Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, July 14, 2025 (part 2 of 6)

____________________
b. An event has been held on the property without the required permit in the past year.
c. The property has outstanding code enforcement violations, unless a compliance agreement between the City and the owner of the property exists that addresses a resolution to the violation, and the owner is in compliance with the requirements of the agreement.
d. The proposed event would create a public nuisance or violate any City, County, State, or Federal regulation.
e. The owner has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application, or in any report or statement required to be filed that is related to the application.

C. Temporary signage.

1. Businesses may obtain temporary signage permits subject to the following limitations. The requirements of Chapter 17.52 shall not apply so long as the businesses or property owners obtain a temporary sign permit from the City and meet the following requirements. All other signs are subject to chapter 17.52. a. Six (6) signs per shopping center as defined by the Malibu Municipal Code or two (2) signs per parcel for all other commercial businesses which shall not exceed 16 square feet in size each.
b. Signs must be temporary and not have any permanent foundations or footings.
c. Signs shall not be illuminated unless authorized by the planning director.

2. The planning director may impose conditions on the permit to protect against the sign creating a nuisance or to increase the safety of the sign.

SECTION 5. Effective Date.

The ZTA sections referenced in Section 6 of this ordinance shall become effective 30 days following adoption by the City Council.

SECTION 6. Severability.

Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality or the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared and this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

Ordinance No. 526

Page 6 of 6 ends

____________________
SECTION 7. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this _______ day of ___________ 2025. _____________________________
MARIANNE RIGGINS, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/MA5043 on 2025-01-29 ZONING
§ 17.02.060. Definitions.
"Director" refers to the Community Development Director planning director of the city of Malibu or his or her designated appointee.

Downloaded from https://ecode360.com/MA5043 on 2025-01-29 ZONING
CHAPTER 17.68

TEMPORARY USE PERMITS
§ 17.68.010. Purpose.

The temporary use permit is intended to allow for the short-term placement of activities, many of which would be prohibited as permanent placements, in temporary facilities, public or private buildings or open spaces, or outside of buildings. Activities involving any commercial component such as: admission fee, renting of facility, charging for valet parking or shuttle service and/or public advertising shall require a temporary use permit. Temporary use permits shall be limited to four events per parcel of land per calendar year in residential zoning districts, and six events per parcel of land per calendar year in all zoning districts, except residential or as described in Section 17.68.090 below. All activities shall be regulated so as to avoid incompatibility between such uses and surrounding areas. (Prior code § 9490; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999)
§ 17.68.020. Application filing.

Application for a temporary use permit shall be filed according to Sections 17.04.110 through 17.04.150. (Prior code § 9491; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999)
§ 17.68.030. Application submittal requirements.

Application for temporary use permit shall include the following:

A. Uniform application, signed by both applicant and landowner; B. Filing fee;
C. Site plan (three copies) including the dimensions of the lot, location of all temporary structures, access onto the site, and parking areas;
D. A written description detailing the type and nature of the temporary use requested and the dates and hours of operation of the temporary use. In addition, provide information on how noise, garbage, sanitation, dust, etc., are going to be mitigated;
E. Agency approval sheet, signed by all agencies;
F. Proof of liability insurance for the subject property; G. Indemnification/hold harmless agreement;
H. Public notice property owner and occupant mailing labels; provide three sets of labels for properties within a 500 foot radius of the subject property.
(Prior code § 9492; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999)
§ 17.68.040. Temporary uses requiring permit.

A temporary use permit may be issued by the planning director for the following uses:

A. Real estate sales offices within approved development projects; B. Model homes and temporary tract sales offices for a project opened to the public for the first time; C. Christmas tree and pumpkin sales lots; however, a permit shall not be required when such sales are in

Page 3 of 8 ends

conjunction with an established commercial business holding a valid city business license, provided such activity shall be permitted for a period not to exceed 30 consecutive calendar days; D. Circuses and carnivals;
E. Special events related to an existing business with temporary outdoor display/sales of merchandise in any commercial zone, provided there shall be no more than four displays/sales in any calendar year, and not more than two consecutive days, and that the displayed merchandise is customarily sold on the premises, and that such premises are utilized for a permanently established business; F. Indoor and outdoor entertainment and assembly events, including, but not limited to, weddings, fundraisers, retreats, fairs, festivals and concerts, when not held within premises designed to accommodate such events, such as: auditoriums, stadiums or other public assembly facilities, or private clubhouse facilities not associated with public cultural or recreational facilities; G. Art, cultural, and educational exhibits and displays; H. Swap meets for no more than two consecutive days;
I. Off-site contractors' construction yards;
J. Outdoor sporting events;
K. Similar temporary uses which, in the opinion of the director, are compatible with the zone and surrounding land uses;
L. Off-site surface parking on a vacant commercially zoned lot for the farmers market within 350 feet of the farmers market to replace required parking displaced by construction. The dates for this use shall not count against the maximum 60 calendar days within one calendar year for which a site can be used for temporary uses. This provision shall expire the earlier of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Santa Monica College or on January 1, 2024.

M. Temporary relocation of a permitted farmer's market to a publicly-owned park located within 350 feet of the permitted location so long as such use does not exceed one day per week. The dates for this use shall not count against the maximum 60 calendar days within one calendar year for which a site can be used for temporary uses, nor toward the six events per parcel limit. Any approvals for this use shall be good for six months. The application for a TUP is required to be filed with the planning department 16 days prior to the proposed use. Public notices shall be mailed not less than 14 days prior to the proposed use. The planning director shall render a decision 12 days prior to the proposed use. In addition to a TUP, a facilities use permit must be obtained prior to the relocation of the farmer's market. This provision shall expire the earlier of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for Santa Monica College or on January 1, 2024.
(Prior code § 9493; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999; Ord. 456 § 4, 2019; Ord. 495 § 4, 2022; Ord. 505U § 2, 2022) § 17.68.050. Required permits and public notice.

A temporary use permit approved by the planning director shall be required for all uses listed in this chapter, and shall be issued prior to commencement of the use. A public hearing shall not be required for the issuance of a temporary use permit; however, a five-day public notice of the proposed event shall be provided as follows:

A. Application for temporary use permit shall be filed with the planning department 35 days prior to the proposed use.

Page 4 of 8 ends

City of Malibu, CA
§ 17.68.050 MALIBU CODE § 17.68.070
B. A notice shall be mailed, postage pre-paid, to any organization or homeowners associations that requests such notice in writing and to all property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and in no event less than 10 developed properties.

C. The public notice shall state the nature of the request, location and zoning designation of the property, name of the project proponent, and the time and place of the proposed temporary use.

D. Public notices shall be mailed not less than 32 days prior to the proposed event.

E. The planning director shall render a decision 24 days prior to the proposed use. (Prior code § 9494; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999)
§ 17.68.060. Findings.

The director may approve a temporary use permit application; provided, that all of the following findings of fact are made:

A. That the operation of the requested use at the location proposed and within the time period specified is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood uses;
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the temporary use; C. That the proposed site is adequately served by streets or highways having sufficient width and improvements to accommodate the kind and quantity of traffic that such temporary use will or could reasonably generate;
D. That adequate temporary parking to accommodate vehicular traffic to be generated by such use will be available either on-site or at alternate locations acceptable to the planning director; E. That the proposed use will not jeopardize the public peace, safety or general welfare, or be injurious or detrimental to properties adjacent to; or in the vicinity of, the proposed location of the activity; F. That the event shall not exceed a total of 14 consecutive calendar days and that the proposed site has not been used for temporary uses for more than 60 calendar days within any one calendar year; and G. That no complaints have been filed against the current property owner with the Los Angeles County district attorney's office during the 24 months preceding the date of application submittal. (Prior code § 9495; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999)
§ 17.68.070. Conditions of approval.

In approving an application for a temporary use permit, the director may impose such conditions as are deemed necessary to insure that the permit will be in accord with the findings required by Section

17.68.060. These conditions may involve any pertinent factors affecting the operation of the temporary use, and may include but are not limited to the following:

A. Provision of adequate temporary off-street parking facilities, including vehicular access and egress as defined by the planning director;
B. Regulation of nuisance factors such as, but not limited to, the prevention of glare or direct illumination of adjacent properties, noise, vibrations, smoke, dust, dirt, odors, gasses and heat; C. Regulation of temporary buildings, structures and facilities, including placement, height and size, location of equipment and open spaces, including buffer areas and other yards;

Page 5 of 8 ends

D. Provision of sanitary and medical facilities;
E. Provision of solid waste collection and disposal;
F. Provision of security and safety measures;
G. Regulation of signs;
H. Regulation of operating hours and days, including limitation of the duration of the temporary use to a shorter time period than that requested, and limiting the hours for event set-up, break-down, and cleanup;
I. Submission of a performance bond or other surety devices to ensure that any temporary facilities or structures used for such proposed temporary use will be removed from the site within a reasonable time following the event and that the property will be restored to its former condition; J. Submission of a site plan indicating any information required by this chapter; K. Requirement that the approval of the temporary use permit is contingent upon compliance with applicable provisions of other ordinances;
L. Such other conditions which will ensure the operation of the proposed temporary use in an orderly and efficient manner and in accord with the intent and purpose of this chapter; M. Applicants for special event permits shall:

1. Provide containers for recycling cans, glass, plastic and paper generated,

2. Provide information and guidance to assure recycling of materials listed above,

3. Comply with the city's solid waste recycling ordinance, and

4. Submit a plan indicating efforts to reduce, reuse or recycle waste generated; N. The event shall not cause any noises, sounds or vibrations which are physically annoying to reasonable persons of ordinary sensitivity or which are so harsh or so prolonged or unnatural or unusual in their use, time or place as to occasion unnecessary discomfort to any persons within a 500 foot radius of the place from which such noises emanate or which interfere with the peace and comfort of residents, occupants or guests of the surrounding neighborhood, or the operators or customers in places of business in the vicinity;
O. The applicant shall demonstrate that the holding capacity of surrounding streets and intersections is sufficient to sustain the use without conflicting with established general plan goals and policies; P. Submission of additional services bond for the purpose of protecting, assisting and regulating the proposed event. The cost of providing such additional services shall be paid in advance to the city by the applicant;
Q. The temporary use shall conform to city planning department, building and safety department, public works department, Los Angeles County fire prevention bureau, Los Angeles County sheriff's department, Los Angeles County mountain and rural sanitation department programs, regulations and requirements;
R. The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the city and its officers, agents, and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the city or its officers, agents, or employees

Page 6 of 8 ends

to attack, set aside, void, or annul approval of this permit; S. The applicant shall furnish insurance in the amount to be determined by the planning director, but in no event less than one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) to protect the city against claims of third persons for personal injury, wrongful death and property damage; T. The applicant shall have a copy of the approved temporary use permit available on-site during the entire duration of the use.
(Prior code § 9496; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999)
§ 17.68.080. Appeals and revocation.

A. The applicant may appeal the decision of the planning director to the planning commission within three calendar days of the decision date.

B. A temporary use permit may be revoked if the planning director finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:

1. Circumstances have been changed by the applicant to such a degree that one or more of the findings of fact contained in Section 17.68.060 can no longer be made in a positive manner.

2. The temporary use permit was obtained in a fraudulent manner.

3. One or more conditions of the temporary use permit have not been fulfilled. (Prior code § 9497; Ord. 190 § 7, 1999)
§ 17.68.090. Temporary use permit requirements related to impacts from the 2025 Palisades Fire.

To aid recovery from the 2025 Palisades Fire, The following temporary uses will be allowed only for events specified in Section 17.68.040 with 250 or fewer persons on commercially and institutionally zoned parcels to aid economic recovery resulting from the 2025 Palisades Fire subject to the appropriate event permits listed in this Section. This Section will be in effect from June 23, 2025 through January 31, 2026, subject to the following procedures and requirements. These provisions do not supersede the requirements of the City’s Events must first be reviewed for compliance with the Malibu Local Coastal Program prior to this chapter. Only one event permitted under this Section is allowed at a time. This section shall not apply to events with more than 250 persons.

A. Events with 99 attendees persons or less:

1. A TUP shall not be required, but instead a planning clearance shall must be obtained from the Planning Department Community Development Department authorizing the temporary use.

2. The application shall be submitted at least two (2) calendar days prior to the event. No public noticing is required. The planning director’s decision is not appealable.

3. There are no limits to how many of these types of events may be conducted as long as a planning clearance is obtained.

4. A property is not eligible for a permit pursuant to this Section, and such application shall be denied, if any of the following apply: The City may deny an application for an event planning clearance under this section for reasons including but not limited to a. The property has received a citation for violation of the City’s noise ordinance or other prior public nuisance violation complaint on the parcel in the past year.

Page 7 of 8 ends

b. An holding of events has been held on the property without the required permit in the past year.
c. The property has outstanding active code enforcement violations on the parcel, unless a compliance agreement between the City and the owner of the property exists that addresses a resolution to the violation, and the owner is in compliance with the requirements of the agreement.
d. Tthe proposed event having would create the ability to contribute to a public nuisance or violation of any City, County, State, or Federal regulation. The City shall determine if the event will be subject to a public nuisance or in violation of any law or regulation. e. The owner has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application, or in any report or statement required to be filed that is related to the application.

5. These events shall appear on the City’s weekly Event Report.

6. The planning director may impose conditions on the permit to protect against the event becoming a nuisance to the surrounding neighborhood due to the number of people in attendance, the amount of traffic to be generated, the type and volume of amplified music or entertainment to be utilized and other similar considerations. Conditions shall take into account the size of the property, the capacity of the street on which it is located, the availability of parking and the proximity to neighboring properties and sensitive uses.

B. Events with 100-250 attendees:

1. A TUP pursuant to this chapter is required but the following requirements will replace those in Section 17.68.050 and there shall be no appeal of the planning director’s decision:
a. An application for temporary use permit shall be filed with the planning Community Development Department seven (7) calendar days prior to the proposed use. b. A notice shall be mailed, postage pre-paid, to any organization or homeowners associations that requests such notice in writing and to all property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the subject property, and in no event less than the 10 closest developed properties. c. The public notice shall state the nature of the request, location and zoning designation of the property, name of the project applicant proponent, and the time and place of the proposed temporary use.
d. Public notices shall be mailed not less than five (5) calendar days prior to the proposed event. e. The planning director shall render a decision at least three (3) calendar days prior to the proposed temporary use. The planning director’s decision is not appealable.

