission even more egregious, is LIP Section 3.3(Q)(4)(c)(i), which was approved by the City and CCC as part of the LCPA, includes a specific exemption from the City’s standard grading limitation by providing “[N]otwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, grading in all new parks shall be limited to not more than one thousand (1,000) cubic yards per acre except that grading required for sports fields and skate park…shall be exempt from these limitation.” In other words, the development standards of Lot 7 were drafted in order to be able to build a skatepark that had all of its skating elements below grade without the need to obtain a variance.

As such, the Proposed Project, will create new or increase existing impacts when compared to the Approved Project and Addendum No. 3’s completely unsubstantiated conclusion that “no new mitigation is available to further reduce impacts” is farcical. Here are just a few mitigation measures (i) all skating areas be below grade, (ii) finished grade of the skating area is lowered even further (iii) the skatepark is made smaller (iv) more landscape screening is added (v) acoustical walls are added (vi) install an earthen berm (vii) orient the skatepark so that the noisiest elements and areas where spectators would congregate are furthest away from the homes and (viii) require that the skatepark is monitored.

Therefore, the inclusion such a statement in Addendum No. 3 raises serious concerns.

III. The Proposed Project Is Inconsistent With LIP Section 3.3(Q) In recognition of the inherent conflicts from the adjacent inconsistent uses approved in the Crummer Project, LIP Section 3.3(Q)(4)(c)(i) provided exceptions from the City’s development standards while also requiring that the design of any facility on Lot 7 “shall be designed to minimize noise, lighting and disruption to nearby residents.”3 The Proposed Project fails to adhere to two of the designed principles that enable the Final EIR to conclude that the Approved Project, designing all the skating area below grade and having adequate landscaping.

The landscaping plan indicates that 17 Coastal Live Oaks, primarily on the eastern property line with The Case to screen the skatepark from the homes. However, the landscape plans specify 3 During the City Council’s Special Meeting held on August 21, 2019, when the Council decided to proceed with the temporary skatepark, the Council referred to the requirements of LIP Section 3.3(Q)(4)(c)(i) and pledged that the skate park would be designed and operated in a manner that respects and recognizes the rights of the homeowners at The Case.
161
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
that the oaks will be in 24” boxes, which will make them wholly inadequate to provide appropriate screening. Coastal live oaks also grow very slowly, and it could take a decade or more before these oaks will provide adequate screening. Additional landscape screening also needs to be included along the northern property line.

The City Biologist recommended approval of the Proposed Project with several “standard conditions”, including:
“Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height.”
This condition will limit the ability to lessen the Proposed Projects visual and noise impacts by limiting the use of vegetation to screen the Proposed Project and is inconsistent LIP Section

3.3(Q)(4)(c)(i), which provides an exception from standard limitations on the height of fences and walls (or the functional equivalent to fences and walls a vegetative hedge) by providing that “With the exception of skate park and sport court fencing and backstops, fences and walls shall not exceed eight feet in height.” In other words, fences and walls (and by extension the functional equivalent of a wall or fence, an impermeable hedge) at the skatepark can exceed eight (8’) feet in height.

The Proposed Project includes an 8’ high “galvanized steel wave wall along the western and southwestern boundary of the permanent skatepark area.” Why is the wall being installed in this location and not in others?
In summary, when the LCPA was drafted and approved, City staff, its elected officials and City Attorney, CCC staff, its Commissioners and attorney, and the City’s EIR consultant, all recognized that a skatepark immediately adjacent to single family homes are potentially conflicting uses, and the way to minimize those conflicts was to include in the LCPA exemptions from the City’s typical development standards so the facility could be designed to mitigate these conflicts, which are reflected in the LPCA. The LCPA also incorporated use restriction on Lot 7, including the prohibition of a community center and night lighting also to reduce impacts to the homes.

And while LIP Section 3.3(Q) does not require all the skating areas to be below grade, it also does not limit the size of the skatepark to no more than 12,500 square feet. The skatepark analyzed in the Final EIIR was designed with both of these features because minimizing the potential significant impacts to less than significant required adherence to both, not one or the other, as well as sufficient landscaping.
162
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
No analysis or evidence is included in the Staff Report or Addendum demonstrating that the Proposed Project does not create new impacts or increase the severity of identified impacts other than the meaningless unsubstantiated statement that “the skate park consultant has not indicated the revised design would result in new noise impacts.” IV. Transportation, Traffic and Parking.

Similar to the aesthetic and noise impacts, Addendum No. 3 concludes because the skatepark in the Approved Project and the Proposed Project are both 12,500 square feet, there would be no change in impacts to traffic. Addendum No. 3 also states that the Proposed Project would be replacing the slightly smaller temporary skatepark4, the implication being that the temporary skatepark did not create traffic issues, so why would the permanent skatepark.

This reasoning is defective for several reasons.

The traffic study utilized in the Final EIR was completed in December 2012 and therefore is eleven years old. If fails to consider any changes in traffic patterns since 2012, an intensified use of Bluff Park, whether more rentals, special events, the advent of food trucks and as staging areas for other events, such as Cars and Coffee, in the last decade and other approved projects or projects in the planning stage.

We have to question whether the City would allow another project for which the City was not the applicant to rely on an eleven-year-old traffic study without requiring that it be updated? 600 Spring had requested empirical data from the City to document the number of people who use the temporary skatepark, as well as other activies at Bluffs Park, but because the temporary skatepark is not monitored the City has no actual data to support its assumption in the Staff Report that the permanent skatepark is projected to host 30 people per day on weekdays and 60 on weekends.

Addendum No. 3 (Page 7) states in addition to the anticipated weekday and weekend use, “the Community Services Department would host one class quarterly, one summer camp annually and one skate event annually.” Will there be a condition of approval limiting the use of the skatepark to these event? Does one skate event annually mean a one-day event, a multi-day, a multi-week event? Will the skatepark be available for rent for private events? If so, how often? These questions need to be studied and answered in the Addendum No. 3. 4 600 Spring raised serious concerns about Addendum No. 2 and the approval of the temporary skatepark, but ultimately decided not to appeal its approval because it was only temporary. When the City Council approved the temporary skatepark, the Staff Report indicated that it would require a CDP and a CUP. However, when approved by the Planning Commission only a CDP was processed so we are curious why a CUP was not required. 163
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
The Staff Report correctly points out that LIP Section 3.3(Q)(4)(c) requires that parking requirements for Lot 7 be prepared by a registered traffic engineer based on the proposed use because when the LCPA was approved the City has not decided on whether a multipurpose athletic field or a skatepark would be located on Lot 7. The Staff Report then incorrectly states that this requirement was satisfied because “during the initial Crummer Site Subdivision EIR process” a parking study was prepared.

First, a parking study was not prepared as part of the Final EIR, and the Public Works Review Referral Sheet dated January 1, 2023, does not mention reviewing a parking study, in fact it does not mention parking or traffic. If there is a parking study if should be an exhibit to Addendum No. 3.

Second, to the extent there was analysis of parking impacts from either a skatepark or multipurpose athletic field on Lot 7, that analysis was based on a different configuration of Lot 7 and Winter Mesa Road that the City decided not to follow. See Figure 1 in Wormhoult Study.

Third, and most importantly, the unequivocal language Section 11-2 of the Crummer Mitigation Monitoring states that “Prior to obtaining the last Building Permit for the recreational facilities, the City Parks and Recreation Department shall prepare and implement a Parking Management Plan that demonstrates that adequate onsite and/or offsite parking shall be provided during special events and/or other times when it is anticipated that Malibu Bluffs Park would operate at over capacity conditions relative to parking demand.” This portion of Section 11-2 is not limited to baseball fields, because two alternatives recreation facilities were included in the Final EIR. If the parking study and parking management plan had been prepared prior to the approval of Final EIR there would be no reason for the MMP to require one.

For Addendum No. 3 to conclude that the Proposed Project will not create significant parking and traffic impacts the City must first:

1. Prepare or update a new traffic study;

2. Prepare a Parking Management Plan; and

3. Prepare operational guidelines for the use of the permanent skatepark.

V. Land Use Planning.

Addendum No. 3 erroneously concludes that “the Proposed Project would be consistent with the Approved Project in that it includes a permanent skatepark on Lot 7 that was planned for a skatepark or other recreation use” and “is consistent with the Malibu General Plan, Zoning Ordinances and the LCP’s PD designation…”
While it is true that a skatepark is a permitted use pursuant to LIP Section 3.3(Q)(2)(C)(ii), LIP Section 3.3(Q)(4)(c)(i) requires that any facility on Lot 7 “shall be designed to minimize noise, lighting and disruption to nearby residents.”
164
October 10, 2023

Tyler Eaton
The Proposed Project neither references nor has been designed to minimize noise lighting and disruption to nearby residents, and therefore is inconsistent with the LCP’s PD designation.

VI. Other Issues

1. Other than a sentence on Page 7 concerning the number of events in addition to daily use, there is no discussion concerning the operation of the skatepark. To date there have been numerous instances of the walls of The Case facing the skatepark being tagged with graffiti, with each event seemingly getting more brazen with the most recent event resulting in an arrest and a possible felony charge. There are numerous instances of urination on the walls, a problem that hopefully will be eliminated by the inclusion of a bathroom in the Proposed Project, which 600 Spring supports. We have told today that CCTV will be installed at the temporary skatepark at least on a temporary basis. We request that it the Proposed Project is approved, it is required to included CCTV.

2. The Staff Report and Addendum No. 3 incorrectly state that Lot 7 had been grades as part of the Crummer/Case Development. Neither PCH Project Owner, nor 600 Spring graded Lot 7. To our knowledge the only grading on Lot 7 was done by the City when it installed asphalt to erect the temporary skatepark and parking.

3. The restroom will have motion activated exterior wall lights from 11 PM to 5 AM “to assist in custodial services”. It is unlikely that a City employee will be providing custodial services outside of regular business hours. Given that the park will close at sunset, exterior motion lights should be prohibited.

4. As pointed out repeatedly, Addendum No. 3 fails to include any analysis or empirical support for its erroneous conclusion that the Proposed Project does not create additional impacts when compared to the Approved Project. Among items conspicuously missing from the attached plans are architectural sections and visual simulations which would help in the analysis of visual impacts. For the Final EIR, PCH Project Owner was required by the independent EIR consult who was writing the EIR to prepare visual simulations from 26 different locations to help analyze potential visual impacts from those locations. It should be noted that an objective review of those locations would confirm at either (a) views from certain locations had no protection under any applicable law or regulation and/or (b) the location was so far from the Property that impacts were improbable, yet we prepared them.

VII. Conclusion
Solely on the basis that the Proposed Project is 12,500 square feet, just as the Approved Project, Addendum No. 3 erroneously concludes that (a) “the Proposed Project would not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of any impacts as compared to those identified in the 2013 Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR”, and (b) “no new 165
166
Robert Gold <[email protected]>
Permanent Skatepark
1 message
Robert Gold > Tue, May 17, 2022 at 3:13 PM
To: Jesse Bobbett <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>, Scott Gillen <[email protected]> JesseAs you know I have been involved with The Case (formerly Crummer) project (the “Project”) since its inception in 2006, first as one of the owners and its Development Partner and thereafter working with Scott after he purchased the property on June 29, 2017.  As such, I managed the entire entitlement process, including the design of both the Project’s residential component and the recreational component on the 1.74-acres of land that we had agreed to donate to the City for recreational use (the “Donated Land”), the Project’s EIR and all negotiations with the City, Coastal and other stakeholders, giving me a unique understanding of the Project.