2. These events shall be limited to 20 per parcel of land, per calendar year.

3. A property is not eligible for a permit pursuant to this Section, and such application shall be denied, if any of the following apply: The City may deny an application for an event planning clearance under this section for reasons including but not limited to a. The property has received a citation for violation of the City’s noise ordinance or other prior public nuisance violation complaint on the parcel in the past year. b. An holding of events has been held on the property without the required permit in the past year.
c. The property has outstanding active code enforcement violations on the parcel, unless a

Page 8 of 8 ends

compliance agreement between the City and the owner of the property exists that addresses a resolution to the violation, and the owner is in compliance with the requirements of the agreement.
d. Tthe proposed event having would create the ability to contribute to a public nuisance or violation of any City, County, State, or Federal regulation. The City shall determine if the event will be subject to a public nuisance or in violation of any law or regulation. e. The owner has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application, or in any report or statement required to be filed that is related to the application.

C. Events with 251 or more attendees:

1. A TUP pursuant to this chapter, other than Section 17.68.090, is required.

C. Temporary signage.

1. Businesses may obtain temporary signage permits subject to the following limitations. The requirements of Chapter 17.52 shall not apply so long as the businesses or property owners obtain a temporary sign permit from the City and meet the following requirements. All other signs are subject to chapter 17.52.
a. Six (6) signs per shopping center as defined by the Malibu Municipal Code or two (2) signs per parcel for all other commercial businesses and shall not exceed 16 square feet in size each.
b. Signs must be temporary and not have any permanent foundations or footings. c. Signs shall not be illuminated unless authorized by the planning director.

2. The planning director may impose conditions on the permit to protect against the sign creating a nuisance or to increase the safety of the sign.

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on MONDAY, June 9, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA and via teleconference on the project identified below.

ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 25-002 – An ordinance of the City of Malibu amending Title 17 (Zoning) of the Malibu Municipal Code to stimulate economic recovery for local businesses as a result of impacts from the 2025 Palisades Fire, specifically related to regulations for Temporary Use Permits and Sign Permits
Location: Citywide Project
Case Planner: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 273
[email protected]
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of a Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) to the Malibu Municipal Code. The ZTA is not a project within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, because it has no potential to result in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly, as the uses being considered are temporary in nature. The ZTA does not authorize any specific development or installation on any specific piece of property within the City’s boundaries.

Moreover, when and if an application for a Temporary Use Permit or Sign Permit is submitted, the City will at that time conduct preliminary review of the application in accordance with CEQA. Alternatively, even if the ZTA was a “project” within the meaning of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, it is exempt from CEQA. CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility of effects on the environment, the project is not subject to CEQA. The changes to the temporary use and sign permit regulations may allow for temporary development to which requirements of restoration to a site’s original state will be required.

A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter 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.

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

ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING

DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

Maureen Tamuri, Interim Planning Director
Publish Date: May 15, 2025

Page 1 of 7 ends

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Approved by: Candace Bond, Interim City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: June 20, 2025 Meeting date: July 14, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-013 Regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 22-040 – An application to restore a wetland buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement (23855 Civic Center Way, Owner, Civic Center Way LLC; Appellant, Malibu Township Council and Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth, and Civic Center Way LLC)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider Resolution No. 25-40 (Exhibit 1) and Appeal Nos. 24-002 and 24-003, determine if the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and direct staff to return with a resolution matching the Council’s decision regarding Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22-040 to restore a wetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district located at 23855 Civic Center Way (Civic Center Way LLC).

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: The matter before the Council is two appeals challenging the Planning Commission approval of CDP No. 22-040, an application to restore a wetland ESHA buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement. This agenda report provides a project overview, summary of the previous meetings, a summary of the project setting and surrounding land uses, a description of the project scope, an analysis of the project’s City Council Meeting
07-14-25
Item

5.B.
1

Page 2 of 7 ends

consistency with applicable provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), and environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

Project Overview
The project is intended to restore vegetation that was disked during unpermitted weed abatement activities that took place inside the 100-foot buffer from a wetland ESHA. The weed abatement was conducted in 2019, before the current owner purchased the property. The LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 4.6.1(B) provides that all new development (including the removal of vegetation) must maintain a 100-foot buffer from the upland limit of the wetland. The unpermitted weed abatement took place within the 100-foot ESHA buffer. The applicant submitted a Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP), dated July 2022, prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates to restore the affected area. The project was originally scheduled for the November 7, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting, there was correspondence received by the public regarding the accuracy of the HRMP, specifically the boundaries of the wetland, on the basis that earlier wetland delineations had been conducted showing the boundaries to be greater than what was being represented in the 2022 Lukos HRMP. Correspondence received for the subject application prior to the hearings are included within the Planning Commission staff report, Exhibit 5. The applicant submitted a subsequent updated HRMP, dated November 2023, as well as an updated wetland delineation in which they accounted for previous wetland delineations to address the concerns from the public. These documents are also attached to the staff report in Exhibit 5. An additional revision to the HRMP dated January 2024, was submitted to the City including a 10-year monitoring plan as opposed to the originally proposed five-year monitoring plan since a 10-year monitoring is required by the LIP. Figure 1 below shows the outline of the approximate wetland area in relation to the subject property.

Figure 1 – Project Aerial with Mapped Wetland
Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2024
LIP Section 4.5.1 allows for wetland restoration projects where the primary purpose is restoration of the habitat both within the ESHA and ESHA buffer. The City Biologist 2

Page 3 of 7 ends

reviewed the HRMP and determined that it meets the requirements of the LCP and provided conditions of approval for the applicant to abide by (Exhibit 5). The Environmental Review Board (ERB) provided additional recommendations to the Planning Commission on the wetland buffer restoration during its September 28, 2022 meeting that were included in the Planning Commission approval.

Other than the wetland boundaries, members of the public also expressed concern regarding the proposed site access. The property is bounded by private properties to the north, east, and west. Civic Center Way resides to the south but uneven topography makes site access challenging from the road. The applicant plans to access the site via a small walkable area that may go through the neighboring private property directly east of the site. A condition of approval had been added to the Planning Commission resolution that the applicant must demonstrate they have obtained permission from the neighboring property owner to access this path.

Planning Commission Hearing
The item was heard by the Planning Commission on February 5, 2024. The Planning Commission deliberated over the metes and bounds of the wetland and discussed conditions to be added to the project. Opposition was presented by some residents arguing previous wetland delineations, specifically the 1998 and 2018 Edith Read reports, correctly illustrated the bounds of the wetland and that the applicant fell short of accurately mapping the bounds of the wetland in their 2022-2024 wetland delineations. Two of the opposing parties also ended up co-appealing the project (Appel No. 24-002). The applicant mapped the historical delineations in comparison to their proposal. Those comparison maps can be viewed in Figure 2 below. There was also public comment regarding concern over future development on this site. After deliberations, the project was approved 4 to 1 with added conditions.

The Planning Commission used the 2024 wetland delineation from the applicant as the correct metes and bounds which also established the buffer area to be restored. However, instead of the proposed 100 foot buffer restoration, the Planning Commission required that a 150 foot buffer be restored, feeling more certain that the 150 foot buffer would fully capture the appropriate wetland bounds as it could change over time and since the wetland bounds at the time of the meeting were being disputed. They also added a condition of approval which stated, “All invasive plants removed as either a part of the site preparation, ongoing maintenance or as required by this Resolution shall be removed in their entirety including root structures. All non-native plants must be immediately bagged, and the seeds/seed heads will not be left out. All invasive plants will be debris to be hauled off site.” This added condition would ensure that the non-native species would not come back with their root systems being removed and their seeds being prevented from dropping back into the soil.
3

Page 4 of 7 ends

Following the Planning Commission decision an appeal was filed by members of the Malibu Township Council and Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth (Appeal No. 24-002), both who had submitted correspondence prior to the meeting, on the basis that the incorrect wetland delineation was approved by the Planning Commission and that a larger area must be restored. They support the Read wetland delineations as the correct bounds and contest that ESHA exists on the entire property.

The second appellant (Appeal No. 24-003) is the applicant of the proposed wetland buffer restoration. This appellant does not object to the bounds of the wetland that was approved by the Planning Commission but instead appeals the 150 foot added buffer restoration and condition, No. 15 of the Planning Commission Resolution, stated above. Their position is that since the LCP only requires a 100 foot buffer from wetlands, the 150 foot buffer added by the Planning Commission was arbitrary and not based on law.

Figure 2 – Wetland Boundaries Over Time
Source: Applicant’s Technical Memorandum 2023
Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
The subject property is located in the CC zoning district, west of Stuart Ranch Road and north of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) and Civic Center Way, in the Civic Center area. The subject parcel is approximately 7.13 acres and the wetland buffer area is approximately

1.69 acres pursuant to the submitted HRMP and is located south of the property. The property consists of a mild slope that descends from north to south settling in the wetland 4

Page 5 of 7 ends

area. Figure 2 below shows the outline of the wetland area and provides the LCP required 100-foot buffer area that was proposed to be restored. As mentioned, the Planning Commission required a 150 foot area to be restored to which the applicant (second appellant) is appealing.

Figure 3 – Wetland and Wetland Buffer Boundaries
Source: Applicant’s HRMP, 2024
Project Description
The proposed restoration plan consists of not only restoring the area within the buffer where the weed abatement took place but also removing and replacing all non-native vegetation with native upland vegetation within the entire wetland buffer. The complete HRMP consists of the following:

1. The removal of non-native and invasive annual weedy species immediately outside the northern edge of the wetland and extending throughout the wetland buffer (Up to 150 feet required by the Planning Commission);

2. The removal of pampas grass, and other associated weeds, found in the southwestern portion of the property – just west of the wetland – to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland;

3. The installation of low-density, low-growing native container plants within the wetland buffer covering approximately 2.5 acres rather than the proposed 1.69 acres (Extended by the Planning Commission by another 50 feet in all directions);

4. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer; and

5. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding.

A more detailed description of the proposed restoration is provided in the HRMP document (Exhibit 5).
5

Page 6 of 7 ends

LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the LIP. The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP contains the provisions that implement and carry out the policies of the LUP; the provisions to which every project requiring a coastal development permit must adhere. The project’s conformance with the LCP is analyzed in the Planning Commission Staff report (Exhibit 5).

APPEALS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
There are two appeals before the Council. Appeal No. 24-002 was submitted by members of the Malibu Township Council and Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth who did not agree with the wetland boundaries determined by the PC. An increased wetland area would also increase the buffer area to be restored. Their complete appeal can be found in Exhibit 3.

They contend that the findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings. Further, their position is that ESHA and ESHA buffer exist on the entire property and that the boundaries approved by the Planning Commission were not based on adequate evidence. LIP Section 4.3(C) states, “If the applicant's site-specific biological study or other independent information contains substantial evidence that an area previously shown on the ESHA overlay does not contain habitat that meets the definition of "environmentally sensitive area", the City shall determine the physical extent of habitat that does meet the definition of "environmentally sensitive area" on the project site.” The entire site is mapped ESHA per the LCP ESHA maps. The ESHA boundaries were refined by the wetland delineations in the record both historically and as submitted by the applicant for the project.

The second appeal was filed by the applicant who contends that the findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings and the decision was contrary to law. They contest the 150 foot ESHA buffer restoration and condition No. 15 imposed by the Planning Commission. They contest the decision was not based on law but instead arbitrary or inadequate findings. The Planning Commission’s decision to include a 150 foot buffer restoration was predicated on changing wetland and environmental conditions and the competing wetland delineations in the record. The decision to add a condition that the root systems be removed was to mitigate future weed abatement activities. The appellant’s complete appeal can be found in Exhibit 4.

Staff have no recommendation on the matter, however some background for the Council to consider. Staff requires ESHA studies to be conducted within the last two years because environmental conditions can change over time and it is important that they reflect current conditions, but historical data can also be used. All requirements of the LCP were met including the applicant submitting required wetland delineations, restoration practices, and a 10-year monitoring plan to track progress of the restoration. Restorations of ESHAs are an allowed use in all ESHA and ESHA buffers. What is before the Council is the 6

Page 7 of 7 ends

consideration of the bounds of the wetland and the proper restoration measures, as contested by the appellants. For more details on the project and compliance with the LCP, the February 2024 Planning Commission staff report is attached.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(h) - existing landscaping, 15304(b) - minor alterations to land, and 15308 - protections of the environment. The Planning Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence received prior to the Planning Commission meeting for the subject application is included within Exhibit 5. New correspondence received on or after that meeting and prior to the City Council meeting are attached within Exhibit 6.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On April 17, 2025, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Exhibit 7).

Exhibits:

1. Draft Council Resolution No. 25-40

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-13

3. Appeal No. 24-002 (Resident Appeal)

4. Appeal No. 24-003 (Applicant Appeal)

5. February 5, 2024 Planning Commission Staff Report and Attachments

6. Correspondence Received on or After the Planning Commission Meeting

7. Public Hearing Notice
7 RESOLUTION NO. 25-40

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU,

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, DENYING APPEAL NO. 24-002 AND APPEAL NO. 24-003, AND APPROVING COASTAL
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 22-040 TO RESTORE A WETLAND

ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA BUFFER THAT WAS

DISTURBED DUE TO UNPERMITTED WEED ABATEMENT IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 23855

CIVIC CENTER WAY (CIVIC CENTER WAY LLC)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On July 8, 2022, an application for Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22-040 was submitted to the Planning Department by applicant, Cornerstone Real Estate Consulting, on behalf of the property owner, Civic Center Way LLC. The application was routed to the City Biologist for review.

B. On September 28, 2022, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed and considered the subject application, written reports, and provided recommendations to staff regarding the project.

C. On October 20, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

D. On October 27, 2022, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

E. On November 7, 2022, The Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.

F. On January 25, 2024, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

G. On February 5, 2024, 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. The project was approved by the Planning Commission who extended the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA) buffer to be restored to 150 feet and provided added conditions related to restoration measures.

H. On February 15, 2025, Appeal Nos. 24-002 and 24-003 were filed by a resident group and applicant respectively.

I. On April 17, 2025, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

Attachment 1
8 Resolution No 25-40

Page 2 of 8 ends

______________________
J. On May 27, 2025, the City Council continued the item to the July 14, 2025 City Council meeting.

K. On July 14, 2025, the City Council 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 analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(h) - Existing Facilities, 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land, and 15308 – Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment . The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

The appellants contend that the Planning Commission’s decision is based on the findings or conditions not supported by evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings and the decision was contrary to law. Based on the evidence in the record, as detailed below, in the agenda report, and at the hearings on the matter, the City Council has determined that the project does conform to the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), denying the appeals and approving the project. The Council find that the evidence supports the findings and is consistent with the City’s past application of the applicable provisions of the LIP.

The applicant supplied the City with an accurate, up to date, wetland delineation that was evaluated by the City’s professionals including the City Biologist and City Planning Department. The evidence was weighed by the Planning Commission who at the February 5, 2024, meeting approved the ESHA restoration with added conditions including extending the restored buffer area to 150 feet from the limits of the wetland, which is approximately 2.54 acres in size. The added buffer area restoration was to ensure that the proper wetland buffer area be restored due to changing environmental conditions that alter the size of the wetland over time.

The projects complies with the requirements of the LCP and MMC. Based on the record at the public hearing, the City Council has found that the findings and conditions are supported by the preponderance of the evidence and that the decision is supported by the findings, that there was a fair and impartial hearing, and that the decision was not contrary to law. Thus the Council denies the appeals and approves the project.

SECTION 4. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on May 5, 2025, and pursuant to the LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) including Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9 and Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the City Council denies Appeal No. 24-002 and Appeal No. 24-003 adopts the findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 22-040 to allow the restoration of a wetland ESHA buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed 9 Resolution No 25-40

Page 3 of 8 ends

______________________
abatement in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district located at 23855 Civic Center Way.

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. LIP Section 4.5.1(C) allows for wetland restoration projects where the primary purpose is restoration of the habitat consistent with the proposed project. The project was reviewed by the City Biologist and Planning Department staff and determined to meet all the requirements of the LCP with the incorporated conditions in this Resolution.

3. The subject parcel is located in a wetland ESHA buffer zone as designated in the LCP. The City Biologist determined the project is consistent with the policies of the LCP. On September 28, 2022, ERB reviewed the project . The ERB recommended that less shrubs be used in the container stock table proposed to lessen the fire fuel load on the property and within the Civic Center area. The applicant revised their table showing use of more native grasses as requested by the ERB. The project is consistent with the recommendations of the ERB.

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

1. The project is located on the landside of Pacific Coast Highway and proposes native vegetation to be planted as part of a habitat restoration to the wetland ESHA buffer. The vegetation proposed is not expected to grow tall enough to impact scenic views of the ocean from areas behind the project site. The proposed restoration is expected to visually enhance a degraded wetland ESHA buffer with native plants consistent with the area. Therefore, the project will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

2. The landscaping proposed for the project is not expected to have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The ERB recommendation to use more native grasses would improve the original restoration plan which was to use more bushes with a higher risk of fires.

3. The proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative in that it will restore a disturbed wetland ESHA buffer and use native vegetation consistent with the area.

4. Site conditions are expected to improve since the project area will be restored with native vegetation. No feasible alternative is expected to lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources if the habitat restoration is to be effective.

5. The proposed project is not expected to have adverse scenic and visual impacts.

The project will contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the LCP by restoring a disturbed ESHA buffer.
10 Resolution No 25-40

Page 4 of 8 ends

______________________
C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The project will not result in potential adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity. The project as proposed and conditioned will not increase instability of the site or impact structural integrity from geologic hazards. However, since the entire city limits of Malibu are located within a very high fire hazard severity area, a condition is included in Section 5 of this resolution that requires the property owner to indemnify the City from any hazards associated with wildfire.

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

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

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, and the ERB. It has been determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. There are no feasible alternatives to achieve the objective of habitat restoration in the wetland ESHA buffer.

5. No adverse impacts to sensitive resources are expected.

SECTION 5. 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. The removal of non-native and invasive annual weedy species immediately outside the northern edge of the wetland and extending throughout the wetland buffer up to 150 feet from the wetland area;
b. The removal of pampas grass, and other associated weeds, found in the southwestern portion of the property – just west of the wetland – to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland;
c. The installation of low-density, low-growing native container plants within the wetland buffer covering approximately 2.54 acres;
d. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer; and e. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding.

Page 5 of 8 ends

______________________
in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped January 19, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

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, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.

5. The CDP shall expire if the project has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit, unless a time extension has been granted. 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.

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

7. All development shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu Environmental Sustainability Department, City Biologist, City Coastal Engineer, City Environmental Health Administrator, City geotechnical contract reviewers, City Public Works Department, Los Angeles County Waterworks District No. 29 and Los Angeles County Fire Department, as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

8. 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 Malibu Municipal Code and the Local Coastal Program. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

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

10. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to any development.

11. The property owner shall comply with all provisions of the Malibu Municipal Code and LIP.

Cultural Resources
12 Resolution No 25-40

Page 6 of 8 ends

______________________

13. 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.

Biology

14. Each of the recommendations outlined in the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) shall be implemented as approved.

15. All invasive plants removed as either a part of the site preparation, ongoing maintenance or as required by this Resolution shall be removed in their entirety including root structures.

All non-native plants must be immediately bagged, and the seeds/seed heads will not be left out. All invasive plants will be debris to be hauled off site.

16. Irrigation has been determined to not be required; therefore, an irrigation system is not approved. The HRMP details a water buffalo will be used in the place of temporary irrigation. However, the only access through the site is off Civic Center Way through the wetland/wetland buffer. Prior to final approval, a detailed plan of entry/exit on and off the property for all mitigation work will be established and approved.

17. The site shall be monitored on an annual basis for 10 years, consistent with LIP Chapter 4.

18. The site preparation work should begin as soon as the HRMP is approved and an ideal time to begin invasive removal efforts is determined.

19. 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 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. Further, if an active nest is found and a buffer established, a biological monitor shall remain on site during work activities to ensure the buffer is sufficient and the adult birds remain on the nest.

Page 7 of 8 ends

______________________
The biological monitor shall inspect the fencing prior to work to ensure it is placed in the most effective area to protect the resource while permitting enough room for the work.

21. No new lighting is being proposed. Therefore, none is approved.

Site Specific Conditions

23. The revised HRMP, dated January 2024, shall be used in the habitat restoration as approved by the City of Malibu. In addition, all non-native plants shall be removed from the wetland area boundary as delineated in the revised HRMP, dated January 2024.

24. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection when the initial “Planting” phase is complete.

25. 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. The City Biologist will inspect the site once the “Site Preparation” phase is complete and again once the initial “Planting” phase is complete.

26. The applicant/owner shall provide the City Planning Department with a yearly monitoring report tracking the progress of the restoration. The applicant/owner shall contact the City Biologist for an additional final inspection after the 10-year monitoring plan has run its course.

27. The restoration must commence within six months from the date of this approval. Failure to commence the restoration within the specified time may constitute further code enforcement action.

Fixed Conditions

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

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

SECTION 6. The City Council shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 14th day of July, 2025. _______________________________________
MARIANNE RIGGINS, Mayor
14 Resolution No 25-40

Page 8 of 8 ends

______________________
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.

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

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 15 CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 22-040 TO RESTORE A WETLAND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT AREA BUFFER THAT WAS DISTURBED DUE TO UNPERMITTED WEED ABATEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY (CIVIC CENTER WAY LLC) The Flaming Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

B. On September 28, 2022, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed and considered the subject application, written reports, and provided recommendations to staff regarding the proj ect.

C. On October 20, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subj ect property.

D. On October 27, 2022, a Notice of Flaming 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 SOO-foot radius of the subj ect property.

E. On November 7, 2022, The Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.

F. On January 25, 2024, a Notice of Flaming 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 subj ect property.

G. On February 5, 2024, the Flaming 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 Flaming Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Flaming Commission found that this proj ect is listed among the classes of proj ects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proj ect is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(h) - Existing Facilities and 15304(b) — Minor Alterations to Land. The Flaming Commission has further determined that none of the six 16 Attachment 2
J
"mi““
M...“
Resolution NO 24—13

Page 2 of 8 ends

exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the proj ect and the hearing on February 5, 2024, 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 findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 22-040 to allow the restoration of a wetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district located at 23855 Civic Center Way.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

1. LIP Section 4.5.1(C) allows for wetland restoration proj ects where the primary purpose is restoration ofthe habitat consistent with the proposed proj ect. The proj ect was reviewed by the City Biologist and Flaming Department staff and determined to meet all the requirements of the LCP with the incorporated conditions in this Resolution.

3. The subject parcel is located in a wetland ESHA buffer zone as designated in the LCP. The City Biologist determined the project is consistent with the policies of the LCP. 0n September 28, 2022, ERB reviewed the project . The ERB recommended that less shrubs be used in the container stock table proposed to lessen the f1re fuel load on the property and within the Civic Center area. The applicant revised their table showing use of more native grasses as requested by the ERB. The proj ect is consistent with the recommendations of the ERB.

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

1. The proj ect is located on the landside ofPaciflc Coast Highway and proposes native vegetation to be planted as part of a habitat restoration to the wetland ESHA buffer. The vegetation proposed is not expected to grow tall enough to impact scenic views ofthe ocean from areas behind the proj ect site. The proposed restoration is expected to visually enhance a degraded wetland ESHA buffer with native plants consistent with the area. Therefore, the proj ect will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

2. The landscaping proposed for the proj ect is not expected to have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The ERB recommendation to use more native grasses would improve the original restoration plan which was to use more bushes with a higher risk of fires. 17 Resolution NO 24-13

Page 3 of 8 ends

3. The proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative in that it will restore a disturbed wetland ESHA buffer and use native vegetation consistent with the area.

4. Site conditions are expected to improve since the proj ect area will be restored with native vegetation. No feasible alternative is expected to lessen any signiflcant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources if the habitat restoration is to be effective.

5. The proposed project is not expected to have adverse scenic and visual impacts. The project Will contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the LCP by restoring a disturbed ESHA buffer.

C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

1. The proj ect will not result in potential adverse impacts on site stability or structural integrity. The proj ect as proposed and conditioned will not increase instability ofthe site or impact structural integrity from geologic hazards. However, since the entire city limits of Malibu are located within a very high fire hazard severity area, a condition is included in Section 5 of this resolution that requires the property owner to indemnify the City from any hazards associated with wildfire.

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

4. The proposed development has been analyzed for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9 by the Planning Department, City Biologist, and the ERB. It has been determined that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. There are no feasible alternatives to achieve the obj ective of habitat restoration in the wetland ESHA buffer.

5. No adverse impacts to sensitive resources are expected.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 22-040, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

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 proj ect. l.
18 Resolution No 24—13

Page 4 of 8 ends

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. The removal of non-native and invasive annual weedy species immediately outside the northem edge of the wetland and extending throughout the wetland buffer; b. The removal of pampas grass, and other associated weeds, found in the southwestem portion of the property just west of the wetland — to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland; c. The installation of low-density, low-growing native container plants within the wetland buffer covering approximately 2.54 acres; d. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer; and e. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on flle with the Planning Department date stamped JanuarLl9, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event proj ect plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

Pursuant to LIP Section 13.182, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs, notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Department prior to the issuance of any development permits.

5. The CDP shall expire ifthe proj ect has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit, unless a time extension has been granted. 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.

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

Page 5 of 8 ends

Pursuant t0 LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the California Coastal Commission (CCC), have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the coastal development permit approved by the City is void.

10. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to any development.

11. The property owner shall comply with all provisions of the Malibu Municipal Code and LIP.

Cultural Resources

12. 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 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed. l3. 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.

Biology
l4. Each of the recommendations outlined in the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) shall be implemented as approved.

15. All invasive plants removed as either a part of the site preparation, ongoing maintenance or as required by this Resolution shall be removed in their entirety including root structures.

All non-native plants must be immediately bagged, and the seeds/seed heads will not be left out. All invasive plants will be debris to be hauled off site. l6. Irrigation has been determined to not be required; therefore, an irrigation system is not approved. The HRMP details a water buffalo will be used in the place of temporary irrigation. However, the only access through the site is off Civic Center Way through the wetland/wetland buffer. Prior to final approval, a detailed plan of entry/exit on and off the property for all mitigation work will be established and approved. l7. The site shall be monitored on an annual basis for 10 years, consistent with LIP Chapter 4. l8. The site preparation work should begin as soon as the HRMP is approved and an ideal time to begin invasive removal efforts is determined.
20 Resolution NO 24-13

Page 6 of 8 ends

20. Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas. The biological monitor shall inspect the fencing prior to work to ensure it is placed in the most effective area to protect the resource while permitting enough room for the work.

21. No new lighting is being proposed. Therefore, none is approved.

24. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection when the initial “Planting” phase is complete.

27. The restoration must commence within six months from the date of this approval. Failure to commence the restoration within the specified time may constitute further code enforcement action.

Site Specific Conditions
21 "w“mW
Resolution No 24-1 3

Page 7 of 8 ends

Fixed Conditions

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

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February 2024.