With this background, Scott Gillen asked me to reach out to you on three items, the operation of the temporary skatepark, the design and operation of the permanent skatepark and the overall use of Bluffs Park and how these relate to The Case.

As you also know, Scott, as owner of The Case, expressed concerns about the design and operation of the temporary skatepark, some of which were addressed and some of which were not, during the temporary skatepark’s approval process.

As the design of the permanent skatepark moves forward, Scott hopes that the knowledge gained from the design and operation of the temporary skatepark can be incorporated into the design and operational aspects of the permanent facility consistent with the Project’s EIR.  It is disappointing that despite your assurances after the temporary skate park was approved, that Scott, one of the biggest stakeholders with respect to the design and operation of the permanent skatepark would have a seat at the table during the design process, to work through potential design and operational concerns prior to presentation of the project to the Planning Commission or to Scott as a fait accompli.

I clearly remember my meeting with then City Manager, Jim Thorsen, when he asked me what I thought of having a skatepark located on the Donated Land as a possible alternative use to the baseball (multipurpose) field that had always been contemplated.  My response was that I was concerned about noise and visual impacts, traffic including drop off, skating outside of the facility, and the perception, whether right or wrong or somewhere in between, about the nature of activities other than skating that take place in and around skateparks.  As I point out later, it is telling that the temporary skatepark, and I presume the permanent skatepark, unlike a ball-field or other parks, requires published Rules of Use and a Code of Conduct with penalties for their violation. Clearly some of these concerns are warranted.

Jim Thorsen told me that he respected my concerns, but it was a rhetorical question as the 167
City Council was requiring that a skatepark be included in the project’s EIR as an alternative use on the Donated Land.  Given that I would have to inform my partners about this potential significant change in the Project, I knew that I needed to get an education on the design and operation of skateparks.   I may have gone straight from my meeting with Jim to your predecessor, Bob Stalling’s office.

When I met with Bob, he explained the difference between the design and construction of a “legacy” skateparks, like the City’s then Papa Jacks, and how skateparks are now being designed, constructed and the best practices for siting and operation, such as building the parks in bowls below grade and the use of materials and landscaping to mitigate noise and visual impacts. Bob suggested that I speak with Zach Wormhoudt, who you know is a preeminent skatepark designer, and that I visit the newly opened skatepark in Venice Beach that was designed by Zach.

I met with Zach, and we ultimately hired him to design the skatepark that was studied in the Project’s EIR.  During our first meeting, Zach told me that the two most important considerations for a successful skatepark are that the location of a skate park must be (i) compatible with the adjacent uses and (ii) that the skate park is visible, including lines of sight from the street and parking areas and for supervision.

With respect to compatible uses, I told Zack we have a mixed bag.  To one side of the skatepark site is Bluffs Park, a compatible use, and to the other side, there will be five single-family homes, a potentially incompatible use.  And with respect to the siting of the skatepark, I told Zach that the Project originally contemplated putting a baseball field on the Land Donation.  To accommodate the configuration of a baseball field with the balance of the Project, including addressing access issues and integration of the new ball-field with the existing facilities at Bluffs Park, the only location that would work for a baseball field, is the current location and configuration of the Land Donation.  While this location was more suitable for a ball-field, it was a less than ideal location for a skatepark because it is at the end of Winter Mesa Drive with no visibility from the Landon Center and limited visibility from the rest of the park and street.

After Zach and I walked the Project site and reviewed the site plans he felt if the skatepark was designed and constructed properly, conflicts between the skatepark and the homes could be reduced.    To that end, Zach designed a skateparkin which all of the skating elements were entirely in a bowl with the potentially noisier and visually impactful elements furthest from the homes and he would use materials and landscaping to mitigate the sounds inherent in a skatepark.  In retrospect, perhaps the better location for the skatepark would be where the temporary skatepark is now located, further from the homes.

Designing a skatepark in a bowl, i.e., below grade also minimizes its visual impacts.  You just have to look at the temporary skatepark, which is entirely above grade, to understand visual impacts of the skatepark being entirely above grade with some of the elements five or more feet above grade.

I had to re-design the Project’s homes several times to address concerns about visual impacts from property owners in the Malibu Knolls or Malibu Colony, to name a few, properties that are significant distances from the Project site.  Given the proximity of the skatepark to The Case homes, ensuring that the visual (and noise) impacts are reduced to maximum extent feasible is certainly a reasonable request and which is how the skatepark analyzed in the Project’s EIR was designed.
168
My civil engineers designed the grading and drainage plans for the skatepark to be entirely in a bowl, and demonstrate that such a design was consistent with the City’s development standards contained in the LCP, all of which was included in the EIR.

Please refer to page 5.10-14 of the Crummer DEIR which discusses the potential noise impacts from the skatepark noting that the conclusion that the noise levels from the skatepark were below the City’s applicable limit in part because of the “soft site’ ground attenuation from envisioned turf and vegetation between the park and the residential lots” and “the design consideration that the majority of the skate facility would be sunken into the ground, thereby providing some shielding benefits”.

We also worked with our architect and civil engineer on the overall site plan to address traffic, parking, and general safety concerns including drop off and pick-up, which further addressed both the compatible use and visibility issues, although the City has chosen not to use that site plan.

It was the totality of the design that was analyzed in the EIR that   gave my partners and I, comfort that if properly designed, a skatepark and the five homes could, from a design perspective, co-exist with minimum conflict, including noise and visual impacts.  It was also the totality of the design that enabled the Planning Commission and City Council to make the Findings that potential environmental impacts were either insubstantial or if there were impacts, those impacts could be mitigated.

The Project’s EIR was adopted by the City Council on February 24, 2014, more than eight years ago.   Scott is concerned, based on the preliminary designs that are available on the City’s website, the experiences he is having with the temporary skatepark, and the apparent increase in the intensity of the use of Bluffs Park since 2014, that to date the design alternatives of the permanent skatepark presented to the public are not consistent with the design intent of the proposed skatepark analyzed in the EIR.  He is also concerned that the assumptions and other considerations that were used to analyze and mitigate the potential impacts of the skatepark in the Project’s EIR are not being fully implemented and/or are outdated.

With respect to noise, the most recent designs of the skatepark show significant portions would be at or above grade rather than “sunken into the ground” as studied in the EIR and there is no indication of what other methods are being considered to attenuate sound or visual impacts.   In addition, as mentioned the Wormhoudt design kept a majority of the skateparks elements furthest from the homes and it does not appear that this design principle is being followed to the maximum extent feasible.

With respect to line of site and visibility, there is some visibility of the temporary skatepark from the Landon Center, however it was stated at a recent Parks and Recreation Committee hearing, there is very limited supervision of the temporary skatepark with a staff member walking from the Landon Center to the skatepark every hour or so.  This is concerning, given that the permanent skatepark will be even further from the Landon Center and presumably will have a much higher use, raising the question how will the skatepark be supervised? There have been several instances of graffiti on the Project’s site walls, urination on the site walls, and skating after the park has closed.   In addition, many of the Rules and Code of Conduct are violated daily.  I do not believe I have ever seen skaters wearing a helmet, elbow 169
pads, and knee pads (or even just helmets), we have seen children that look to be under age 12 skating apparently unaccompanied by an adult, skating in the parking lot, skaters have gotten into arguments with Scott’s security who were simply trying to make sure that there was safe access to an active construction site, men skating without shirts, women skating with only bathing suit tops and loud music.

As mentioned, there are published Rules for Use and a Code of Conduct for using the skatepark which specifies consequences for violation of the Code.   Other than the graffiti on the walls (and from a safety perspective the failure to wear required safety gear), none of the individual violations that we are aware of standing alone are overly offensive. However, it is the totality of these violations, how the City has addressed and will address the violations in the future that is concerning.

Scott appreciates that a skatepark is for recreation and a place to have fun and that rules sometimes get broken.  He also appreciates that if the skatepark gets a reputation as a place with little or no supervision and therefore anything goes, especially as more people use the permanent facility in the post-Covid world, there will be problems.

Simply stated, the purpose of this email is to engage with the City in a collaborative effort, just as was done during the Project’s EIR, to think about how to prevent or minimize problems before they manifest so that the skatepark will be a success.

To better understand some of the operational issues, Scott is requesting an itemized breakdown of all violations, warnings, and suspensions for such violations, if any, since opening of the skatepark of course with the names of the violators redacted.

As the permanent skatepark project proceeds Scott would also like to have some input on the Rules and Code of Conduct.   Currently all violations have equivalent consequences and are applied in the same manner regardless of the age of the offender.  We think this warrants further discussion.    As an example, is a verbal warning a sufficient way to address putting graffiti on or other destruction of property or sale of possession of illegal drugs by an adult as currently provided in the Code of Conduct?  As we know, lots of adults use the facility.

The Project’s EIR included a Mitigation Monitoring Report (the “MMR”) to mitigate potential impacts from the Project.  The MMR contains two requirements to address traffic and parking impacts from adding one ball field on the Donated Land  The traffic generated by one additional ball field required that the striping and traffic signals at the Malibu Canyon/PCH intersection be modified, which has been done.

The MMR also requires that “prior to obtaining the last Building Permit for the recreational facilities, the City Parks and Recreation Department shall prepare and implement a Parking Management Plan that demonstrates that adequate onsite and/or offsite parking shall be provided during special events and/or other times when it is anticipated that Malibu Bluffs Park would operate at over-capacity conditions relative to parking demand.

The Parking Management Plan shall preclude the use of the proposed baseball field when Malibu Bluffs Park would operate at over-capacity conditions relative to parking demand. In addition, the Parking Management Plan will require the City Parks and Recreation Department to schedule baseball games with at least a half-hour to 45 minute interval between games so that the parking demand of two consecutive games would not overlap. To accommodate this longer interval between games, less than 10 games per 170
day would be permitted.”
While this requirement in part references a proposed baseball field, the concerns also apply to a skatepark.   Will there be enough parking and how will the park be accessed during special events or other high use conditions?  As you are aware, Scott has had issues from time with getting access to the construction entrance during special events. A system of how the residents of The Case and their guests will be able to have unrestricted access to their homes during special events and other high-volume events, such as Malibu Little League’s opening day, need to be established.  Does the City envision special events that use the skatepark? With respect to trip generation for the skatepark, the parking study in the DEIR estimated “30 people per day on weekdays, 60 people per day on weekends…10 people during afternoon peak hours on weekdays, 20 people during the peak hour on weekdays”.  At the Parks & Recreation Committee hearing referenced earlier, actual numbers on the use of the skatepark were reported and showed a significant amount of use.  Are the trip generation and use assumptions in the EIR consistent with the actual use of the temporary skatepark?  The actual use numbers were also generated during the pandemic, and as mentioned above, one would assume that the number of users post pandemic and with a permanent facility would certainly increase.