KRAIG HILI:MMFlaming Commission Chair
ATTEST:
@Qawm REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL — Pursuant to LIP Section 1320.1 (Local Appeals) a decision made by the Flaming 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.malibucityorg, in person at City Hall, or by calling (3 10) 456-2489, ext. 246.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL — An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coasta1.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling (805) 585—1 800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed Within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 ofthe MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person Wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing. 22 [M
Resolution No 24-13

Page 8 of 8 ends

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 24- 1 3 was passed and adopted by the Flaming Commission ofthe City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 5th day of February 2024 by the following vote:
@Qaum REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
AYES: 4 Commissioners: Peak, Smith, Leonard, Hill NOES: O ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: l Commissioner: Mazza
23 CityofMalibu .~ /~
23825 Stuart Ranch Road • Malibu, California • 90265-486li?. \,'J -'\~> Phone (3 10) 456-2489 • Fax (3 I 0) 456-3356 • www.malibuci ':~{i ~. "._:;' ~

PLANNING DEPARTMENT

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

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

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

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

Part I. Project Information

1. What is the file number of the Coastal Development Permit you are appealing? e_ 0 P N o 2.2.:-040

2. On what date was the decision made which you are appealing? -~ e..L~ ~ , Qo2... L-#

3. Who made the decision you are appealing?
□ Planning Director ~ Planning Commission

4. What is the address of the project site at issue?
.:2-2 s s S'? <2l ✓ \ c... ~ c._-µ ~ I,~ vJ A 1 M Dr\..,. k 53 V

Page 1 ends

P:\Fonns\COUNTER FORMS\PLN Appeal Checklist_ CDP _220518.docx Attachment 3 24 Part II. Appeal Summary

1. Indicate your interest in the decision by checking the appropriate box. 0 I am the Applicant for the project
0 I am the neighbor
u3' Other (describe)
W ~ A R~ Lp c..A ._ CJ ~o-A-1 -i.A\°lo 'l,..) s 't ,-. J , t!L rr:-i» Ill Puwrt....ECi µ e,. v J :& 1 I--Au---\."7 2
- 2. If ou are not the applicant. please indicant the applicant's name: E \) fi.O_u u -rt==- 0 {\_,I.,) H.:N z.,,Q.... '5•TDWZ- ~L. 04 er 1\J50~ "t"u0 &- CM/ . (}.! \. {,.. Q,,~-tNL 'JV!>.'/ t-L-C:.- ~

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

4. Check the appropriate box(es) to indicate which of the following reasons forms the basis of your appeal:
□
□
The findings or conditions are not supported by the evidence, or the decision is not supported by the findings: or
There was a lack of fair or impartial hearing: or
The decision was contrary to law.

You must next provide a specific statement in support of each of the bases for appeal that you have checked above. Appeals that are stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.) S f._ 1.. /AT\ AL rl 'L-\)

Page 2 ends

25 Each coastal development permitting decision made by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission is accompanied by written findings. The written findings set forth the basis for the decision. If you have checked the first box in this section as a ground for your appeal, you must indicate the specific finding(s) you disagree with and give specific reasons why you believe the finding(s) is/are not supported by the evidence or why the decision is not supported by the findings. Appeals stated in generalities, legal or otherwise, are not adequate. (Attach extra sheets if necessary.)
~ , Aikrht.J
Part Ill. Appeal Checklist

1. 2.

ALL of the following must be timely filed to perfect an appeal. dcompleted Appeal Checklist (This form with appellant's signature) ~ peal Fee $750
The appeal fee must be submitted in the form of a check or money order made payable to the City of Malibu. Cash will not be accepted.

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

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

Page 3 ends

26 Part N. Signature and Appellant Information
I hereby certify that the appeal submittal contains all of the above items. I understand that if any of the Items are missing or otherwise deficient, the appeal is ineffective and the filing fee may be returned. IN ORDER TO PERFECT AN APPEAL, ALL APPEAL SUBMITTALS MUST BE COMPLETE BY THE DEADLINE. NO

EXTENSIONS WILL BE ALLOWED FOR APPELLANTS WHO ONLY PART/ALLY COMPLY WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS AS OF THE DEADLJNE. IF AN APPEAL IS NOT PERFECTED BY THE DEADLJNE, THE DECISION BECOMES FINAL.
\Si.AL\ 0:,0 -aw0-S u. \ Q 0 -u I L,

PRINT A
APPE
Appellant's mailing address:

Appellant's email address:
-

OFFICE USE ONLY
Action Appealed: CJ>p No ;}_ ~' 0 YO J A-p CJa , ~ Lf - 0 0 :::2 Appeal Period: ;t/y,i - ;;vj 5 /o<, '--/
Date Appeal Fonn and required documents subm~ e~ Received bv~4Fi,/41j' Appeal Completion Dare: :i,17 5 L;J, '1 oL _ --;fjtr ,- (Name, Te

Page 4 ends

27 Appeal
Please see Additional Reasons for Appeal- for more detailed Comments Findings Can't be Made
Finding 1 cannot be made. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program;
LIP 4.C.1 The city is overlooking the fact that the entire parcel is mapped ESHA. In 2019 and 2020. This parcel was disked illegally removing native habitat. The city failed to acknowledge Leticia Aloi photo submitted in 2020 taken just after the disking was done and showing that the entire ESHA parcel illegally destroyed.

Since the parcel is mapped ESHA even though the ESHA was destroyed by the disking the parcel is still afforded protection as ESHA. Therefore, the city erred in not requiring for this violation the entire parcel's restoration.

The Planning Director erred in stating at the 2-5-24 hearing that the Lukas study determined the extent of the ESHA. Since The Lukas delineation of the wetland and buffer was done in a small area of the parcel it can't be considered determinative. It was the disking that damaged the ESHA. One can't say after the ESHA was illegally destroyed it is no longer ESHA.

Here are a few examples of where the requirments of the LIP are not met.of nonconformance with the LCP. 4.4.1 requires the preliminary approval of Fish and Wildlife was never obtained .

City didn't require a performance bond as required 4.8.1 A.2. F.

Section 4.8.2.B the applicant didn't identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable: Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Finding 3 cannot be made. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. The 2.4 acre buffer area wetland delineation and the restoration of only a small portion of the illegally disked parcel is not the least environmentally damaging since only a small portion of the violation area is being restored. 1 28
Finding 3 can be met by finding the least environmentally damage alternative is to restore the entire illegally disked portion of the 7+ acres or alternatively 3.4 acres delineated by Psomas.

General Coastal Development Permit

1. LIP Section 4.5.l(C) allows for wetland restoration projects where the primary purpose is restoration of the habitat consistent with the proposed project. The project was reviewed by the City Biologist and Planning Department staff and determined to meet all the requirements of the LCP with the incorporated conditions in this Resolution. This is not accurate not all the requirements of the LIP were met. See finding 1 above

2. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. There is no evidence that an alternative project would substantially lessen any potential significant adverse impacts of the development on the environment. See Finding 3 above for reasons this is not accurate and a longer explanation in the Additional Reasons for Appeal

3. The subject parcel is located in a wetland ESHA buffer zone as designated in the LCP. This statement is not correct. It should read this parcel is mapped ESHA and the restoration is taking place in the 150 foot buffer of the Lukas delineation.

The City Biologist determined the project is consistent with the policies of the LCP.

On September 28, 2022, ERB reviewed the project. The ERB recommended that less shrubs be used in the container stock table proposed to lessen the fire fuel load on the property and within the Civic Center area. The applicant revised their table showing use of more native grasses as requested by the ERB. The project is consistent with the recommendations of the ERB. The plants should be revisited.

We believe the city Biologist was correct in her recommendation since grasses spread the fire and embers more quickly.
2 29
Conditions of Approval
Many of the conditions seem automatic and need to be better thought out to best protect the animal life that occupies the site. Please see the Additional Reason for Appeal under heading Careful Restoration Needed and incorporate what is suggested as well as the condition recommended . below.

2. Each of the recommendations outlined in the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) shall be implemented as approved. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. The removal of non-native and invasive annual weedy species immediately outside the northern edge of the wetland and extending throughout the wetland buffer;
b. The removal of pampas grass, and other associated weeds, found in the south western portion of the property-just west of the wetland - to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland; This condition doesnJt go far enough. The removal of all the invasives in the buffer zone need to be removed. to help prevent future encroachment into to the wetland Any invasives in the upland area need to be removed for this reason. They the removed plant should be replaced with the appropriate natives.
c. The installation of low-density, low-growing native container plants within the wetland buffer covering approximately 1.69 acres; The buffer is approximately

2.54 acres unless the council changes it An new illustration of the buffer areaneeds to be attached to the resolution.
d. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer; and done by hand.
e. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding A regular maintenance scheduleover the 10 years should be spelled out in the resolution.

15. All invasive plants removed as either a part of the site preparation, ongoing maintenance or as required by this Resolution shall be removed in their entirety including root structures. All non-native plants must be immediately bagged, and 3 30
the seeds/seed heads will not be left out. All invasive plants will be debris to be hauled off site.

17. The site shall be monitored on an annual basis for 10 years, consistent with LIP Chapter 4. 18. The site preparation work should begin as soon as the HRMP is approved and an ideal time to begin invasive removal efforts is determined.

Resolution NO 24-13 Page 6 of 8 Annual monitoring is not enough. Lukas 'biologist at the hearing described the need for greater monitoring and they need to be put in as a condition

19. 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 initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (3 00 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. Further, if an active nest is found and a buffer established, a biological monitor shall remain on site during work Grading and excavation should not be allowed on this site and a condition prohibiting it should be added .. Not only should nesting birds be protected but all the wildlife that live on and use the site cannot be harmed by this restoration. A condition must be added to insure their protection. See comments in the Additional Reasons for Appeal for to see if there are any other creatures that need protection and add these as a condition ..

20. Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site's 4 31
sensitive habitat areas. The biological monitor shall inspect the fencing prior to work to ensure it is placed in the most effective area to protect the resource while permitting enough room for the work. The animals on site have to be free to roam and forage and get to their dens. We were wondering if fencing is needed in this wetland restoration. The restoration needs to be done by hand to protect the wildlife . Pleas add this as a condition.

22. The restoration 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. Failure to comply with the landscape conditions is a violation of the conditions of approval for this project. A condition needs to be added that the restoration will be done by hand and noo heavy, loud or polluting vehicles or equipment are allowed on site to protect the wildlife.

24. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection when the initial "Planting" phase is complete. And this inspection shall be made by the city biologist or another qualified biologist

25. 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. The City Biologist will inspect the site once the "Site Preparation" phase is complete and again once the initial "Planting" phase is complete.

27. The restoration must commence within six months from the date of this approval. Failure to commence the restoration within the specified time may constitute further code enforcement action.
5 32
Additional Reasons For Appeal
Introduction
For the reasons stated below the Appellants recommend that that the entire parcel be restored since it is a Fluctuating Wetland or in the alternative the Psomas 3.4 acres should be restored. The owner under the LCP will still be able to build a commercial project on this parcel.

Smith Property
The 7.13 acre Smith property is a very special and valuable parcel which should be protected from further environmental degradation and restored especially since 90% of all wetlands in the state of California have been destroyed.

Many s birds and mammals rely on this wetland and its upland habitat for food, water and shelter. Birds nest there and many animals have their young on this property. Malibu is part of the Pacific Flyway and during migration this wetland provides not only food and shelter but a resting area for these hardy migrating birds.

The Smith parcel attracts a large variety of animal species. These animals use this area for part of or all of their life. Dead plant leaves and stems break down in the water to form small particles of organic material. This enriched material feeds many small aquatic insects and aquatic wildlife that are food for larger predatory reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals .. Since this wetland is in the Pacific Flyway this parcel is needed for the use of migrating birds not only as a source of food and water but as a place to rest and recover before continuing their incredible journey. ( EX 2)
Wetlands store carbon within their plant communities and soil instead of releasing it to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. This wetland helps to moderate climate change.
1 33
Careful Restoration Needed
As residents of the condos can attest this 7.34 acres parcel is a currently a vibrant ecosystem despite he fact it is no longer pristine and is in need of restoration.

Therefore, it must be restored very carefully. In any wetland restoration the protection of existing animals such as the coyotes and their den must not be harmed or disturbed. Since the plants will be from nursery stock, only pesticide free plants should be purchased. This restoration must be done very carefully by hand without the use of any heavy equipment.

Many of the resolution conditions are not carefully thought out on how to best protect this fragile and most important ecosystem. All the conditions of approval must be carefully crafted to protect the wildlife that inhabit and depend on this site.

Therefore, for example, in condition 16 the use of a 'water buffalo ' may or may not be the best way to irrigate the site. Standard Biological conditions 19 .20 and 22 have to be carefully reconsidered to be sure they are the most protective conditions. A new biological study of the restoration area must be done prior to the start any restoration to indicate the sensitive habitat areas to insure they are fully protected. The actual restoration should be supervised by having a caring and knowledge biologist on site . The restoration must be done by hand without the use of heavy equipment. Hand restoration may take longer but it is less likely to harm the wildlife that live on and use the site.

Careful restoration of the Property will protect the wetland, the animals and birds that forage, nest and roost on the Smith property
ESHA
Under the LCP this entire Parcel is mapped ESHA. Over the years this parcel has been disked. In 2002.when the MLCP was adopted destruction of ESHA was prohibited. Despite this fact over the years the property was disked without permits.

Illegal disking of the ESHA was reported in 2019 and 2020. As proof, three photos of this disking in 2020 were submitted to the city by Leticia Aloi. a condo resident who overlooks the wetland. The first two were photos of the tractor disking in the wetland area. They were the only photo's the city considered and 2 34
are the subject of the code enforcement and the restoration action. It is only the wetland buffer area that the city is requiring to be restored even though the entire parcel was disked as shown in the third photo. The third photo was an overview of the what the entire parcel looked like in 2020 after the entire mapped ESHA parcel was destroyed by illegal disking.(EX 1)
Under LIP section 4.3.C.1 Any area mapped as ESHA shall not be deprived of protection as ESHA, as required by the policies and provisions of the LCP, on the basis that habitat has been illegally removed, degraded, or species that are rare or especially valuable because of their nature or role in an ecosystem have been eliminated.

In this instance, all the native upland plant habitat has been illegally removed and degraded. The condition of the site today is not relevant since the entire parcel is still protected as ESHA.

Because of the illegal disking, the city can't claim, as the Planning Director did at the February 5 2024 Planning Commission meeting that the Glenn Lukos and Associates (Lukos) wetland delineation is the new ESHA Boundary since the entire parcel is protected as ESHA. Note that in LCP map below the entire parcel is mapped ESHA.
3 35
Malibu Bay Company (MBC) Respected Parcel's mapped ESHA Desingation

1.Before the LCP was adopted there were numerous City Council meetings where the Coastal Commission draft of the LCP was challenged and requested changes to the draft LCP were made. Both the MBC and the City never questioned this parcel's ESHA designation when it had the opportunity to do so.

2.The Malibu Bay Company ( MBC) intended this parcel to remain open space The reason given is in the City Council 9-9-19 staff report :
11 the owner did not intend
to develop the property"

3.The Malibu Bay Company always knew exactly what it was doing. It is clear they didn't want this ESHA parcel developed otherwise they would have included it in the required hookup to the Civic Center treatment plant. 4 36

WETLAND
LCP Wetland Definition
WETLAND - is defined by Section 30121 of the Coastal Act as lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. The definition of wetland is further detailed by Section 13577 (b)(l)
of the California Code of Regulations as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats.

Fluctuating Wetland
The Smith 7+ acre parcel qualifies as the type of wetland that is underlined in the above definition. For purposes of this appeal we are calling it a 1fluctuating wetland' There are frequent fluctuations in this parcel's water table. Even during the drought there was water on the parcel. For example, in years of heavy rainfall the parcel is flooded as it was in 2019, 2020, 2023 and 2024. 2019's higher than average rainfall is in our memory for it occurred just after the November 2018 Woolsey Fire. The 2020 flooding is shown in the video of the parcel in December 2020. ( Ex 3) Tony Bonkamp, Lukos' biologist, stated at the Planning Commission hearing and that in 2023 there was a very large rainfall and the parcel was a lake.

In early February 2024, after a rain the parcel was flooded with 1 to 2 feet of water in the cluster of palm trees near the north west boundary of the site .(EX4) Wetland Delineations
To better understand this appeal here are 2 definitions:

A WETLAND DELINEATION is the determination of the boundary between wetlands and the adjacent uplands.
5 37
UPLAND LIMIT OF A WETLAND - is
1) the boundary between land with predominately hydrophytic cover ( plants that survive in a wet location) and land with predominately mesophyHc (plants which are suited to moderate climatic conditions that are neither too wet nor dry) or xerophytic ( plants that survive dry regions ;
2) the boundary between soil that is predominately hydric and soil that is predominately nonhydric; or
3) in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not.

Fluctuating Wetland
Even though many of the native upland plants are no longer due to the unallowable disking, this parcel meets the third definition Above of a wetland by the fact there is always water on the parcel during a drought, in normal years and in heavy rain years.

Of the 3 written delineations below the 2002 Psomos report is the most accurate since it was completed prior to the drought and before the 2019-2020 illegal disking of the ESHA. (EX 3 video show ponding water in the 3.4 acre area of the parcel delineated by Psomas.)
The Glen Lukos Technical Memorandum dated October 19,2019 states this delineation was done for the former property owner, after site visits in April, May and June of 2019. This delineation was done at the end of a long drought when the wetland was the smallest. Lukos delineated the wetland at 1.69 acres.

Tony Bomkamp, a senior biologist at Lukos, stated at the February 5 ,2024 Planning Commission hearing the reason the delineation is 1.69 acres is because this delineation was made to the specifications of the City. The Planning Commission voted to expand this buffer to 150 feet from the delineated wetland.

It can't go unnoticed as a result the city's limited delineation perimeter; Lukos didn't look beyond the buffer area.
6 38
Edith Read Delineation
Read's March 28, 2018 wetland delineation was prepared at the bequest of the City of Malibu, one year before the 7 year drought ended. It delineated the wetland at 2.8 acres.

This delineation is obviously more accurate than the Lukos delineation since Edith Read was not limited to just the staff mandated 100 foot buffer and Planning Commission' arbitrary 150 foot buffer of approximately 2.54 acres.

It should be mentioned, that the Read report never considered the Coastal Act and Malibu Local Coastal Program's definition a wetland as required by the Malibu LCP. If prepared under the required Coastal Act and LCP criteria, the wetland delineation would probably have been even greater in size. Despite 7 years of drought preceding this delineation the wetland was just a ½ acre smaller than her delineation for Psomas in1999and a little over an acre larger than the Lukos delineation.

Tony Bomkamp attempted to discredit her report by say it contained only 2 soil boring and the Lukas did 50 borings. What he didn't say that the Lukos borings were limited to the buffer area where the Read boring went beyond the buffer.

Psomas Delineation
The 2002 PSOMAS commissioned by the Malibu Bay Company is based on site visits in 1999. Psomas delineated the wetland at 3.4 acres. Because it was prepared pre -drought and prior to the 2019- 2020 discing ,this is the most accurate of the three written wetland delineations.

Wetlands Are Not Static
We googled : What was the longest drought in California history? The response from Drought in California from 2000-Present replied: The U.S. Drought Monitor started in 2000. Since 2000, the longest duration of drought {D1-D4) in California lasted 376 weeks beginning on December 27, 2011, and ending on March 5th, 2019.

Wetlands are larger in wet years and shrink in size the longer a dry period lasts.

The seeds of wetland plants in drought conditions are not destroyed but remain dormant until enough rain arrives which will allow them to sprout. 7 39
As mentioned above, the applicant and city are relying on a wetland delineation done by Lukos in 2019 immediately after the end of a seven year drought when the wetland area was the smallest.

Wetland Drained
The water table would have been higher and the various wetland delineations may have covered a larger area if wetland rain water for many years was not allowed to drain into a city's storm drain at the intersection of Civic Center Way and Stuart Ranch Road.

This outflow of water into the storm drain should be blocked so the Smith wetland water in coming years will become greater and this larger wet area then restored with appropriate plants.

The Smith and Bell/SCE wetlands are connected. In a heavy rain, they form one wetland. If the adjacent Smith and Bell Properties' water didn't drain into the storm drain, the wetlands would merge as they do occasionally in wet years.

Lukos' biologist, Tony Bonkamp confirmed the above at the Planning Commission hearing. He said the city recently enlarged its storm drain and after a large rain when the water ~at a certain elevation the water flows out of the parcel to the storm drain. The wetland pond gets bigger for a few days but at some point it finds its equilibrium once enough water flows out (goto Planning Commission 2- 5-24 meeting 1. 37. 02) ( EX 6 video of wetland water draining into storm drain).

Disking
Besides drought and water runoff to the storm drain, another major factor which can't be ignored is the effect unallowable Disking had on this parcel.

Disking of ESHA has been prohibited since the adoption of the LCP in September 2002 where this entire parcel was designated mapped ESHA. Under LIP 4.3.C.1 Any area mapped as £SHA shall not be deprived of protection as £SHA, as required by the policies and provisions of the LCP, on the basis that habitat has been illegally removed, degraded, or species that are rare or especially valuable because of their nature or role in an ecosystem have been eliminated.

Because the parcel was illegally disked in 2019 and 2020, this entire parcel is still protected as ESHA.
8 40
The major effect of disking is it allows the invasive nonnatives to overtake the native plants. Disking can destroy not only native plants but the root system of the natives. Disking explains why there are so many invasive nonnative plants on the Smith parcel.

As mentioned earlier Letecia Aloi, witnessed the disking of the entire parcel in 2019 - 2020. She stated that the entire parcel was disked not just the proposed area of restoration.( EX 1 Disking phots)
Baseline
Lukos report says the Lukos wetland boundary provides the baseline for the wetland boundaries and to guide the restoration outlined in this HRMP( habitat restoration and monitoring plan.

The wetland boundary approved by the Council will provide the baseline for the wetland's boundary and the restoration effort.

Whatever baseline boundary you choose will run with the land and be binding on all future owners.

Conclusion
Increase the size of the Restoration to cover the entire ESHA area disked or at least the 3,4 acres set forth in the Psomas delineation. This would entail an updated restoration plan plus a buffer restoration plan .

Direct staff to revise the Conditions of Approval to include condition that would best protect the wildlife living on site and using the site.

Exhibits
EX 1 Letica Aloi's Disking Photos in an email
EX 2 Letter Smith Wetland
Dear Malibu Times,
9 41
We write this letter to ask for the restoration of the 7 acre ESHA wetlands in central Malibu that have been disked over the years.

As Malibu residents, we know more than anyone else that Malibu is like no other place on earth. The air is fresh. The sunsets are world-famous. The people are a unique breed: there is no dress code in Malibu. Visitors to our town never forget us and they get a visible light in their eyes as they recall the serenity and connection with nature that is present throughout this natural ecosystem. It's a precious resource and a gift from our creator that we are grateful for every day. We, the residents of Malibu, have the responsibility to treasure this place, and to protect it for future generations.

As residents of central Malibu, we are witness to the incredible beauty that permeates every inch of the particular 7 acres of ESHA-designated wetland property in question, I know from walking by it daily, this entire land is a marsh. It is a sacred biome. This is why the previous owners (The Malibu Bay Co) did not elect to be included in phase 2 of the sewage hookup.

What we have seen on this land is priceless. In the early morning, this ground is covered in a cool, misty fog. As the sun rises from behind the hills, the grass sparkles with endless dew drops that birds and butterflies stop to lap up. In the yucca plants we have seen brilliantly colored wild parrots, finches, hummingbirds, blue jays, sparrows and redtail hawks that nest in the trees of the wetlands and feed their young from the fertile ground. We've seen white owls with giant eyes swoop from the wetlands to our balcony to stare at us inquisitively as they flutter their wings.

When it rains, as it did this past weekend, the entire 7 acre property floods and the frogs begin a symphony that sounds like a bayou song on what we have affectionately termed - Lake Malibu. Mallard ducks and white cranes gracefully fish on the shores in the morning light. Everyday we see brush rabbits, California ground squirrels and small foxes weaving in and out of the palms and shrubs. And at night, mountain lions and coyotes prowl and howl at the moon while bats dart across the starry sky.

All this and more will disappear like it has in so many other places in this once pristine world. Any development near these wetlands will disrupt, destroy and dislodge this entire ecosystem. Be it from the excess light, sound, chemicals, pollution or the relentless digging of the land - this wetland ecosystem will die
These 7 acres are ESHA and the entire 7 acres should be restored! EX 3 Video of Flooded Wetland in email
EX 4 left blank
EX 5 February pictures of flooded area in an email
EX 6 video of wetland water draining into storm drain
EX 7 video of wetland water draining into storm drain
10 42
Attachment 4
43 44
45 46
47 48
49 50
51 52
53 54
55

Page 1 of 12 ends

Commission Agenda Report
To: Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission
Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner
Approved by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Date prepared: January 25, 2024 Meeting date: February 5, 2024 Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 22-040 – An application to restore a wetland buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement Location: 23855 Civic Center Way, within the appealable coastal zone
APN: 4458-021-007
Owner: Civic Center Way LLC
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-13 (Attachment 1) determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and approving Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 22-040 to restore a wetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district located at 23855 Civic Center Way (Civic Center Way LLC).

DISCUSSION: This agenda report will provide an overview of the project, including a summary of the project setting and description of the project scope of work. Next, the report summarizes staff's analysis of the project's consistency with applicable provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and CEQA review. The analysis and findings discussed herein demonstrate that the project is consistent with the LCP.

Project Overview
The project is intended to restore vegetation that was disced during unpermitted weed abatement inside the 100-foot buffer from a wetland ESHA. The weed abatement was conducted in 2019. The LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 4.6.1(B) provides that all new development (including the removal of vegetation) must maintain a 100-foot buffer from the upland limit of the wetland. The unpermitted weed abatement took place within the 100-foot ESHA buffer. The applicant submitted a Habitat Restoration and Planning Commission
Meeting
02-05-24
Item

5.C.
56 Attachment 5

Page 2 of 12 ends

Monitoring Plan (HRMP), dated July 2022, prepared by Glenn Lukos Associates to restore the affected area. The project was originally scheduled for the November 7, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. Prior to the meeting, there was correspondence received by the public regarding the accuracy of the HRMP, specifically the boundaries of the wetland, on the basis that earlier wetland delineations had been conducted showing the boundaries to be greater than what was being represented in the 2022 Lukos HRMP. Correspondence received for the subject application is included as Attachment 4. The applicant submitted a subsequent updated HRMP, dated November 2023, as well as an updated wetland delineation (Attachment 3) in which they accounted for previous wetland delineations to address the concerns from the public. An additional revision to the HRMP dated January 2024 (Attachment 2), was submitted to the City including a 10-year monitoring plan as opposed to the originally proposed five-year monitoring plan since a 10-year monitoring is required by the LIP.

LIP Section 4.5.1 allows for wetland restoration projects where the primary purpose is restoration of the habitat. The City Biologist reviewed the HRMP and determined that it meets the requirements of the LCP and provided conditions of approval for the applicant to abide by (Attachment 5). The Environmental Review Board (ERB) provided additional recommendations to the Planning Commission on the wetland buffer restoration during its September 28, 2022 meeting. Figure 1 below shows the outline of the approximate wetland area in relation to the subject property.

Figure 1 – Project Aerial with Mapped Wetland
Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2024
57

Page 3 of 12 ends

Other than the wetland boundaries, members of the public also expressed concern regarding the proposed site access. The property is bounded by private properties to the north, east, and west. Civic Center Way resides to the south but uneven topography makes site access challenging from the road. The applicant plans to access the site via a small walkable area that may go through the neighboring private property directly east of the site. A condition of approval has been added that the applicant must demonstrate permission from the neighboring property owner to access this path.

Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
The subject property is located in the CC zoning district, west of Stuart Ranch Road and north of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in the Civic Center area. The subject parcel is approximately 7.13 acres and the wetland buffer area is approximately 1.69 acres pursuant to the submitted HRMP and is located south of the property. The property consists of a mild slope that descends from north to south settling in the wetland area.

Figure 2 below shows the outline of the wetland area and provides the LCP required 100- foot buffer area that is proposed to be restored.