We must also keep in mind that the Traffic Study included in the EIR is dated December 7, 2012, and is clearly outdated and does not take into consideration new uses created or contemplated in and around the Civic Center area since that date.  There also appears to be significantly more activity in Bluffs Park today than there was 10 years ago when the traffic study was completed.    A few examples, Cars & Coffee, staging area for bikers on the weekends, seemingly significantly more and larger rentals of the park and parking lot for movie and tv productions, use of the park for commercial vehicles to offload goods, the advent of the food truck culture and food trucks that are now appearing with regularity, day and night parking of RVs.  In other words, there seems to be an ever-increasing number of instances when Bluff Park is operating near or over capacity. Or just in greater capacity compared to 2012.   We assume that you have this information, and we would appreciate a comparison of the usage of Bluffs Park in 2012 and 2021/2022, of course you would need to take into consideration how COVID reduced the intensity of use at Bluffs Park during the last two plus years.

In summary, Scott requests:
(i) the design of the permanent skatepark be completely in a bowl, consistent with the design of the skatepark that was studied in the Project’s EIR, and that facility incorporate design and construction techniques that minimize noise and visual impacts to the maximum extent feasible; (ii) appropriate traffic and parking studies be conducted reflecting the current uses at Bluffs Park, including current rental schedule and other uses approved or contemplated in the Civic Center;
(iii) preparation of a traffic and parking plan for Bluffs Park, which will include how the residence at The Case will be able to have readily available access to their homes, just like any other Malibu resident, especially during special events;
(iv) provide an itemization of violations of Rules of Use and Code of Conduct since the temporary skatepark was put into operation and the penalties for each violation.   We would 171
172
Robert Gold <[email protected]>
Skatepark Follow up
1 message
Robert Gold < > Fri, May 27, 2022 at 1:04 PM
To: Jesse Bobbett <[email protected]>
Cc: Scott Gillen <[email protected]>
Jesse-Thank you again for your time Wednesday. I thought it was a really good conversation, and I hope you did as well. Although, when I left your office, I thought it was 4:30 and did not realize that it was almost 5:30 until I got into my car. I apologize for taking up so much of your afternoon and hope that you did not get home too late.

I want to briefly (certainly compared to my prior email) reiterate my thoughts in a more cohesive fashion than I may have expressed Wednesday regarding the design of the skatepark, which I told you is Scott’s primary concern.

First and foremost, while Scott, as the current owner of The Case, is requesting that the skatepark have all of the skating elements in a "bowl", in order to mitigate noise and visual impacts given its proximity the homes at The Case (a request that he made to the Planning Commission and City Council during hearings approving the temporary skatepark) this request was initially made by me during the EIR process, when my partners and I owned the property.

Importantly, the City and its EIR consultant agreed with our request. Neither the Planning, the City’s EIR consultant nor Bob Stallings asked me to have Zach Wormhoudlt design a skatepark that was all or partially above grade, which they certainly could have done, either as the primary or an alternative design. Rather, they recognized, as Zach did, the potential impacts to the homes from an above grade skatepark. Accepting the validity of these concerns, the only skatepark design requested and analyzed in the EIR had all the skating elements in a bowl, which design the EIR concluded would minimize impacts to the homes. As mentioned in my prior email, the feasibility and consistency with the LCP of this design was supported by, among other things, grading and drainage plans requested by Planning and the EIR consultant, prepared by my consultants and reviewed by all City departments.

The EIR also pointed out that proper landscaping would also help mitigate noise impacts with the added benefit of providing screening to reduce visual impacts, so we are glad to hear that the current plan includes additional screening landscaping. For this project, I think the more landscaping the better, plus the park has recycled water.

It is true that the skatepark design analyzed in the EIR was only a conceptual plan, this was also true of the homes, as their final design would not be prepared until after the project was approved. Nevertheless, as typically done, the EIR was able to analyze potential impacts of both the residential and recreational components of the project based on the conceptual designs and/or not a complete set of plans.

As you know the biggest concern with the homes was visual impacts. To address those potential impacts design standards were incorporated into the project. Great consideration was taken to where the homes were sited, locations that cannot be changed. The height of the homes was limited to 18’ and portions of two homes closest to neighboring properties were limited to 15’. Screening trees were also required.

After our meeting I checked (I can't believe that I had forgot), and I am proud that the City Council certified the EIR by a 4-1 vote and unanimously approved the subdivision for a project that had strong opposition (as well as strong support) from not an insubstantial number of their constituents and 173
174
Robert Gold <[email protected]>
The Case
1 message
Robert Gold <r > Tue, Sep 13, 2022 at 3:54 PM
To: Jesse Bobbett <[email protected]>, Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Gillen <[email protected]>
JesseI am sure that Kristin has shared the text message that I sent to her Sunday seeking assistance for Scott to enter The Case because the authorities had blocked the entrance to Bluff’s Park and told Scott that he could not enter with his car.  To make matters worse, Scott was on this way to show The Case to a potential buyer. Ultimately, Scott knew one of the sheriffs working at the event who let him drive to the construction gate but not through the main entrance which remained blocked.

This was just a day after access to The Case was almost completely blocked by cars and food trucks for an AYSO event.

This is not the first time that we have raised concerns about access to The Case during events at Bluffs.  However, after Sunday, where a potential buyer saw first hand potential access issues, Scott needs to be able to assure buyers that they and their guests, just like any other resident in Malibu, will be able to go to and from their homes as they choose and there will always be emergency access.

Therefore, we would like to have the meeting before the end of next week, with you, Richard Mollica, Rob Duboux and perhaps the City Manager and whoever else at the City you or your colleagues think is necessary, to create a system that will permit the residents of The Case and all their guests unfettered access to their homes at all times.

Ultimately, I think we will need the buy-in of the Sheriffs and Fire Department, so it might make sense to have them at the meeting as well.

I am sure that we can reach a satisfactory solution, which now that the homes have started to come to market doing so has become urgent and understandably, the failure to do so could have serious financial consequences to Scott.

The access concerns extend to the skatepark. We have had numerous conversations about our shared concerns for public safety of people in Bluffs and the dozens of construction workers at The Case every day, and how public safety is compromised when parking and traffic at events is not adequately supervised, or emergency access is blocked.   The issue of maintaining emergency access does not end when construction is completed.

If you recall, when construction started your office provided quarterly schedules of events at Bluffs Park, so to the extent feasible, Scott could avoid large deliveries on those days.   Neither Scott nor I have received an event schedule since well before the start of COVID.  If Scott had a large delivery on Saturday, at a minimum it would have been chaotic and clearly, he should have been made aware that it was the intent to limit all vehicle access to Bluffs on Sunday.

Scott has also raised concerns about the operation and supervision of both the temporary and permanent skatepark, as well as Bluffs Park as a whole.  Scott feels that each year more and larger events are taking place at Bluffs putting further stress on the critical PCH/Malibu Canyon intersection.  And while Scott and I truly appreciate the time and efforts of you and your staff to provide data on the use of Bluffs Park, the data does not capture all the uses of the park.  For example, it did not include Cars and Coffee and we all understand that counts of those using the skatepark are not precise.

Finally, the design of the permanent skatepark. We look forward to seeing the next iteration of the plans once you receive them.

We think it warrants repeating, that Zach Wormhouldt and I designed the skatepark analyzed in the EIR, the design 175
176
Prepared For:

PCH Project Owner, LLC
Prepared on:

October 4, 2012
Prepared By:

Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
177
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
2 of 9

I N D E X
Introduction and Project Description 3
Anticipated Trip Generation 5
Anticipated Parking Requirements 5
Skate Park Construction 5
Wormhoudt Incorporated Biography 6
Project Location and Orientation Plan 8
Schematic Grading and Drainage Plan 9
178
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
3 of 9

INTRODUCTION
This report sets out to provide a preliminary description of the skate park facility under consideration for the Crummer Property located at 24120 Pacific Coast Highway, Malibu, California (the “Property”).

PCH Project Owner, LLC owns the Property and has filed with the City of Malibu for Coastal Development Permits to subdivide the Property into seven lots. Lots 1 through 5 would each contain a single-family residence. Lot 6 would be used for a private gated street and open space serving the five homes. Lot 7, which is approximately 1.75 acres, is intended to be donated to the City of Malibu to be used for parking and recreational purposes. One of the contemplated recreation uses on Lot 7 is a skate park (collectively the “Project”). The City is currently preparing an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the Project. The EIR will be analyzing the potential impacts if a skate park is included in the Project. PCH Project Owner, LLC has retained Wormhoudt Incorporated (“Wormhoudt”) to provide a Preliminary Study for the above-described skate park alternative for the Project based on a schematic design of the proposed skate park also prepared by Wormhoudt. Wormhoudt is a California based Landscape Architectural Design Firm specializing in the development of public and private skate park facilities and understands that the information contained in this report may be incorporated into the Project’s EIR.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
It is anticipated that the proposed skate park will be designed as follows:

SKATE PARK DESIGN DESCRIPTION
Size 12,500 Square Feet (As measured in plan square feet).

Construction Materials Poured-in-place reinforced structural concrete and shotcrete with metal edging (coping). All skate park concrete shall have a smooth hard-trowel finish and be stained to match and compliment the Bluffs Park surroundings. All metal edging shall be hot-dip-galvanized.

Use The anticipated user groups include youth and adult bicycle, bmx, skateboard, and inline-skate participants with skill levels ranging from beginner to professional.

Features/Layout The skate park will primarily be built at and below the existing site grades to reduce any potential visual or acoustic impacts The feature of the skate park will likely include ramps, bowls, pools, stairs, ledges, railings, handrails, drains, etc.

Drainage The skate park structure will utilize gravity flow drain lines, infiltration systems and bioswales. See Figure No. 2, Page 9 Grading As per calculations of PSOMAS Engineers, the skate park will generate the following:

Cut: Exempt: 2,145 cy; Non Exempt: 794 cy; Total: 2,939 cy Fill: Exempt: 158 cy; Non Exempt: 505 cy; Total: 673 cy Shrinkage: 67 cy
Net Export after Shrinkage: 2,199 cy
179
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
4 of 9
Associated Improvements The skate park will be built with supporting site improvements that include landscaping, concrete walkways, drinking fountain, trash receptacles, bike racks and benches. The skate park will include ornamental iron fencing with locking gates.

Hours of Operation Dawn to dusk (The same as Bluffs Park hours). No lighting or sound amplification will be provided.

Anticipated Capacity -
Active Users
Non-Peak Use (weekday mornings) attendance of the skate park will typically range from 1-20 active users.

Peak Use (weekday afternoons, weekends, and holidays)
attendance will typically range from 5-45 active users.

Maximum Capacity The maximum capacity of the skate park is 50 active users.

Anticipated Capacity -
Spectators
Non-Peak Use (weekday mornings) spectator attendance of the skate park will typically range from 1-10 individuals.

Peak Use (weekday afternoons, weekends, and holidays)
spectator attendance will typically range from 10-30 spectators.

Special Events The skate park may host local skating competitions with the skate park functioning at maximum capacity (50 active users) and spectator attendance ranging from 40 - 80 individuals.