Figure 2 – Wetland and Wetland Buffer Boundaries
Source: Applicant’s HRMP, 2024
Project Description
The proposed restoration plan consists of not only restoring the area within the buffer where the weed abatement took place but also to remove and replace all non-native vegetation with native upland vegetation within the entire wetland buffer. The complete HRMP consists of the following:
58

Page 4 of 12 ends

1. The removal of non-native and invasive annual weedy species immediately outside the northern edge of the wetland and extending throughout the wetland buffer;

2. The removal of pampas grass, and other associated weeds, found in the southwestern portion of the property – just west of the wetland – to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland;

3. The installation of low-density, low-growing native container plants within the wetland buffer covering approximately 1.69 acres;

4. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer; and

5. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding.

A more detailed description of the proposed restoration is provided in the HRMP document (Attachment 2).

LCP Analysis
The LCP consists of the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the LIP. The LUP contains programs and policies implementing the Coastal Act in Malibu. The LIP contains provisions to carry out the policies of the LUP to which every project requiring a coastal development permit must adhere.

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

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

LIP Conformance Analysis
The Planning Department and City Biologist reviewed the proposed project. These specialists found the project, as proposed and conditioned, to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals and policies.

ERB Recommendation
1 The ESHA, Native Tree Protection, Transfer of Development Credits, Shoreline and Bluff Development, Public Access, and Land Division findings are neither applicable nor required for the proposed project. 59

Page 5 of 12 ends

Pursuant to LIP Section 13.7(C), ERB was required to review the project because of the after-the-fact removal of vegetation within the wetland ESHA buffer. At the September 28, 2022 ERB meeting, ERB’s only recommendation was for the applicant to decrease the amount of shrubs, or get rid of them completely, within the proposed container stock and replace them with native grasses in order to lessen fire fuel load on the property. The City Biologist stated that the shrubs were a recommendation of hers to provide for habitat, as seeding alone is not a recommendation for habitat restoration. Ultimately, the ERB member who made this recommendation agreed to lessen the number of shrubs and to use more native grasses. Subsequently, the applicant submitted a revised HRMP with the new table of container stock showing the new native grasses being used in place of some of the shrubs (Attachment 2). The table was reviewed and approved by the City Biologist.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
LIP Section 3.12 lists requirements for landscaping and revegetation of disturbed ESHA.

The plant species being used in the restoration project are native, non-invasive and comply with the requirements of the chapter. Additionally, the HRMP proposes a five-year monitoring plan which is consistent with LIP Section 3.12.1(D).

Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
LIP Section 8.3 ensures that new development minimizes the visual resource impacts of grading and landform alteration by restricting the amount of non-exempt grading to a maximum of 1,000 cubic yards for a residential parcel. There is no grading proposed in the scope of work. Minimal site excavation may be conducted for the revegetation process of the restoration.

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. A Phase I Archaeological Survey was prepared by Robert J.

Wlodarski of HEART, Inc. for the subject property in June 2018. No indication of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were discovered in the project area. HEART determined that any proposed improvements should have no adverse impacts to known cultural resources.

Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources, and until the Planning Director can review this information.
60

Page 6 of 12 ends

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
LIP Chapter 17 requires mitigation measures to protect and enhance coastal waters within the City of Malibu in accordance with the policies of the City’s LCP. The proposed project will restore native vegetation to an area disturbed by unpermitted weed abatement and thus promote the protection of coastal waters. The City’s Public Works Department who reviews the water quality and control plans did not require review of this application nor any of the chapter’s required plans because the proposed scope of work does not include grading or construction and will restore native vegetation to a disturbed area.

Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18)
No onsite wastewater treatment system is proposed for the project and therefore, the subject chapter does not apply.

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

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

As stated previously, LIP Section 4.5.1(C) allows for wetland restoration projects where the primary purpose is restoration of the habitat consistent with the proposed project. The project was reviewed by the City Biologist and Planning Department staff and they found the project to meet all the requirements of the LCP with the incorporated conditions in Resolution No. 24-13.

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

The project is not located between the first public road and the sea and the subject property does not contain any mapped trails as depicted on the LCP Park Lands Map.

Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

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

This analysis assesses whether alternatives to the proposed project would significantly lessen adverse impacts to coastal resources.
61

Page 7 of 12 ends

Alternate Project(s) – The no project alternative would mean that the damaged buffer area would not be restored. Therefore, the damaged area would remain an impact to ESHA, which would be more environmentally damaging than the proposed project to restore the damage. As stated previously, the ERB recommended that less shrubs be used in the container stock proposed to lessen the fire fuel load. While the originally planned shrubs were recommended to increase the potential for a successful restoration, this alternative has the potential to cause greater fire risk to the Civic Center area.

Proposed Project – The proposed project consists of restoring the wetland buffer with native vegetation and removing invasive weed species. A five-year monitoring plan is also proposed to help ensure that the habitat is making proper progress and that the restoration measures were successful.

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 parcel is located in a wetland ESHA buffer zone as designated in the LCP.

The City Biologist determined the project is consistent with the policies of the LCP. On September 28, 2022, ERB reviewed the project. The ERB recommended less shrubs be used in the proposed container stock to lessen the fire fuel load on the property. The applicant revised the table showing the use of more native grasses as requested by the ERB. The project is consistent with the recommendations of the ERB.

B. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) The project is in a designated wetland ESHA buffer, as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. As conditioned, the proposed project is aimed to improve habitat within the wetland ESHA buffer. LIP Section 4.7 states that findings for development within an ESHA or ESHA buffer only apply to a use than one permitted in the ESHA overlay district. The proposed habitat restoration is a use permitted within an ESHA buffer pursuant to LIP Section 4.5.1(C). 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) 62

Page 8 of 12 ends

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 visible from PCH, an LCP designated scenic road. Therefore, the findings LIP Chapter 6 are made as 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.

The project is located on the landside of PCH and proposes native vegetation to be planted as part of a habitat restoration to the wetland ESHA buffer. The vegetation proposed is not expected to grow tall enough to impact scenic views of the ocean from areas behind the project site. In fact, the proposed restoration is expected to visually enhance a degraded wetland ESHA buffer with native plants consistent with the area. Therefore, the project will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts.

Finding 2. The project, as conditioned, will not have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts due to required project modifications, landscaping or other conditions.

As stated in Finding 1, the landscaping proposed for the project is not expected to have significant adverse scenic or visual impacts. The ERB recommendation to use more native grasses would improve the original restoration plan which was to use more bushes with a higher risk of fires.

Finding 3. The project, as proposed or as conditioned, is the least environmentally damaging alternative
As mentioned in Finding 3 of Section A, the proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative in that it will restore a disturbed wetland ESHA buffer and use native vegetation consistent with the area.

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

Site conditions are expected to improve since the project area will be restored with native vegetation. No feasible alternative is expected to lessen any significant adverse impacts on scenic and visual resources if the habitat restoration is to be effective.

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 in the certified LCP. 63

Page 9 of 12 ends

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed project is not expected to have adverse scenic and visual impacts. The project will contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the LCP by restoring a disturbed ESHA buffer.

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.

The Planning Department, City Biologist, and ERB 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 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 with the inclusion of the ERB recommendation.

The City is served by the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD), as well as the California Department of Forestry, if needed. In the event of major fires, the County has “mutual aid agreements” with cities and counties throughout the State so that additional personnel and firefighting equipment can augment the LACFD. As such, the proposed project, as designed, constructed, and conditioned, will not be subject to nor increase the instability of the site or structural integrity involving wildfire hazards.

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.

As stated in Finding 1, the proposed project, as designed, conditioned and approved by the applicable departments and agencies, will not have any significant adverse impacts 64

Page 10 of 12 ends

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 previously stated 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, and ERB analyzed the proposed development for the hazards listed in LIP Chapter 9. These specialists and board found that the proposed project does not impact site stability or structural integrity. As previously discussed in Finding 3 of Section A, there are no feasible alternatives to achieve the objective of habitat restoration in the wetland ESHA buffer.

Finding 5. Development in a specific location on the site may have adverse impacts but will eliminate, minimize or otherwise contribute to conformance to 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.

G. 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.

H. 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. 65

Page 11 of 12 ends

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

As described herein, the subject property and the proposed project do not meet any of these criteria in that no trails are identified on the LCP Park Lands Map on or adjacent to the property, and the property is not located between the first public road and the sea, or on a bluff or near a recreational area. The requirement for public access of LIP Section

12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.

I. Land Division (LIP Chapter 15)
This 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 Planning Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(h) - existing landscaping and 15304(b) – minor alterations to land. The Planning Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence for the subject application is included as Attachment 4.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On January 25, 2024, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Attachment 6).

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. 24-13. The proposed project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Department staff and appropriate City departments.

ATTACHMENTS:
66

Page 12 of 12 ends

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-13

2. Project HRMP

3. Wetland Delineation

4. Correspondence

5. Department Review Sheet

6. Public Hearing Notice
67 ATTACHMENT 1

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 24-13

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU, DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 22-040 TO

RESTORE A WETLAND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE HABITAT

AREA BUFFER THAT WAS DISTURBED DUE TO UNPERMITTED WEED

ABATEMENT IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT
LOCATED AT 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY (CIVIC CENTER WAY LLC) The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

B. On September 28, 2022, the Environmental Review Board (ERB) reviewed and considered the subject application, written reports, and provided recommendations to staff regarding the project.

C. On October 20, 2022, a Notice of Coastal Development Permit Application was posted on the subject property.

E. On November 7, 2022, The Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15301(h) - Existing Facilities and 15304(b) – Minor Alterations to Land. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six 68 Resolution No 24-13

Page 2 of 8 ends

______________________
exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on February 5, 2024, 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 findings of fact, and approves CDP No. 22-040 to allow the restoration of a wetland Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district located at 23855 Civic Center Way.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)

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

Page 3 of 8 ends

______________________

3. The proposed project is the least environmentally damaging alternative in that it will restore a disturbed wetland ESHA buffer and use native vegetation consistent with the area.

5. The proposed project is not expected to have adverse scenic and visual impacts.

The project will contribute to conformance to sensitive resource protection policies contained in the LCP by restoring a disturbed ESHA buffer.

C. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)

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

5. No adverse impacts to sensitive resources are expected.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 22-040, subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

Page 4 of 8 ends

______________________

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. The removal of non-native and invasive annual weedy species immediately outside the northern edge of the wetland and extending throughout the wetland buffer; b. The removal of pampas grass, and other associated weeds, found in the southwestern portion of the property – just west of the wetland – to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland;
c. The installation of low-density, low-growing native container plants within the wetland buffer covering approximately 1.69 acres;
d. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer; and e. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding.

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Department date stamped January 19, 2024. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

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

Page 5 of 8 ends

______________________

10. The property owner must submit payment for all outstanding fees payable to the City prior to any development.

11. The property owner shall comply with all provisions of the Malibu Municipal Code and LIP.

Cultural Resources

Biology

14. Each of the recommendations outlined in the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) shall be implemented as approved.

15. All invasive plants removed as either a part of the site preparation or ongoing maintenance must be immediately bagged, and the seeds/seed heads will not be left out. All invasive plants will be debris to be hauled off site.

17. The site shall be monitored on an annual basis for 10 years, consistent with LIP Chapter 4.

18. The site preparation work should begin as soon as the HRMP is approved and an ideal time to begin invasive removal efforts is determined.
72 Resolution No 24-13

Page 6 of 8 ends

______________________

19. 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.

20. Construction fencing shall be installed prior to the beginning of construction and shall be maintained throughout the construction period to protect the site’s sensitive habitat areas.

The biological monitor shall inspect the fencing prior to work to ensure it is placed in the most effective area to protect the resource while permitting enough room for the work.

21. No new lighting is being proposed. Therefore, none is approved.

Site Specific Conditions

23. The revised HRMP, dated January 2024, shall be used in the habitat restoration as approved by the City of Malibu.

24. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection when the initial “Planting” phase is complete.

27. The restoration must commence within six months from the date of this approval. Failure to commence the restoration within the specified time may constitute further code enforcement action.

Fixed Conditions

28. This coastal development permit shall run with the land and bind all future owners of the property.
73 Resolution No 24-13

Page 7 of 8 ends

______________________

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

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 5th day of February 2024. _______________________________________
KRAIG HILL, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to 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. 24-13 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting held on the 5th day of February 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
74 Resolution No 24-13

Page 8 of 8 ends

______________________
____________________________________
REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
75 HABITAT RESTORATION AND MONITORING PLAN
FOR

TEMPORARY IMPACTS TO WETLAND BUFFER WITHIN
THE PROPERTY AT 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY

HABITAT RESTORATION PROJECT

CITY OF MALIBU

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA
July 2022 [Revised October 2022] [Updated November 2023] [Updated January 2024] Prepared for:
23855 Civic Center Way, LLC.

Agent: Cornerstone Real Estate Consulting
18685 Main Street, Suite 101-457
Huntington Beach Ca. 92648
Contact: Ed Mountford
Telephone: (949) 351-3334
Prepared by:

Glenn Lukos Associates, inc.
1940 E. Deere St., Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Contact: Tony Bomkamp
Telephone: (949) 837-0404
ATTACHMENT 2
76 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY....................................................................................................... 1 II. PROJECT INFORMATION ................................................................................................... 1 A. Responsible Parties for Project Implementation .................................................................... 1 B. Site Location and Description ................................................................................................ 2 C. Brief Summary of Temporary Impacts to Wetland Buffer....................................................... 2 D. Proposed Restoration............................................................................................................ 2 III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................ 3 A. Project Goals ......................................................................................................................... 3 B. Schedule of Work .................................................................................................................. 3 C. Site Access............................................................................................................................ 4 D. Contractor Education............................................................................................................. 4 E. Cost Estimates ...................................................................................................................... 4 IV. RESTORATION WORKPLAN ............................................................................................. 5 A. Site Preparation (Survey/Staking) ........................................................................................ 5 B. Irrigation Plan/Installation ...................................................................................................... 5 C. Removal of Non-native and Invasive Plant Species .............................................................. 5 D. Native Plant and Seed Plan .................................................................................................. 6 E. Best Management Practices and Impact Minimization Measures.......................................... 9 G. Waste Disposal...................................................................................................................... 9 V. MAINTENANCE.................................................................................................................... 10 A. Responsible Parties............................................................................................................... 10 B. Maintenance Schedule .......................................................................................................... 10 C. Plant Inspection..................................................................................................................... 10 D. Plant Replacement ................................................................................................................ 10 E. Supplemental Seeding........................................................................................................... 11 F. Long Term Weed Abatement................................................................................................. 11 G. General Irrigation Maintenance ............................................................................................. 11 H. Trash and Debris Removal.................................................................................................... 12 I. Pruning .................................................................................................................................. 12 VI. MONITORING PLAN
A. Performance Standards......................................................................................................... 12 B. Monitoring Methods .............................................................................................................. 13 C. Monitoring Schedule.............................................................................................................. 14 D. Annual Monitoring Reports .................................................................................................... 14 77 ii
E. Adaptive Management .......................................................................................................... 15 VII. COMPLETION OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION ........................................................... 15 A. Notification of Completion...................................................................................................... 15 B. Agency Confirmation ............................................................................................................. 151 Page
TABLES

1. Schedule of Work .................................................................................................................. 4

2. Cost Estimations.................................................................................................................... 5

3. Wetland Buffer Zone Plant Palette ........................................................................................ 7

4. Native Seed Mix .................................................................................................................... 8

5. Performance Standards for Temporarily Impacted Wetland Buffer........................................ 12

EXHIBITS

1. Regional Map

2. Vicinity Map

3. Restoration Map
78 1
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY, CITY OF MALIBU

WETLAND BUFFER HABITAT RESTORATION AND MONITORING PLAN
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Implementation of this Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP/Project) is intended to provide methods to restore areas of wetland buffer covering 1.69-acres subject to temporary impacts associated with the disking of weeds for fuel reduction. The wetland is located on the southern portion of an approximately

7.13-acres property (Project Site) located at 23855 Civic Center Way, City of Malibu (City), Los Angeles County (County), California. The previous jurisdictional delineation conducted in 2018 and 2019 by Glenn Lukos Associates, inc. (GLA) was updated in November 2023 at the request of City staff which provides the baseline for the wetland boundaries and to guide the restoration outlined in this HRMP. The plan was also updated in January 2024 to reflect a revised schedule and incorporate a ten-year maintenance and monitoring program consistent with the City of Malibu Land Use Implementation Plan (LIP).

In August 2021, the City notified the previous owner of the property that disking had occurred within the buffer area adjacent to the wetland which constitutes a violation of the City’s Local Coastal Program (LCP) and a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application would be required to mitigate the impacts. To resolve the violation that occurred, the HRMP proposes a program to restore the affected areas and enhance the impacted wetland buffer area within the southern portion of the property by the following:
(1) removal of non-native herbs and grasses within the wetland buffer; (2) removal of pampas grass (Cortederia selloana) from the southwestern corner of the site; (3) seeding within the wetland buffer;
(4) targeted installation of container stock within the wetland buffer; and (5) ten-year maintenance and monitoring for the 1.69-acres buffer to be restored.

Each of these actions are addressed in this HRMP. These actions will not only enhance the quality of habitat in the impacted areas, but the adjacent wetland. By enhancing the wetland buffer, the plan will ensure the long-term viability and functions of the wetland habitat.

II. PROJECT INFORMATION
A. Responsible Parties for Project Implementation
Applicant 23855 Civic Center Way, LLC.

Ed Mountford, Cornerstone Real Estate Consulting
18685 Main Street, Suite 101-457
Huntington Beach Ca. 92648
Telephone: (949) 351-3334
Preparer of Restoration Plan: Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.

Contact: Tony Bomkamp
1940 E. Deere St., Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Telephone: (949) 837-0404
79 2
B. Site Location and Description
The HRMP sets forth measures to address temporary impacts to 1.69-acres of wetland buffer adjacent to the wetland on the property, located at 23655 Civic Center Way in northwestern Los Angeles County, California (Exhibit 1 and 2). As discussed below, the temporary impacts occurred during disking conducted to reduce fuel loads on the property. The entire property covers approximately 7.13-acres located within the City of Malibu, north of Civic Center Way, west of Stuart Ranch Road, east of the Malibu Canyon Village, and just south of the Malibu Racquet Club. The Project Site can be found on the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ Malibu Beach Quadrangle Map, in an un-sectioned area within, Township – 1S, and Range – 17W. The Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates corresponding to the approximate center of the property are 11 S 343650.30 E and 3767446.46 N. This Project Site is within the California coastal zone.

The land within the 7.13-acre Project Site is currently undeveloped. The northern half of the parcel, which includes portions of the buffer, supports a mosaic of annual non-native weedy species including non-native grasslands dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and wild oats (Avena fatua), a variety of non-native forbs including wild radish (Raphanus sativus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), garland chrysanthemum (Glebionis coronaria), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), with a few small clumps of non-native Brazilian pepper trees (Schinus terebinthifolius) and Mexican fan palms (Washingtonia robusta) growing with the above-referenced non-native upland understory. The southern portion of the parcel contains a wetland that supports a mosaic of native and non-native wetland indicator plant species including an alkali meadow dominated by saltgrass (Distichilis spicata) and alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis), an emergent marsh dominated by Californica bulrush (Schoenoplectus californica), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus), and Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus), and a mixed willow scrub with an understory dominated by upland weeds. The southwestern portion of the Project Site, immediately west of the wetland, is upland and heavily dominated by weeds such as pampas grass, ripgut brome, carnation spurge (Euphorbia terracinna), castor bean (Ricinus communis), and summer mustard. Overall, the Project Site, including the wetland buffer, consists of predominantly non-native species.

C. Brief Summary of Temporary Impacts to Wetland Buffer The northern and western portions of the Project Site have been subject to routine weed control, which has been performed by mowing or disking non-native weeds as a measure to reduce fuel and limit potential impacts from fire to surrounding properties. A letter from the City of Malibu dated August 20, 2021 identified a violation associated with the disking in 2019 (Case No. 2020006002) which affected wetland ESHA buffer and thus requiring a Coastal Development Permit (CDP). Disking extended to near the edge of the wetland which is depicted on Exhibit 3. While not all the buffer adjacent to the wetland was affected, this HRMP proposes restoration efforts within the entire wetland buffer. All of the affected area supports predominantly non-native upland vegetation, therefore this HRMP addresses the above-referenced violation by proposing weed removal and native plantings within the wetland buffer resulting in the conversion of the wetland buffer to native habitat.

D. Proposed Restoration
The proposed restoration includes the following components:

1. The removal of non-native and invasive annual weedy species immediately outside the northern edge of the wetland and extending throughout the wetland buffer, as depicted on Exhibit 3. 80 3

2. The removal of pampas grass, and other associated weeds, found in the southwestern portion of the property – just west of the wetland – to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland. The pampas grass is depicted on Exhibit 3.

3. The installation of low-density, low-growing native container plants within the wetland buffer covering approximately 1.69-acres, as depicted in Exhibit 3.

4. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer.

5. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding.

III. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
A. Project Goals
This plan outlines the following goals:

1. To remove the non-native herbaceous cover within the wetland buffer including (but not limited to) the wild radish, black mustard, garland chrysanthemum, summer mustard and non-native grasses;

2. To remove the pampas grass, and other associated weeds, such as carnation spurge and Bristly oxtongue (Helminthotheca echioides) found in the southwestern portion of the site – just west of the wetland and within the wetland buffer; and

3. Conduct ten years of maintenance and monitoring to ensure successful restoration of the 1.69-acres wetland buffer area.

B. Schedule of Work
The purpose of this plan is to ensure the successful restoration of 1.69-acres of wetland buffer. The following schedule of work was designed to best implement the actions needed to ensure success. The initial clearing and de-thatching of non-native herbaceous species along with removal of invasive plant species such as pampas grass is expected to occur in Spring/Summer 2024 with “grow-and-kill” cycles to be initiated thereafter. Following the weed removal program, plant installation and seeding is expected to occur in the Fall/Winter 2024. Maintenance will occur over the eleven-year life of the project, which includes the initial year of weed removal. The Project biologist will monitor all aspects of the restoration to detect any problems at an early stage. Potential problems could arise from irrigation failure, vandalism, competition from weeds and invasive species, and unacceptable levels of disease and predation.

Maintenance and monitoring are proposed to continue through the end of 2034, with an annual monitoring report to be submitted to the City and California Coastal Commission (CCC) at the end of each calendar year for a period of ten years starting in 2025 with the initial report addressing site preparation, plant/seed installation, and year one monitoring results.

Table 1 below provides the recommended timeline of weed removal, native plant and seed installation, maintenance, monitoring, and reporting for the proposed activities. 81 4
C. Site Access
Access to the Project Site is limited as it borders private development immediately to the north, west, and east, as well as Civic Center Way to the south. Civic Center Way is both an active road to general traffic and runs along a slope which makes access into the site by the road inaccessible. The optimal method to enter the site is by a small walkable route to the southeast of the site. Project personnel, contractors, and equipment will likely need to enter and exit the site through this route.

D. Contractor Education
Native plant revegetation and restoration efforts require specialized knowledge of implementation and maintenance procedures, particularly water requirements for native plants and knowledge of native and nonnative plant species. Landscape contractors who perform residential and commercial landscaping in Southern California generally do not have the expertise to perform this work. As such, prior to start of vegetation removal work, personnel and contractors working within the Project Site will receive prevention training as outlined in this plan. Training will include identification and location of target non-native species, priority areas, and habitat avoidance areas, prevention of transport impacts, eradication methodology, and BMPs.

E. Cost Estimates
The approximate costs for implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of the 1.69-acres wetland buffer is indicated below in Table 2.

Work Phase/Seasonal Timeline
Spring (Mar-May)
Summer (Jun-Aug)
Fall (Sep-Nov)
Winter (Dec-Feb)
Spring (Mar-May)
Summer (Jun-Aug)
Fall (Sep-Nov)
Winter (Dec-Feb)
Spring (Mar-May)
Summer (Jun-Aug)
Fall (Sep-Nov)
Winter (Dec-Feb)
Spring (Mar-May)
Summer (Jun-Aug)
Fall (Sep-Nov)
Winter (Dec-Feb)
Spring (Mar-May)
Summer (Jun-Aug)
Fall (Sep-Nov)
Winter (Dec-Feb)
Spring (Mar-May)
Summer (Jun-Aug)
Fall (Sep-Nov)
Winter (Dec-Feb)
YEAR
Initial Weed Remov al "Grow -and-Kill" Cy cle
Install Nativ e Plant/Seed
Supplemental Seeding/Planting (if necessary )
Qualitativ e Monitoring
Maintenance
Quantitativ e Monitoring (Annually )
Annual Report
TABLE 1

SCHEDULE OF WORK
2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029-34
82 5
TABLE 2

COST ESTIMATIONS
Tasks Cost
Mobilization $9,000
Site Preparation $46,000
Irrigation Installation (includes materials) $13,000
Plant Installation (includes plants, seeds, and potential hydroseed) $21,500 Ten-year Maintenance $100,000
Ten-year Monitoring (includes reporting) $48,000
Total $237,500
IV. RESTORATION WORKPLAN
A. Site Preparation
The following program will be implemented to prepare the Project Site for native plant installation, native seed dispersal, and encourage plant recruitment from the already existing native vegetation. As mentioned above, the plan is set to commence in phases with work to be conducted in Spring, Summer, and Fall 2024 with site preparation and initial rounds of weed removal.

Survey/Staking
The Project biologist will survey/stake the limits of the wetland area, as determined by the jurisdictional delineation performed by Glenn Lukos Associates in 2018/2019 and updated in 2023, to clearly delineate the wetland from the wetland buffer and impacted areas. Survey stakes will be spaced within line of sight and no more than 10 feet apart. Access routes will likely be limited to the southeastern route mentioned above.

B. Irrigation Plan
Supplemental irrigation is to be used solely for the purpose of facilitating a “grow-and-kill” cycle, as well as establishing the planted stock and germinating the seeds within the wetland buffer area of the Project Site.

While the irrigation is temporary in nature, the goal of the irrigation program is to obtain germination and growth with the least amount of irrigation. This is due to the fact that frequent irrigation can encourage unwanted weed invasion and leaches nutrients from the soil, therefore skilled timing between watering will be necessary. The restoration areas will be watered by a water buffalo or similar equipment to apply water by hand to the planted container stock in the wetland buffer area and provide irrigation for the “grow-and-kill” process throughout the restoration areas. If a water meter connection is not available, a temporary water tank will be used to provide a temporary water source. No permanent irrigation systems will be installed for this plan.

C. Removal of Non-native and Invasive Plant Species
The predominance of non-native, invasive weed species throughout California presents a challenge to many restoration projects. Weedy species are opportunistic and rapidly colonize disturbed spaces. This can lead to the displacement of native species if the weedy species are not properly treated. 83 6
This program aims to restore the wetland buffer by performing actions that establish native vegetation and promote native plant recruitment from the already existing plant communities. Initial and long-term removal of non-native, invasive plant species is an essential step as it reduces competition for limited nutrients and space for target native plants. By performing routine weed abatement, native vegetation can establish, while recruitment of native species greatly increases.
“Grow-and-kill” Cycle
During the initial removal of non-native, invasive plant species, a “grow-and-kill” cycle will be performed to help weaken the weedy plant and seed population in preparation for native plant installation and seed dispersal. A “grow-and-kill” cycle consists of applying water, causing germination of the non-native, invasive species, and removing the weeds as they emerge. This allows a large portion of the seed bank currently present in the soil to be exhausted and removed. Elimination of competition early in the life cycle of native plants helps ensure rapid growth and associated cover of the native species.

It is expected that the grow-and-kill cycle will be performed three to four times, as necessary, until it is deemed acceptable for introduction of target seed and container stock.