Location and Orientation See Figure No. 1, Page 8

ANTICIPATED TRIP GENERATION
City of Malibu records provided to Wormhoudt on June 28, 2012 indicate that in the preceding 8 years, Papa Jack Skate Park which until recently was operated by the City of Malibu generated an average of 16 trips per day during the peak use season of Spring and Summer. Trips for Fall and Winter averaged between 10 and 12 per day. City records also indicate that 80% - 90% of the skate park users arriving by car are dropped off.

Due to the proposed skate park's larger size, state of the art terrain, and prominent location in Bluffs Park, the park will likely attract users from outside the City of Malibu and have a higher trip generation than the previous City of Malibu Skate Park.

Based on the size (12,500 square feet) and the anticipated capacities (page 4) of the proposed skate park anticipated trip generation will likely per the table below:

SKATE PARK
(12,500 Square Feet)

NON PEAK USE
(Weekday mornings)

PEAK USE
(Weekday Afternoons,
Weekends & Holidays)
ANTICIPATED DAILY TRIPS 1-30 1-55
180
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
5 of 9

ANTICIPATED PARKING REQUIREMENTS
The need for parking to support a public skate park is a bit different than most recreational facilities. The average skate park user is approximately 14 years old.

Therefore, most skate park users are reliant on public transportation, friends, parents, or their own skateboard/bicycle for transportation to the park. An over abundance of parking spaces is less important than efficient and safe pick up and drop off areas.

Skate Park industry standards recommend .8 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of skate park facility. Therefore the proposed skate park facility (12,500 square feet) should provide approximately 10 parking spaces.

SKATE PARK CONSTRUCTION
The skate park construction will include storm drainage, grading and earthwork, reinforcing steel, poured-in-place concrete, shotcrete, fabricated metal edging (coping).

All concrete finishes shall have a hard-trowel finish. The skate park concrete will be stained to compliment the Bluffs Park surroundings.

It is anticipated that the skate park structure will not generate any stormwater runoff.

The skate park will utilize gravity flow drain lines for approximately 50% (6,250 square feet) of the surface area connecting to infiltration systems and bioswales. The remaining 50% of the skate park will sheet flow into infiltration systems and bioswales designed for the project.

It is anticipated that construction for the skate park shall be completed within 90 workdays. The skate park construction shall occur during typical working hours for construction projects within the City of Malibu (7:00AM - 3:00 PM Monday through Friday). Construction truck traffic is expected at approximately 140 trips in hours between 7:00 AM and 1:00 PM.

Construction staging, storage and worker parking is expected to occur within the construction fencing of the skate park site.

It is not anticipated that the project will be phased.

Construction Equipment Schedule*

EQUIPMENT TYPE HOURS OF USE
Backhoe Loader (CAT 450E or Equal) 140
Dump Truck (6 Yard)** 90
Bobcat (S205 or Equal) 70
Concrete Trailer Pump (197 Horse Power) 160
Concrete Truck (9 Yard) 160
Plate Compactor (200lbs or equal) 120
Vibratory Soil Compactor (CAT CP44 or Equal) 60
Generator (5,500 Watt) If required, temporary power is anticipated 320 *Construction Equipment types and durations listed herein are estimates only. Actual equipment types and hours of use may be greater than or less than these estimates. **Dump truck will be used for moving earth on site. Equipment list excludes rough grading.

WORMHOUDT INCORPORATED BIOGRAPHY
Zach Wormhoudt, President and Principal Landscape Architect 181
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
6 of 9
Established in 1963, Wormhoudt Incorporated is a full service professional practice committed to the sound principles of environmental planning, meeting user needs, personalized service and innovative, cost effective design solutions. With 32 years of experience in the municipal skate and bike park industry, Wormhoudt Incorporated has designed hundreds of municipal skate parks now in use throughout the United States and around the world. Wormhoudt Incorporated offers complete landscape architectural services including feasibility studies, master planning, site selection, cost estimating, consulting, construction documentation, and construction administration services Zachary Adam
Wormhoudt
Resume
849 Almar Avenue #280
Santa Cruz, CA 95060 USA
Cell. 831.334.4022
Fax. 831.426.8424
Email. [email protected]
Education California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo Bachelor of Science Landscape Architecture
School of Architecture and Environmental Design 1993
Professional
Licensure
Landscape Architect: CA 4305, KY 620, UT 5301, MI 1274, NM375,
Experience
Employment
1991 – Current
Wormhoudt Landscape Architecture Incorporated Est. 1964 www.skateparks.com
Position: President and Principal Landscape Architect
Wormhoudt Landscape Architecture is a full service professional practice with over $148 million dollars of aggregate public sector work in place throughout the United States and in 6 countries.

Professional skills and experience:

1. Developing scope of services and soliciting Requests for Qualification and Proposals from consultants for professional and technical services including civil engineering, architecture, mechanical engineering, structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, arborists, materials test labs, and environmental services. Interviewing and evaluating interested firms and making final selections based on objective criteria established to reveal the best fit for a particular project.

2. Developing scope of services, obtaining legal review, successfully negotiating consultant agreements, and managing resulting contracts for a variety of professional and technical services ranging from $10K to $1million in value.

3. Effectively and efficiently managing professional and technical staff from project inception through contract document production and construction management.

4. Administrating construction contracts, construction schedules and construction management services. Resolving bid disputes, construction disputes and analyzing construction claims. 182
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
7 of 9

5. Project management including design supervision, budget analysis, schedule development, and workload assignment.

Design team, client and stakeholder consensus building.

Presenting verbal, written, and visual reports of project subject matter to commissions, boards and councils. Facilitation of public meetings and forums.
2000 - 2002 Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC) Position: Consultant
Authored the Skate Park Facility Design and Safety Standards adopted by the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California applied to 37 member Cities within the State.
2006 City of San Jose
Position: Consultant
Co-Authored the City Skate and Bike Park Facility Guidelines. The guidelines designate when, where and how future City of San Jose Bike and Skate Park Facilities shall be built.

Awards Outstanding Facility Award California Park and Recreation Society, Hanford, CA
E.H.A. Parks Excellence Award Nevada Recreation and Parks Society, Carson City, NV
Award for Excellence Park Design, California Parks & Recreation Society, Redwood City, CA
Achievement Award Facility Design, California Parks & Recreation Society, Folsom, CA
Project of the Year Award Structures, American Public Works Association, Oxnard, CA
Award of Excellence Facility Design, California Park and Recreation Society, Santa Cruz, CA
The Quality of Life Design American Society of Landscape Architects, Venice Beach, CA
Plus an additional two dozen related industry awards.
183
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
8 of 9
Figure No. 1 Location and Orientation Plan
184
Crummer Skate Park
Preliminary Study
9 of 9
Figure No. 2 Schematic Grading and Drainage Plan
185
186

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 23-52

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MALIBU CERTIFYING ADDENDUM NO. 3 TO THE CRUMMER SITE

SUBDIVISION PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23-001 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 12,500 SQUARE FOOT IN-GROUND PERMANENT SKATEPARK, 146 SQUARE FOOT TWO-STALL RESTROOM BUILDING, 36

STALL PARKING LOT, TWO BIORETENTION BASINS, LANDSCAPING,

CROSS-WALK OVER WINTER MESA DRIVE, VARIOUS SKATING
EQUIPMENT, FENCING, AND BENCHES LOCATED ON LOT 7 OF THE CASE (FORMERLY CRUMMER) PROPERTY IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACE ZONING DISTRICTS LOCATED AT 24250

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY (CITY OF MALIBU)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION I. Recitals.

A. On January 9, 2023, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 23-001 for a new permanent skatepark, landscaping, and associated required parking was submitted to the Planning Department by the City Community Services Depattment. The application was routed to the City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 (WD29) for review.

B. On October 4, 2023, a Notice of CDP was posted on the subject property and the project was deemed complete.

C. On October 11, 2023, the project went before the Environmental Review Board (ERB) for recommendations on the proposed project and Addendum No. 3 of the Crummer Site Subdivision Project.

D. On October 26, 2023, 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 propetty owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject properties.

E. On November 20, 2023, the Regular Planning Commission meeting was adjourned to November 30, 2023 due to a power outage at City Hall.

F. On November 30, 2023, 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.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has exercised its independent judgment and analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission finds that the proposed project was adequately Exhibit E
187
Resolution No 23-52

studied in the Case (formally Crummer) Site Subdivision Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EJR). On February 24, 2014, the City of Malibu certified the Case Final EIR (State Clearing House No. 2008091155), that it will result in less than significant impacts with mitigation, and that no further evaluation under CEQA is required.

Nevertheless, the Commission also evaluated the proposed application and determined the permanent skatepark will not create any new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts as compared to those that were identified; and that none of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 have occurred. The proposed project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the certified Final EIR or result in a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant impacts. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the approved project is undertaken which would require major revisions of the Final EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or an increase in severity of identified effects. There is no new information that shows that the proposed project would cause new significant environmental impacts that were not already analyzed in the certified Final EIR. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum to the Final EIR (Addendum No. 3) was prepared and no supplemental environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. The certified Final FIR and Addendum No, 3 were considered prior to approval of the project. Together they are determined to adequately satisfy all the requirements of CEQA.

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on November 20, 2023, and pursuant to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the analysis in the agenda report, incorporated herein, the findings of fact below, and approves CDP No. 23-001 for the construction of a 12,500 square foot in-ground permanent skatepark, 146 square foot two-stall restroom building, 36 stall parking lot, two bioretention basins, landscaping, cross-walk over Winter Mesa Drive, various skating equipment, fencing, and benches located on Lot 7 of the Case (formally Crummer) property in the Planned Development (PD) and Public Open Space (OS) zoning districts located at 24250 Pacific Coast Highway (City of Malibu).

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)
I. The proposed project is located in the PD and OS zoning districts, which are areas designated for recreation. The Planning Department, City Biologist, City Public Works Department, and City geotechnical consultant reviewers, Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) and Los Angeles County Waterworks District. No. 29 (WD29) have reviewed the project for conformance with the LCP. 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 development standards. 188
Resolution No 23-52

2. The project will not result in adverse biological or visual impacts and involves only the necessary amount of grading to construct the 12,500 square foot skatepark as analyzed in the Crummer Site Subdivision Final EIR. The site has already been disturbed in accordance with the approved Case site improvements CDP as well as the improvements for the temporary skatepark constructed in 2020. There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment as no significant effects are expected. The proposed project is the least environmentally damaging feasible alternative.

3. The subject property is not designated as containing Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or ESHA buffer as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map.

However, Addendum No. 3 to the Case project’s Final EIR and the subject skatepark project were reviewed by the ERB and recommendations were made. All recommendations made by the ERB were assessed and addressed. An additional sound review was prepared by a third-party consultant who concluded the proposed design is in line with the design reviewed during the Final E1R and no additional mitigation is required.

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

1. An analysis of the project’s visual impact was conducted through site inspections, architectural plans and review of the Final EIR and Addendum No. 3. The skatepark will have limited visibility from PCH, does not block ocean views, and fits within the recreational context of Bluffs Park. The parking area and skate features will be constructed at an elevation lower than the Case project and out of site from PCH, minimizing their visibility. Furthermore, the skate park elements will not exceed eight feet in height. The park will only be open during daylight hours and does not include outdoor lighting other than a small light for the restroom which will be used for maintenance purposes only or otherwise tumed off. The skatepark project is not expected to result in significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

2. The project has been designed to avoid any adverse or scenic impacts. The project proposes skatepark elements situated at or below the elevation of nearby residential structures and landscaping and proposes minimal outdoor lighting, minimizing visual impacts. Therefore, the proposed development will not result in significant adverse scenic visual impacts.

3. The project, as proposed or 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 therefore, no feasible alternatives would avoid or substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources.

5. The project site was cleared of sensitive biological resources and the project design elevation and the height of skate features will not result in adverse visual impacts. No other siting alternatives are necessary.

F. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The entire City of Malibu, including the project, is located within an extreme fire hazard zone. The proposed skatepark will include minor landscaping and exempt grading, neither 189
Resolution No 23-52

of which will affect the structural integrity of the site. No habitable structures are proposed. The project, as conditioned, will incorporate the conditions required by the City Public Works Department and City geotechnical consultant reviewers. As such, the proposed project will not increase the instability ofthe site or structural integrity from geologic, flood, or any other hazards.

2. The project, as designed, conditioned, and approved by the City geotechnical consultant reviewers, City Public Works Department, and LACFD and does not have any significant adverse impacts on the site stability or structural integrity from geologic or fire hazards due to the project design. The project meets City and County requirements and standards.

3. The project, as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative, in that the skatepark complies with the requirements of both the MMC and LCP, and no environmentally superior alternatives have been identified.

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by City geotechnical consultant reviewers and City Public Works Department. These specialists determined that the proposed project does not adversely impact site stability or structural integrity.

There are no feasible alternatives to the proposed development that would result in less site disturbance.

5. As discussed herein, the proposed project, as designed and conditioned, will not have adverse impacts on sensitive coastal resources, as none are present on Lot 7.

SECTION 5. Planning Commission Approval.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 23-00 1, subject to the following conditions, including the Mitigation Measures from the Crummer Subdivision Project Final EIR (certified by City Council Resolution No. 14-1 1) that are applicable to the project, as noted below.

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. 12,500 square foot in-ground permanent skatepark;
b. 146 square foot, 12-foot tall, two-stall restroom structure; c. Parking and drop off area including 28 standard parking spaces, six carpool/vanpool/electric vehicle spaces, and two ADA spaces; d. Two bioretention basins;
e. New crosswalk across Winter Mesa Drive;
190
Resolution No 23-52

f. Landscaping;
g. 8-foot-tall perimeter fencing; and
h. 3,022 cubic yards of exempt grading.

3. Subsequent submittals for this project shall be in substantial compliance with plans on-file with the Planning Department, signed by Public Works Engineering staff on August 16, 2023. In the event the project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

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 Department within 10 days of this decision and/or prior to issuance of any development permits.

5. This resolution, signed Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit and all Department Review Sheets attached to the Planning Commission agenda report for this project shall be copied in their entirety and placed directly onto a separate plan sheet behind the cover sheet of the development plans submitted to the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department for p lan check.

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 Planning Director upon written request of such interpretation.

8. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City geotechnical consultant reviewers, and City Public Works Department, 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 Planning 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 have been exhausted.

Cultural Resources
191
Resolution No 23-52

11. 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 Planning Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 1 7.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

12. If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 ofthe 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 ofa 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.

13. Mitigation Measure 4-1: For adequate coverage and the protection of potentially significant buried resources, a qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards (48 Federal Register 44738-39) shall be retained by the applicant to monitor all ground—disturbing activities, including but not limited to all grading, excavation, and site preparation. The project archaeologist shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant resources.

Any significant archaeological resources found shall be preserved as determined necessary by the project archaeologist and offered to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton or repository willing to accept the resource. Any resulting reports shall also be forwarded to the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton.

Should paleontological soils be uncovered during grading, a paleontological monitor shall also be retained by the applicant, upon the archaeological monitor’s request, to oversee ground-disturbing activities, including but not limited to all grading, excavation, and site preparation. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt any activities adversely impacting potentially significant resources. Should fossil-bearing formations be uncovered, the monitor shall professionally collect any specimens without impeding development. Any paleontological artifacts recovered shall be preserved, as determined necessary by the project paleontologist, and offered to an accredited and permanent scientific institution for the benefit of current and future generations. This mitigation measure shall also apply to trenching for utilities, geological testing, and any other grounddisturbing activities associated with the proposed project.

14. Mitigation Measure 4-2: A Native American Monitor of Churnash descent shall be retained to monitor all ground disturbing activities, including but not limited to all grading, excavation, and site preparation. Any artifacts recovered shall be curated at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University, Fullerton, the designated repository for Los Angeles. Ventura, and Orange Counties. The extent and duration of the archaeological monitoring program shall be determined in accordance with the proposed grading or demolition plans. If human remains are uncovered, the Los Angeles Coroner, Native American Heritage Commission, local Native American representatives, and archaeological monitor shall determine the nature of further studies, as warranted and in accordance with Public Resources Code 5097.98 and the City’s standard conditions of 192
Resolution No 23-52

approval. This mitigation measure shall also apply to trenching for utilities, geological testing, and any other ground-disturbing activities associated with the proposed project.

Site-Specific Conditions

15. Only outdoor Dark Sky compliant lighting for the restroom is approved with this application.

Biology/Landscaping

16. Prior to installation of any landscaping, the applicant shall obtain a plumbing permit for the proposed irrigation system from the Building Safety Division. 1 7. Prior to or at the time of a Planning final inspection, the property owner/applicant shall submit to the case planner a copy of the plumbing permit for the irrigation system installation that has been signed off by the Building Safety Division. 1 8. Prior to final Planning inspection or other final project sign off(as applicable), the applicant shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a certificate of completion in accordance with the Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance MMC Chapter 1 7.53).

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.

19. Prior to Final Plan Check Approval, if your property is serviced by the Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29, please provide landscape water use approval from that department.

20. Vegetation forming a view impermeable condition (hedge), serving the same function as a fence or wall, occurring within the side or rear yard setback shall be maintained at or below six feet in height. View impermeable hedges occurring within the front yard setback serving the same function as a fence or wall shall be maintained at or below 42 inches in height. Three sequential violatioiis of this condition will result in a requirement to permanently remove the vegetation from the site.

21. Vegetation shall be situated on the property so as not to obstruct the primary view from private property at any given time (given consideration of its future growth).

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

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

24. Grading 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.
193
Resolution No 23-52

25. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 — September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities.

Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 1 50 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 the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

26. The (landscape and fuel modification plan) has been conditioned to protect natural resources in accordance with the Malibu General Plan. All areas shall be planted and maintained as described in the (restoration plan, landscape and fuel modification plan).

Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project.

27. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas. Up-lighting is prohibited.

28. 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 restoratioii, 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.

Geology

29. Submit a geotechnical report that addresses the grading for the skatepark, including subgrade preparation, overexcavation (as appropriate), design of fiatwork (concrete and shotcrete), foundations for structures, and drainage control. The report will be reviewed as part of the Building Plan Check submittal.

Street linprovenients

30. The project proposes to construct street improvements within the City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department’s approval ofthe grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed work within the City’s right-of-way.

31. The project proposes to construct a new driveway within the City’s right-of-way. Prior to the Public Works Department approval of the grading or building permit, the applicant shall obtain encroachment permits from the Public Works Department for the proposed driveway. The driveway shall be constructed of either six inches of concrete over four inches of aggregate base, or 4-inches of asphalt concrete over six-inches of aggregate base.

The driveway shall be flush with the existing grades with no curbs. 194
Resolution No 23-52

Grading/Drainage/Hydrology (Geology/ Public Works)

32. Clearing and grading during the rainy season (extending from November 1 to March 3 1) 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.
c. 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 measures shall be put into place to minimize erosion until grading resumes after March 3 1, unless the City determines that completion of grading would be more protective of resources.

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

Preservation of Existing Vegetation
Sediment Controls Silt Fence
Sediment Controls Silt Fence Sand Bag Barrier
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Water Conservation Practices Non-Storm Water Management 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.

34. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) is required for this project. Storm drainage improvements are required to mitigate increased runoff generated by property development. The applicant shall have the choice of one method specified within the City’s Local Implementation Plan Section 17,3.2.B.2. The SWMP 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 of the site. The SWMP shall identify the Site design and Source control Best Management Practices (BMP’s) that have been implemented in the design of the project (See LIP Chapter 17 Appendix A). The SWMP shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the grading/building permits for this project. Exported soil from a site shall be 195
Resolution No 23-52

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.

35. A Water Quality Mitigation Plan (WQMP) is required for this project. The WQMP shall be supported by a hydrology and hydraulic study that identifies all areas contributory to the property and an analysis of the predeveloprnent and post development drainage of the site. The WQMP 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 (BMP’s)
b. Source Control BMP’s
c. Treatment Control BMP’s that retains on-site the 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 BMP’s for the expected life of the structure.
f. 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

36. The project engineer shall sign the final plans prior to the issuance of construction permits.

37. The applicant shall label all City/County storm drain inlets within 250 feet from each property line per the City of Malibu’s standard label template. A note shall be placed on the project plans that address this condition.

38. 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. construction

39. Prior to final building inspection, the applicant shall provide the Environmental Sustainability Department with a WRRP Final Summary Report. The Final Summary Report shall designate all materials that were landfilled or recycled, broken down by material types. The Environmental Sustainabi I ity Department shall approve the Final Summary Report.

40. 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.

41. 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 196
Resolution No 23-52

California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires will be rinsed off prior to leaving the property.

42. A construction management plan shall be approved by the Public Works Director to manage construction traffic, including grading truck trips, in order to minimize impacts on traffic and emergency access.

43. Mitigation Measure 2-1: The construction contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce construction exhaust emissions during grading and construction activities:
a. The construction contractor shall ensure that all equipment is properly serviced and maintained to the manufacturer’s standards to reduce operational emissions. b. The construction contractor shall limit nonessential idling of construction equipment to no more than five consecutive minutes.
c. Where feasible, use of haul trucks with engines that are 2010 or newer for soil import and export activities.
d. The construction contractor shall limit soil hauling activities associated with the site grading trips to a maximum of 38 trucks per day (76 one-way soil haul trips per day for haul trips).
e. The construction contractor shall use USEPA-rated Tier 3 construction engines for equipment rated at 50 horsepower or greater for general site grading activities. Tier 3 engines between 90 and 750 horsepower are available for 2006 to 2008 model years.
f. A list of construction equipment by type and model year shall be maintained by the construction contractor onsite.

44. Mitigation Measure 7-1 (applicable portions,). In addition to compliance with existing requirements and standards of the LACFD, the project must comply with all applicable requirements detailed in letters dated March 16, 2012, from the LACFD, included in Appendix L of the Draft EIR that are applicable to Lot 7. Where the two letters differ, the more conservative approach shall be taken. The le~ers include the following requirements, among others:
a. Access shall comply with Section 503 of the Fire Code, which requires all-weather access. All-weather access may require paving.
b. Where driveways extend farther than 150 feet and are of single-access design, turnarounds suitable for fire protection equipment use shall be provided and shown on the final map. Tumarounds shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to ensure their integrity for fire department use. Where topography dictates, turnarounds shall be provided for driveways that extend over 150 feet in length. c. Provide water mains, fire hydrants, and fire flows as required by the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for all land shown on map which shall be recorded. d. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction to all required fire hydrants.
e. Vehicular access must be provided and maintained serviceable throughout construction.
197
Resolution No 23-52

Prior to Final Sign-Off

45. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department. A final approval shall not be issued until the Planning Department has determined that the project complies with this CDP.

46. 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.

Fixed Conditions

47. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.

48. 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.

Operations

49. The approved hours of operation are limited to 8:00 a.m. to sunset,seven days a week.

50. At least 36 parking spaces shall be provided at all times.

Signs

51. No other new signage is permitted under this application; a sign permit shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Department prior to installation of any new sign.

SECTION 7. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of November 2023.

KRAIGr’ILL,
Al1
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
‘I * • ~h
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
198
Resolution No 23-52

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

13.20.1 (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.

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 23-52 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 30th day of November 2023 by the following vote:

AYES: 5 Commissioners: Mazza, Peak, Leonard, Smith, Hill NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
REBECCA EVAN , Recording Secretary
199
1 Planning Commission
From: Dr Amora
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 4:32 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Permanent skate park Needed in Malibu
Dear Commisioners and City Council,
Malibu Youth need a permanent skate park.

There are very few spaces in Malibu that the kids can hang, have fun, and be safe.

The skate park is one of them.

Kids skate and roller skate and just hang.

Please make this a permanent space for our children!
Dr. Amora Magna
Malibu Resident
Mother of 5
Sent from my iPhone
Exhibit F
200
1 Planning Commission
From: Arpie Petkus
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 5:02 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support for the Permanent Skate Park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Malibu City Council & Planning commission.

I’m writing to beg you to please approve the construction of the permanent skate park! My two children were involved in the push for this park; there have been so many delays one of my children is in college now. Please let’s get this done.

There is a need for a skate park! Malibu has so few park areas for kids.  There is Bluffs Park & Trancas; That’s it.

The park at Malibu Elementary site has been taken away from the community since the pandemic it is locked and kids & adults are not allowed access to it. That’s a topic for another meeting.

For today, please let’s get this skate park approved to be built. Our kids deserve a safe environment to gather & skate. I would like to see the City of Malibu  do something for the kids, youth & their families. Additionally, this population is a critical part of our community. A family friendly community correlates to appealing to more families which also may draw more families & more families equals better public school enrollment. Better school enrollment equals better funding and programs for students. Better rated schools help property values.  So whether or not you have kids this project is good for Malibu.

Thank you for your time & service,
Arpie Petkus
Point Dume Malibu Resident
Realtor Pinnacle Estate Properties, Inc.
‐‐
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.

A R P I E P E T K U S
3 2 3 . 5 9 5 . 1 1 6 2
Pinnacle Estate Properties
23733 Malibu Road, Suite 500
201
2 Malibu, CA 90265
malibuarpie.com
ig @arpie.petkus.realestate
DRE 02106374
This email may be confidential. If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited. 202
1 Planning Commission
From: Ashley Steele
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 5:59 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Skate park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City of Malibu,
I am wriƟng this leƩer in regards to the need of a permanent skate park in the city of Malibu. We are new to the area having just moved from Dana Point this August. The single most important thing to our son in discussing the upcoming move was whether or not Malibu had a skatepark. Thank God it did because it has been his only real outlet since moving here, as we have found that the city lacks many sports and recreaƟon programs that other areas have. We have been very grateful for this current skatepark……however, it is very noƟceable that this is only a temporary skate park. We need a permanent skatepark that our community can be proud of.

As a family we have traveled far and wide exploring amazing parts of the world with the kids skateboards in tow. In our many journeys to skateparks we have discovered the most amazing community of people. A skatepark is a place where people young and old come to be creaƟve and find their flow. In both Australia and New Zealand you will find a solid skatepark in nearly every town you stumble upon, some big some small but all with a unique character that oŌen mirrors their town. In these areas skateparks are a welcomed. Malibu is a very special community and like it or not we are in the epicenter for the surf/skate community. We need a safe creaƟve space for our children. Please think of the children. We tell them to get off the devices and go outside and play so let's show them we care and give them a fun safe place.

Being new to town I do not know all the poliƟcs surrounding the push back going on here. But, I do know that there are skateparks all over the world that seem to blend harmoniously into towns without most people even baƫng an eye.

I have heard noise was a complaint. I would like to know specifically if there is a problem currently with the noise at the exisƟng temporary skatepark as from my experience it is much quieter than the PCH and the cheers of the parents from sports teams.. This issue should not slow the progress of construcƟon. I would love to understand why there are skateparks all over the world that work well for residents but somehow Malibu seems to have extra circumstances. What exactly is the hold up and how can we work together to quickly get the process moving as Ɵme is fleeƟng, children grow so fast. Please, let's not wast anymore Ɵme and do right for the kids right now.

Sincerely,
Ashley Steele

203
1 Planning Commission
From: Bracken Carter
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 4:58 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support for Permanent Skatepark
Hi,
My name is Bracken Carter‐Webb, I was born and raised in Malibu, and now live here with my family. My 3 kids, ages 10,12 & 15 anll aƩend Malibu schools.

My kids love being outdoors and have been looking forward to the new skatepark, a permanent skatepark which we all thought was a for sure thing.

Malibu lacks places for kids & teens to go. No more movie theater, less field space, no Pizza Hut or family restaurant to gather. If there was more things to do in our city for kids, there would be less neighborhood disturbance. Most ciƟes, and liƩle townships around the world have a permanent skateparks. It's absurd that we are sƟll fighƟng for this.

I know my kids would use the skatepark from Ɵme to Ɵme, even my 10yr old daughter loves to meet up with her friends and skate or roller skate at this current on. When my kids were liƩle, and not in organized sports, we would drive over the hill to Simi valley and Westlake to use those skateparks/playgrounds for play dates. Skateparks are great place for all ages! Please don't take this away, Please support the permanent skatepark! All the best,
Bracken
204
1 Planning Commission
From: Briggs Geraghty
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 3:16 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: For skate park
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sent from my iPhone
I am wriƟng to express my strong support for the establishment of a permanent skate park in our community. As an avid skateboarder, I believe such a facility would not only provide a safe and designated space for enthusiasts like myself but also contribute posiƟvely to the overall vibrancy of our neighborhood.

I am eagerly anƟcipaƟng the opportunity to have a local skate park that fosters community engagement, physical acƟvity, and a sense of belonging. Your approval of this iniƟaƟve would undoubtedly enhance the recreaƟonal opƟons available to residents and promote a healthier, more acƟve lifestyle.

Thank you for considering the implementaƟon of a permanent skate park, and I look forward to witnessing the posiƟve impact it will have on our community.

Sincerely,Briggs I’m  a 7th grader at malibu middle school 205
1 Planning Commission
From: Dajana Mitchell
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 3:02 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Permant Skatepark Support/Approval
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern: Planning Commission
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.

I’m writing you today to let you know that my famliy is supporting the build of a permanent skatepark in Malibu. My son Jaden is 16 years old and has lived 14 years of his live in Malibu. He’s a junior at Malibu High and a member of the Malibu Sharks Surf team. In 2019, Jaden and his friends attended every city council meeting and the planning commission meetings to rally for a permanent skatepark. The kids attended the final design meetings and were invited to be the first kids to skate the temporary park in July 2020. When we heard that the permanent park is once again in question, we couldn’t believe it. We fought so hard and we won’t give up. Malibu needs places for the youth! We have lots of kids in Malibu that skate and surf. It’s a way for them to stay active (and out of trouble) and a great opportunity to socialize and build community. It is without a doubt that myself and my family support a permanent skatepark in Malibu.

Please consider In support of the permanent skatepark to show the kids that you care about the Malibu community and our kids.

Thank you!
Best regards
Dajana Mitchell
206
1 Planning Commission
From: Heather Alfano
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 3:45 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Skatepark
Dear All,
Please make note of my full support for a permanent skate park in Malibu! These public spaces that add joy, camaraderie, and a sense of community are invaluable!
Thank you,
Heather Alfano
Sent from my iPhone
207
1 Planning Commission
From: Heather Gardner
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 3:53 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: We support the Permanent Skate Park!!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello Planning Commission!!
I wanted to write a quick email that The Gardner Family, Michael, Dakota, Autumn, and myself, all approve of finally getting our permanent park!
We will attend Monday's meeting and some of us will be speaking to voice our support :) Any chance that during the meeting, we could post on the main projector some images of the kids during the whole process years ago‐ from city council meetings to group planning of the park, so that the audience and commission and city council members will remember all that has occurred in years past? Please let me know and I can either organize it or send you images that you can make into a slide show.  It can be incorporated into my speech if that's best.

Also, please note that I represent the voice of hundreds of Malibu residents and skaters.

Thank you!!
‐‐
Heather Gardner Jewelry, Founder and Designer
www.heathergardner.com
Email:

Cell:

Instagram:

FB|Pinterest:
208
1 Planning Commission
From: Jodi Gourson
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 6:34 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Permanent skatepark-approval consideration
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern: Planning Commission
Thank you for taking this email.

It is without a doubt that myself and my family support a permanent skatepark in Malibu.

It is but ONE thing the community at large has asked for (with varying temperaments) over the past 20+ years.

We moved to Malibu in 2018 and have watched the city change, quite dramaƟcally, since the Wholsey fire.

As a community leader, such as you, I could only assume you have the courage to grab the development of Malibu by the arm and lead the way to a safer, supported community and encourage growth, for all.

With most homes being surrounded by privacy  fences and beaches with private gates, a public skatepark offers a place for all ages to find people, make friends,  build community and have fun! Many of the local kids go to private schools, while our own public schools suffer with low aƩendance…a skatepark would give the kids a place to know each other, congregate and communicate…reducing conflict along the way as well as reducing stress in the local market place parking lots and PCH.

Regardless of circumstances, supporƟng our children and community can only benefit Malibu to become stronger and a more desirable place to live for anyone.

Please consider In support of the permanent skatepark, a posiƟve step towards progress for “kids” of all ages and the Malibu legacy that has a long history and passion for skaƟng, as well as the long over‐due need for a safe place to do so.

It will be a beauƟful addiƟon to Malibu and the Bluffs park… skateparks change lives, for the beƩer.

Anyway, thank you for your Ɵme.

Jodi Gourson
xxJodi
209
1 Planning Commission
From: Jaime Haskell
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 3:50 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please make the skate park permanent
We are absolutely in favor of the skate park being a permanent part of Malibu! Thank you! Jaime Haskell
Have a lovely day!
210
1 From: Jenni Runyan >
Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2023 3:09 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Subject: Skatepark
Hi - I’m Jenni Runyan, a community member of Malibu and mother of two boys, ages 13 & 15. I’d like to address the plans to build the skatepark for the kids of Malibu. As I understand, this project has already been approved but still requires more feedback from people in the city to get it going and actually build it, years after the official approval. The kids deserve a place to skate and be safe. The city does very little for the families that live here and this project is a perfect example of just how difficult it can be to get something useful and helpful for the youth.

After trying to take away the kids “snack shack” for them to get food during the long days of baseball at Bluffs, limiting the fields for them to use for sports, the least the city could do would be to move forward with the preapproved skate park plans.

I see several new strip malls popping up that remain vacant and several mansions built at Bluffs park and it just blows my mind that the people in this town have to fight to get something positive for the kids that live here year round.

Please stop making this so hard for the families and move forward with this project. The kids will appreciate it.

Thank you,
Jenni Runyan
211
1 Planning Commission
From: Laura Angotti
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 3:38 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please move forward with the permanent skate park! Dear planning commission,
My name is Laura Angotti.  I’m a very active member of the community, youth sports and activities.  I cannot express how important having these upgraded local facilities are for our youth.  In a world where smart phones, social media and video games are often the hang out of choice, having a sweet skate spot right here can be life changing for these kids.

My son 12 & daughter 10 and myself all skateboard and have enjoyed learning on the temp park. IIt has been a huge point of excitement knowing a real skate park is coming to Malibu!  No longer will we need to drive to Venice, Santa Monica, and the valley to have a real cement skate experience.   With both my husband and myself working it is very very hard for us to get to these other parks.

The permanent skate park is truly something that is well worth moving forward on for our children and adults!   It is a positive healthy activity and though the skateboard reputation is one thing, the reality is I’ve never seen any issues with any teens, young kids, or adults in the park.  It is a great melting spot for the community.

PLEASE BUILD THE SKATE PARK!
Thank you!
Laura Angotti
Laura Angotti “head sprout”
p.

RowdySprout.com
212
1 Planning Commission
From: Maxwell Gourson
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2023 9:10 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Permanent Skatepark!!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hi my name is Max Gourson,
It would mean so much to me and our community as a whole if you decide to approve the skatepark.

My friends and I have been petitioning for this since 2019, I am now a freshman in college. Although I'm not as active in the process as I used to be because of school and living in another state, I still have so much love and passion towards this project. The countless hours my friends have put into this is something we will never get back and it is all leading up to this vote. When voting please keep in mind the positive impact it will have on our community. Especially after dealing with a community splitting disaster like the Woolsey fire, we need something to bring the community back together and keep the youth smiling.

I will be back to Malibu for Thanksgiving break and will definitely be showing my support towards this skatepark.

Thank you for reading this and please VOTE YES
‐ Max Gourson
213
1 Planning Commission
From: Mara Love
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 5:38 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Hello*~
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Planning Commission,
I hope this email finds you well. I am wriƟng to express my wholehearted support for the establishment of a permanent skatepark in our city. As a resident, parent, and advocate for the well‐being of our community's youth, I believe that providing dedicated spaces for outdoor acƟviƟes, such as skateboarding, is crucial for the growth and development of our children.

Our family has deep roots in this city, very involved with parents guilds at Our Lady Malibu, Boy Scouts, ex Sunday school teacher and ex consultant ad Los Angeles Missions under Ivan Klassen.  I take immense pride in raising our kids here in stunning Malibu. Traveling so much my child Wolf has found a true passion in skateboarding, and it has become his favorite outdoor sport. However, the lack of a permanent skatepark within our city limits has posed a significant challenge for hem and many other young enthusiasts. I lose have my day driving to Venice skate park as a single Mom and it just doesn't seem fair when we pay so much in property taxes.

It's disheartening beyond measure to see that in a city as affluent as ours, we have to fight so hard for our children to have a safe and enjoyable space to pursue their interests. We recently traveled across the country and even visited some of the smallest and humblest towns. To our surprise, we discovered that these communiƟes, regardless of their size or resources, prioriƟze providing ample outdoor faciliƟes, including substanƟal skate and bike parks, for their youth. Berlin comes to mind the most in regards to playgounds. Riga, Latvia has the most stunning skatepark.  Yes Riga Latvia you read correctly. They prioriƟze children here and it shows.

I believe that invesƟng in a permanent skatepark is not just about supporƟng a niche sport but about invesƟng in the overall well‐being of our community. Skateboarding is not only a physical acƟvity but also a means for our kids to learn valuable life skills such as perseverance, creaƟvity, and camaraderie. A dedicated skatepark will keep them off the streets, where they might face potenƟal risks, and provide a posiƟve outlet for their energy and passion.

Not every parent has the Ɵme or resources to drive their children outside of the city to access beƩer faciliƟes. By establishing a permanent skatepark, we are not only catering to the needs of our current youth but also invesƟng in the future of our community. Our kids are the future leaders, arƟsts, and innovators of this city, and it is our responsibility to provide them with the support and infrastructure they need to thrive.

I urge the City Planning Commission to consider the long‐term benefits of a permanent skatepark, not just for the skaƟng community but for the city as a whole. And implore the City Planning Commission to reevaluate the delays and challenges that have hindered the establishment of the promised permanent skatepark. Let's create a space where our youth can grow, learn, and contribute posiƟvely to the community. I appreciate your Ɵme and consideraƟon on this maƩer and am hopeful for a future where our children can enjoy the recreaƟonal opportuniƟes they deserve.

Thank you for your dedicaƟon to our city's growth and prosperity. God bless you and your family.

Sincerely, With Love
214
2 Mara Lane aka Mother of Wolfy, Wolf Mom, Bringer of snacks to skate parks +
This message contains informaƟon which may be confidenƟal and/or privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, copy, distribute, or disclose any informaƟon contained in the message. If you have received this transmission in error, please noƟfy the sender by reply e‐mail and delete this message. Please note, all rights of concurrent review and comment are hereby reserved. Thank you. 215
1 Planning Commission
From: Melissa Shanahan < >
Sent: Sunday, November 19, 2023 9:58 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: We NEED a permanent, skate park!
The Shanahan Family is in support of the permanent skate park!!! We need places like this for our children to have a great place to hang out with friends, have a physical outlet, and have producƟve fun. There is a very strong culture in Malibu of kids that love to surf and skate. This project was already agreed‐upon and approved, so there should be no reason that it shouldn’t be up and running as soon as possible. Without a skate park, we open up the potenƟal of our kids roaming around Malibu looking to get into trouble because there’s nothing beƩer to do.

Sincerely,
Melissa Shanahan
James Shanahan
Hunter Shanahan
Whitney Shanahan
Bridget Shanahan
Sent from Melissa's iPhone
216
1 Planning Commission
From: Mari Stanley
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2023 1:25 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 5A - Public Comment
I am so against the recommendations to delay the skatepark that I'm telling others of the 'deal' cooked up in 2020 that Reva must have tanked personally given the official minutes of that council meeting do NOT include the agreement of Scott Gillen paying $72K for the city owned land he took and planted trees on to improve his entry gate/guard gate for his housing development.

At this time, I demand that the monies promised are raised as part of the agenda item discussion and that there is a recalculation to today's value of that improved land. It's no longer appropriate or good government leadership to accept the earlier - unpaid - amount.

I also want the Commission to request an accounting of the monies that were supposed to cover using the dirt lot for construction worker parking/staging that Gillen has enjoyed for years. Personally I've been on site and have watched workers using the paved parking area in front of the Landon Center taking valuable public parking from it's intended customers - general public and classes/events held at the Landon Center should have the first right to utilize that parking area and it should never have been assumed by construction workers that they could park there. I know they are from Gillen's project as I've watched them walk from the back portion of the road leading to the skate park/baseball field/storage with tools to the parking spots. Others have been observing and we are connecting to find that there is an abuse that needs to be corrected.

Any recommendations made by the ERB should fall upon the requesting developer/representative to construct on their own property - I stand on that firmly. I note the ERB received new representation appointed the meeting before the ERB heard this skatepark issue and I'm not comfortable with the representation - specifically one Clark Stevens. He is an abomination to this community for the consumption of public funds in the strange twist of his receiving the funds for the Malibu Lagoon Restoration Project and then accepting the job of designing "human elements" which looks, reads, walks and SMELLS like double dipping to all of us involved in that debacle consuming valuable wildlife habitat for human recreation and supposed education (hard to image for how the tidal clock is always submerged and mucky when I've visited, I've yet to find any value to the site for the human elements! Value to humans that received paychecks and questionable awards, yes but outside personal slaps on the back zilch.) I call attention to the staff report as it includes the closure of the Papa Jack's skatepark facility that was supposed to be a simple bridge to the permanent skate park - the closure was in 2010. THIRTEEN YEARS (nearly fourteen) and we still have this type of utter crap being allowed to erode the process and delay the park? I simply see a delay tactic that the newly appointed ERB lathered over and promoted while they gushed over the size of gate gaps. In the ensuing 13 years most of the youths that spoke in favor of a permanent skate park have become adults, such a travesty to deny them the promises 217
2 that were made and now again are in peril - in favor of a single developer's prickly push for profits.

BTW, is it true that Gillen didn't get a Certificate of Occupancy on his last big spin of the wheel with The Castle? Just what good is the process when you have such a rogue now demanding even more consumption of city staff hours while we hear over and over and over that the city staff is overworked and leaving due to the stress. Punt Gillen tonight and you'll relieve some of that stress or you might be blamed for causing more stress and more consumption of public monies to satisfy a DEVELOPER at the cost of the Public Recreation promised to the community. It's on YOU tonight. Let's see if you are paid ponies or if you vote to adopt the addendum suggesting to lower a lip. Gillen can do that on his property, he's had years to address this so he can go pound sand.

Any adoption of changes/revisions will consume more Public monies and I will not remain silent on that fact as I find too many opportunities where public statements are made or written that claim staff is overworked and underappreciated. If you can't see the incredulous nature of pandering to a developer's whims for his profits, I can't see the value of having a Planning Commission that meets publicly.

Mari Stanley
One of you was a seated council member for a portion of those Lost Thirteen Years. How will you explain to your daughters that you helped delay the skatepark? 218
1 Planning Commission
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2023 9:08 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Skatepark
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear City Planning Commission,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the establishment of a permanent skatepark in our city. As a resident, parent, and advocate for the well‐being of our community's youth, I believe that providing dedicated spaces for outdoor activities, such as skateboarding, is crucial for the growth and development of our children.

I take immense pride in raising our kids here in stunning Malibu we travel as a family and skateboard all over the world, we talked to skaters in Florence Italy, the city of Florence has seen the positive influence of a skatepark to build more within the city limits
We are grateful for the temporary skatepark and the opportunities it gave our children during the pandemic to have an outlet to participate in activities with their malibu friends, especially when the kids were doing school at home, the joys on their faces to see their friends at the skatepark was beautiful to see I believe that investing in a permanent skatepark is not just about supporting a niche sport but about investing in the overall well‐being of our community. Skateboarding is not only a physical activity but also a means for our kids to learn valuable life skills such as perseverance, creativity, and camaraderie. It is also a place for parent’s interaction to further build community
The skatepark will be a welcoming’Third place’
In sociology, the third place refers to the social surroundings that are separate from the two usual social environments of home ("first place") and the work place ("second place") In his book The Great Good Place (1989), Ray Oldenburg argues that third places are important for civil society, democracy, civic engagement and establishing feelings of a sense of place.

Other scholars have summarized Oldenburg's view of a third place with eight characteristics:[1][3] Neutral ground
Occupants of third places have little to no obligation to be there. They are not tied down to the area financially, politically, legally, or otherwise and are free to come and go as they please.

Leveler (a leveling place)
Third places put no importance on an individual's status in a society. One's socioeconomic status does not matter in a third place, allowing for a sense of commonality among its occupants. There are no prerequisites or requirements that would prevent acceptance or participation in the third place.
219
2 Conversation is the main activity
Playful and happy conversation is the main focus of activity in third places, although it is not required to be the only activity. The tone of conversation is usually light-hearted and humorous; wit and good-natured playfulness are highly valued.

Accessibility and accommodation
Third places must be open and readily accessible to those who occupy them. They must also be accommodating, meaning they provide for the wants of their inhabitants, and all occupants feel their needs have been fulfilled.

The regulars
Third places harbor a number of regulars that help give the space its tone, and help set the mood and characteristics of the area. Regulars to third places also attract newcomers, and are there to help someone new to the space feel welcome and accommodated.

A low profile
Third places are characteristically wholesome. The inside of a third place is without extravagance or grandiosity, and has a cozy feel. Third places are never snobby or pretentious, and are accepting of all types of individuals, from various different walks of life.

The mood is playful
The tone of conversation in third places is never marked with tension or hostility. Instead, third places have a playful nature, where witty conversation and frivolous banter are not only common, but highly valued.

A home away from home
Occupants of third places will often have the same feelings of warmth, possession, and belonging as they would in their own homes. They feel a piece of themselves is rooted in the space, and gain spiritual regeneration by spending time there.

I urge the City Planning Commission to consider the long‐term benefits of a permanent skatepark, not just for the skating community but for the city as a whole and implore the City Planning Commission to reevaluate the delays and challenges that have hindered the establishment of the promised permanent skatepark that was so generously gifted to the city of Malibu by the developers of the magnificent homes next to the skatepark Let's create a space where our youth can grow, learn, and contribute positively to the community. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter and am hopeful for a future where our children can enjoy the recreational opportunities they deserve.

Thank you for your dedication to our city's growth and prosperity Nathan Jones
Jones Builders Group
310 694 3274 Fax
www.jonesbuildersgroup.com
220
1 Planning Commission
From: Rosa Ferro
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 1:21 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Strong Support for Malibu's Permanent Skatepark Dear City Planning Commission,
I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my wholehearted support for the establishment of a permanent skatepark in our city. As a resident, parent, and advocate for the well-being of our community's youth, I believe that providing dedicated spaces for outdoor activities, such as skateboarding, is crucial for the growth and development of our children.

Our family has deep roots in this city, and we take immense pride in raising our kids here. As homeschoolers, my children have found a true passion in skateboarding, and it has become their favorite outdoor sport.

However, the lack of a permanent skatepark within our city limits has posed a significant challenge for them and many other young enthusiasts.

It's disheartening to see that in a city as affluent as ours, we have to fight so hard for our children to have a safe and enjoyable space to pursue their interests. We recently traveled across the country and even visited some of the smallest and humblest towns. To our surprise, we discovered that these communities, regardless of their size or resources, prioritize providing ample outdoor facilities, including substantial skate and bike parks, for their youth.

I believe that investing in a permanent skatepark is not just about supporting a niche sport but about investing in the overall well-being of our community. Skateboarding is not only a physical activity but also a means for our kids to learn valuable life skills such as perseverance, creativity, and camaraderie. A dedicated skatepark will keep them off the streets, where they might face potential risks, and provide a positive outlet for their energy and passion.

Not every parent has the time or resources to drive their children outside of the city to access better facilities.

By establishing a permanent skatepark, we are not only catering to the needs of our current youth but also investing in the future of our community. Our kids are the future leaders, artists, and innovators of this city, and it is our responsibility to provide them with the support and infrastructure they need to thrive.

I urge the City Planning Commission to consider the long-term benefits of a permanent skatepark, not just for the skating community but for the city as a whole. And implore the City Planning Commission to reevaluate the delays and challenges that have hindered the establishment of the promised permanent skatepark. Let's create a space where our youth can grow, learn, and contribute positively to the community. I appreciate your time and consideration on this matter and am hopeful for a future where our children can enjoy the recreational opportunities they deserve.

Thank you for your dedication to our city's growth and prosperity.

Sincerely,
Rosa Ferro
Co-Founder, Nurtured Nests, LLC
Healthy Building & Design Consulting Firm
Malibu, CA 90265
nurturednests.com
221
2 O: 424.346.0038 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 222
1 From: Robert Gold
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2023 5:32 PM
To: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Cc: Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Paul Grisanti <[email protected]>; Scott Gillen Subject: Skatepark "Story Poles"
SteveWe appreciate your allowing the staking and installation of a few "story poles" at the skatepark site yesterday and today.

Scott and I met with Marianne at the site this afternoon and she mentioned that you expressed an interest in having them taken down as soon as possible in order to reopen the entire lot for parking.

I have made appointments with two Planning Commissioners to meet at the park to look at the "story poles" and discuss the project. I also intend to reach out to the balance of the Commissioners to see if they will meet with me onsite.

Of the two Commissioners that I have spoken with, one can not meet until Sunday.

I have also reviewed the Planning Department's Story Pole Policy dated June 25, 2008 which provides that story poles shall be required for all Coastal Development Permits to demonstrate height, bulk and location of a proposed project that may potentially impact public and/or private views and story poles are to remain in place throughout the approval process.

While the physical structure of the skatepark may not impact views and therefore is an argument that story poles were not required, the proposed change in grades give rise to 223
2 potential visual impacts, which you can see, and therefore we request that the staking and the story poles remain installed for now.

Marianne and I thought that the cones and yellow tape could be moved closer to the staking area, allowing a large portion of the lot to be open for parking until the story poles are removed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
‐‐
Robert Gold
Confidentiality Notice: "This communication is confidential and is intended only for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed.

The information contained in it may be confidential, subject to professional privilege, proprietary, or protected from disclosure for other reasons. If you are not the intended addressee, then please delete it, notify the sender immediately and do not disclose, disseminate or reproduce any part of it."
224
1 Planning Commission
From: Victoria Schriver
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 12:03 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Permanent skatepark
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Hello,
I am wriƟng to you in support of the Malibu permanent skate park. My son is 11 and enjoys this park so much.  It is always a nice group of friendly skaters.  I can't imagine Malibu without it.  Please let this skate park remain! Thank you,
The Luteman Family
Sent from my iPhone
225
1 Planning Commission
From: walt lohr
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 5:57 PM
To: Planning Commission; [email protected]
Subject: Permanent Skatepark in Malibu
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Planning Commission Members,
The people of Malibu have wanted a permanent skatepark for many years. The City created committees to assess the demand, feasibility, costs and options available to the City. This happened many years ago and the demand has grown in the elapsed time. The demand for a permanent skate park will grow until the needs of Malibu families, skaters, scooters and children are met.

The City of Malibu approved the development of luxury homes on an empty parcel of land that is adjacent to Bluffs Park.

This land was ideal for park development but instead was allowed to be developed for luxury homes. The developer of this project rallied support for his project by saying his project would come with additional playing fields and a permanent skate park. Citizens of Malibu gave their support believing that a permanent skatepark was part of the project. A temporary skatepark was built and thoroughly enjoyed and utilized by families, children, skaters and scooters.  Now that the homes have been built the same developer has withdrawn his support for a permanent skate park because it affects his development. Building luxury homes benefits a minority interest of the few who can afford them, build them and sell them. Building parks benefits a majority interest of families, children and the multitudes of people who can use them for free.

Eyes are on the the City of Malibu and its Planning Commision. People know the history of how we got to this point.

Building a permanent skatepark will show the people of Malibu that the City government serves the majority of citizens, families and children. Thank you for supporting building a permanent skatepark in Malibu.

Sincerely,
Walter Lohr
Raul Lizarraga
Charlie Davenport
Scott Davenport
226
1 City Council
From: Bill Sampson
Sent: Saturday, February 24, 2024 11:05 AM
To: City Council
Subject: February 26, 2024 meeting, item 4A
Councilmembers:

It is apparent when comparing this item with item 6D (proposed settlement with Gillen) that there may be a relationship between the two items. The other item is subject to a proposed settlement agreement discussed and approved (? by at least a majority of the council?) behing closed doors at a special meeting of the council. Yet this item subjects the town's skaters to yet another delay of their skatepark. I do not skate since I see no reason to further enrich orthopedic surgeons, but, I know these people have waited far too long. Let's move the along. Forget the continuance and get this built. Thank you.

Bill Sampson
227
1 City Council
Subject: Skatepark on 2/26 CC agenda - clarification pls From: Mari Stanley
Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2024 6:13 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]> Subject: Skatepark on 2/26 CC agenda - clarification pls Hi,
I'm looking for clarification to potentially be able to advise others IF Gillen takes this to Coastal Commission after he gets a dose of reality in the 2/26 mtg.

My concerns are: does Coastal only take into consideration the issues raised in the appeal denial? So if residents want to spotlight the aggressive behaviors of the security guard regarding the illegal parking of Gillen's construction crew, the lack of payment for the past agreement allowing Gillen to plant trees on a portion of the City property, the continued "manufactured' delays at commission meetings, inappropriate/threatening behavior in public meetings, etc...'we' have to get it into record in the 2/26 meeting? I'm just looking for advice to share info so we don't feel shut out/ignored/played at Coastal. Gillen has legal support, I just want to amp up good support for the City's stance.

Mari Stanley
228
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, February 26, 2024, at 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA and via teleconference, for the project identified below.

APPEAL NO. 23-008 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-52 certifying Addendum No. 3 to the Crummer Site Subdivision Project Final Environmental Impact Report and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 23-001 for the construction of a 12,500 square foot in-ground permanent skatepark, 146 square foot two-stall restroom building, 36 stall parking lot, two bioretention basins, landscaping, cross-walk over Winter Mesa Drive, various skating equipment, fencing, and benches located on Lot 7 of The Case (formerly Crummer) property in the Planned Development and Public Open Space zoning districts located at 24250 Pacific Coast Highway LOCATION / APNs: 24250 Pacific Coast Hwy / 4458-018-907 & 4458-018-904 ZONING: Planned Development and Open Space
APPLICANT / OWNER: City of Malibu
APPELLANT: 600 Spring LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: SCH #2008091155 / CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 APPLICATION FILED: January 9, 2023
APPEAL FILED: December 11, 2023
CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the projects. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.

Following an oral staff report at the beginning of the hearing, the applicants and appellants may be given up to 15 minutes to make a presentation. Any amount of that time may be saved for rebuttal. All other persons wishing to address the Council will be provided three minutes to address the Council. These time limits may be changed at the discretion of the Council. At the conclusion of the testimony, the Council will deliberate and its decision will be memorialized in a written resolution.

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

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

RICHARD MOLLICA, Planning Director Date: February 1, 2024 Exhibit G
229