Hand-pulling in the Wetland Buffer Area
The wetland buffer area along the wetland edge (estimated 10-foot-width) will be subject to hand-weeding as this is the most effective and safe method of plant removal in proximity to the wetland. Hand-pulling is especially effective at eradicating down to the root of the plant, thus inhibiting ability to regrow. Additionally, hand-pulling is more precise than mechanical means, so it can ensure that neighboring native plants will not be affected. Beyond the initial clearing of these weeds, this will also be the method used during the maintenance and monitoring phase of this Project. The remainder of the buffer area will be mowed to remove the herbaceous vegetation and, due to the density of the herbaceous vegetation, will be necessary to dethatch the area. All materials will be removed from the site to eliminate as much of the seed bank as possible.

Mechanical Weed Removal of Pampas grass in Southwestern corner The southwestern area of the Project Site exhibits dense stands of pampas grass, a highly invasive, nonnative species in Southern California. The weed is especially aggressive as it has strong roots and is a prolific seed producer. The southwestern corner consists of upland habitat and the best method for removing the pampas grass is mechanical means such as weed whacker, mowers, and chain saws, etc. Two to four “rounds” of such methods is proven to successfully eliminate pampas grass. As the Project enters the maintenance and monitoring period, the use of mechanical means will continue if deemed necessary in the area.

D. Native Plant and Seed Plan
Plant Palette
The wetland buffer area will be revegetated with plant species native to southern California grasslands and coastal sage scrub. To aid the growth of native groundcover, container stock will be installed within the wetland buffer area, while a native seed mix will also be applied in the wetland buffer area. The proposed plant palettes are provided below in Tables 3 and 4. The plant palette list species, spacing, and total quantity of plants required. For the seeded species, pounds of seed per acre and total quantity are also specified.

As noted in Table 3 below, shrubs will be clumped in accordance with typical fuel modification practices such that no more than three plants will occur in a grouping and clumps will be spaced a minimum of 15 feet apart. 84 7
In addition to spacing and clumping, the plant species have been selected to consist of desirable, low-growing shrubs in order to limit the need for fuel reduction at the site.

Table 3 below provides a list of container stock to be planted in the Fall and Winter months following the initial non-native, invasive species removal and grow-and-kill program.

TABLE 3

WETLAND BUFFER ZONE CONTAINER PLANT PALETTE
Botanic Name Common Name Stock
Type
Plant Spacing (15 feet
Between Clumps)
Total Plant
Quantity
Isocoma menziesii Coast goldenbush 1 gal 3 Plants per Clump 75 Atriplex lentiformis Saltbush 1 gal 2-3 Plants per Clump 25 Baccharis pilularis Coyote bush 1 gal 3 Plants per Clump 75 Rhus integrifolia Lemonade berry 1 gal 2 Plants per Clump 25 Stipa pulchra Purple Needlegrass 1 gal Clumped 300
Total Container Stock 500
Source of Plant Materials
It is preferred that the source of all propagules and seed used at the mitigation site be from coastal Los Angeles County. If not available, the remainder of propagules and seed required may be considered from coastal Orange and Ventura Counties, and collected as close to the restoration site as possible to preserve regional genetic integrity.

Contract Growing
Contract growing of all container plants shall be by a local experienced native plant nursery. Substitution of plant material at the time of planting depends upon the discretion of the Project biologist. Any substitutions that are approved will be documented in the annual monitoring reports to the City.

Container Stock
One-gallon container stock will be utilized for the restoration project. Plant materials will be inspected by the Project biologist and approved as healthy, disease free, and of proper size prior to planting. Overgrown, rootbound container stock will be rejected.

Mycorrhizal Fungi
Mycorrhizae are specialized fungi found on plant roots. A symbiotic relationship exists between plant roots and mycorrhizae wherein the plants benefit from the increased ability to take up nutrients and withstand drought when mycorrhizae are present. This relationship is essential to the growth rate, well-being, and longevity of native plant communities. Plant utilization of mycorrhizal fungi markedly increases the success of revegetation on disturbed or degraded lands. All appropriate container-grown plants, except those know to be non-host species, shall be inoculated with mycorrhizal fungi prior to delivery to the job site.

Flagging of Planting Locations
Container stock will be laid out in such a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (i.e., in clusters and islands) to emulate existing regional upper coastal marsh and upland plant communities. Prior to container stock installation, the Project biologist will flag plant locations in the field with pin-flags that will be color coded 85 8
as to plant species. A list of species with their appropriate color code will be provided to the restoration contractor (Contractor) prior to plant installation.

Planting Method for Container Stock
Container stock will be thoroughly watered the day before planting. One-gallon container stock will be planted in a hole measuring at least twice the diameter of the container and twice the depth. Backfilling of the hole with native soil to a proper planting depth for placement of the plant within the hole so that the top of the root ball will be set one inch above finish grade. The container will be upended into the palm of the hand to avoid damage to the root structure and placed in the planting hole. The planting hole will be backfilled with native soil.

A three-inch high, hand-compacted earth berm, approximately 36 inches in diameter, will then be constructed around each container plant. This watering basin will be maintained until the plants are no longer irrigated.

Container stock will be watered immediately after installation.

Seed Mix
Table 4 below provides a list of species and application rate to be applied to the wetland buffer areas. This seed mix will be applied after plant installation and may be applied multiple times during the ten-year monitoring period, as directed by the Project biologist.

TABLE 4

NATIVE SEED MIX
Botanic Name Common Name Stock
Type
Lbs./Acre Total Lbs.

Malvella leprosa Alkali mallow Seed 4 6.5
Cressa truxillensis Alkali weed Seed 3 4.8
Heliotropium curassavicum Alkali heliotrope Seed 4 6.5
Stipa pulchra Purple needlegrass Seed 5 8.0
Melica imperfecta Coast range melic Seed 4 6.5
Sporobolus airioides Alkali sacaton Seed 3 4.8
Lasthenia californica California goldfields Seed 5 8.0
Amsinckia menziesii Menzie’s Fiddleneck Seed 3 4.8
Phacelia distans Common phacelia Seed 3 4.8
Total Lbs. of Seed 34 54.7
Method and Timing of Seed Application
The seed mix will be broadcast by hand and will be scattered in the wetland buffer areas. To maximize the germination of seed, broadcast will occur following a rain event of roughly 1-inch, or more, in the months between September and February. Seed must be incorporated into the soil to a maximum depth of ¼-inch by broadcasting and raking into the soil.

If deemed necessary, hydroseeding may be a preferred method. Hydroseeding will occur shortly after installation of container stock. The ground will be thoroughly wetted prior to hydroseeding. Hydroseeding will be performed only during low wind conditions.
86 9
Irrigation Schedule
Planting and seeding will be conducted during the late fall and winter months (between September and February) to take advantage of cooler temperatures and natural rain cycles to establish planted container stock and germinate applied seed. The most critical period for irrigation is during the first winter and spring following planting. During this period, roots are not well-established and an unseasonable drought can cause high mortality.

Irrigation water shall be applied in such a way to encourage deep root growth, as wetting the full root zone and drying the soil between irrigation events is essential to the maintenance of the plants and the promotion of a deep root zone that will support the vegetation in the years after establishment. During dry periods after plant installation, the Project biologist and Contractor will regularly inspect the soil moisture. In case of unseasonable warm winters or drought conditions, the Project biologist may recommend supplemental irrigation to establish the native plant material. This will be conducted using a water buffalo or similar vehicle to apply water by hand to the planted container stock once per week for as long as necessary to establish root systems in the native soils, typically two or three summers.

Pruning and Staking
There will be no pruning or staking of any vegetation, unless otherwise specified by the Project biologist.

Diseased or insect-damaged foliage (before installation), if sufficient to require pruning, will serve as a benchmark for rejection of plant material.

E. Best Management Practices and Impact Minimization Measures All work will be performed in conformance with BMPs outlined in this plan and under the direction of a biologist experienced in habitat restoration and resource management in Southern California. BMPs set forth herein limit the introduction, transport, and proliferation of invasive species onto the Project Site and to ensure that all work is performed with the least incidental impact to native plant communities and protected wildlife. • Flagging, stakes, and/or rope shall be used to demarcate the boundary of the work areas on site. • All contractors working on site shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the wetland area by the Project biologist prior to start of work and receive information regarding impact avoidance and minimization to the wetland habitat.
• Equipment access and staging areas shall be identified and approved by the City staff prior to start of work. The goal is to limit access and staging to within 25-feet from property lines, if possible and to ensure that incursions into the wetland do not occur. • Contractors shall clean all equipment, tools, gear, and clothing prior to start of work to avoid introduction of invasive species to work areas.
• Clear demarcation of access routes prior to start of work shall be conducted by the City and the Project biologist.

F. Waste Disposal
Waste disposal locations to be identified at one or multiple locations prior to start of work. All materials removed from restoration areas shall be disposed of offsite at a landfill. The non-native, invasive plant material will be removed off-site to a “green” waste recycling facility or otherwise legally disposed of, as necessary. Nonnative plant material will be covered during transport. 87 10
V. MAINTENANCE
A. Responsible Parties
The hired Contractor will be responsible for carrying out the ten-year maintenance program.

B. Maintenance Schedule
The purpose of this plan is to ensure the successful restoration of the temporarily impacted wetland buffer.

The Project biologist will monitor all aspects of the restoration to detect any problems at an early state. As mentioned above, potential problems could arise from competition from weeds and invasive species, irrigation failure, trash/debris build-up, and/or problematic presence of disease and predation.

The maintenance guidelines are specifically tailored to native plant establishment and recruitment. The maintenance personnel will be fully informed regarding the HRMP so they understand the goals of the effort and the maintenance requirements.

For a period of 120 days following completion of the planting installation, the Contractor will be responsible for the care of the plantings. The purpose of the 120-day establishment period is that contractor presence during this period is proven to increase project success. The Contractor will control the spread of weed species and identify any efforts necessary to ensure the health and survival of the plantings. During this period if there is any damage or mortality to plants due to unusual weather or vandalism, will be replaced immediately. Following the 120-day establishment period the Project will then be evaluated by the Project biologist, and, if judged satisfactorily, the establishment period will be deemed concluded and the long-term maintenance period for the plantings will begin.

Overall, the general maintenance program will begin immediately following initial planting and seeding in Fall/Winter 2024 and will occur monthly during the first two years following removals and quarterly thereafter for the remainder of the ten-year restoration project.

C. Plant Inspection
After initial planting, the Project biologist and Contractor will check the planting site on a monthly basis through the first 24 months post-installation and seeding. The plants shall be inspected on a quarterly basis for year three to five, then biannually thereafter.

The Project biologist shall prepare a written memorandum as needed to the Applicant after each monitoring site visit listing observations, problems, and recommended remedial measures based upon field observations. A copy of this memorandum shall be sent to the Contractor for maintenance. These memorandums shall focus on any problems including project horticulture, vandalism, trash/debris, weeding, irrigation scheduling, pest control, etc. The Project biologist shall be responsible for recommending all remedial measures to be implemented.

D. Plant Replacement
As mentioned previously, the Contractor will be responsible for replacing all container stock plants terminally diseased or dead for 120 days after plant installation. The Contractor will thereafter replace all dead and/or 88 11
declining plant in the winter months as recommended by the Project biologist. Replacement plants shall be furnished and planted by the Contractor at their expense. Replacement plants shall conform to the species, size requirements, and spacing as specified in Table 3. The replacement plants shall be purchased from inventory at the same native plant nursery as were the contract-grown plant stock.

E. Supplemental Seeding
Any areas where inadequate seed establishment has taken place will be provided supplemental seeding on an annual basis between November 1st and March 31st to take advantage of the winter rainy season, as determined by the Project biologist. These areas shall be reseeded with the same native seed mix as depicted in Table 4, to provide additional vegetative ground cover. Any reseeding necessary to improve sparsely covered areas will be conducted following the same procedures specified.

F. Long-Term Weed Abatement
All maintenance personnel will be trained to distinguish weed species from native vegetation to ensure only weedy species are removed.

The restoration site shall be maintained free of weeds during this maintenance and monitoring period. Weeds shall be removed before they can attain a heigh of three-inches (3”) at intervals of not more than 30 days for the first two years of maintenance. As weeds become evident, they should be immediately removed by hand or mechanical means. Weed debris shall be removed from the restoration areas as accumulated and disposed of as permitted by law. All portions of the plant will be removed, including the root. The Project biologist shall direct the Contractor regarding the selection of target weed species, their location, and the timing of weed control operations to ensure that native plants are avoided to the highest extent possible.

Pulled weeds will be placed on a “mantilla” or other type of tarp to prevent the seeds from coming in contact with the ground soil.

Additionally, a cleared space of approximately 18 inches from the base of the plant, will be maintained around each container plant to minimize competition from other plant species. Leaf and branch drop, and organic debris of native species shall be left in place.

The long-term, timely removal of these non-native, invasive plant species is crucial in the success of this restoration project as it is driven by native plant establishment and recruitment. By minimizing competition, these two events can occur successfully.

G. General Maintenance of Irrigation
During the maintenance phase, irrigation will continue to be conducted using a water buffalo or similar vehicle to apply water by hand to the native container stock on an as-needed basis during the maintenance period, under the direction of the Project biologist.

The Contractor will be responsible for the regular maintenance and repair of all aspects of the irrigation. Poor functioning or non-functioning irrigation by the water buffalo shall be repaired or replaced immediately as to not endanger the plantings. Regular equipment checks should be conducted, except for when the irrigation is no longer in operation as recommended by the Project biologist. 89 12
The Contractor, at their own expense, shall repair any erosion or slippage of soil caused by the Contractor’s inadequate operation of the irrigation facilities.

If any issues pertaining to watering or moisture levels arise, the Project biologist must be consulted with immediately.

H. Trash and Debris Removal
The restoration areas shall be well-maintained to deter vandalism and dumping of trash. The Contractor shall, during routine quarterly maintenance, manually remove liter and trash from the restoration areas and dispose of it off-site as permitted by law. Driftwood, wrack, and other native vegetative debris shall be left in place.

I. Pruning
During the maintenance and monitoring period, no pruning is necessary unless otherwise specified by the Project biologist.

VI. MONITORING PLAN
A. Performance Standards
Performance standards are based on the stated goals of the HRMP. The plan considers the wetland buffer temporarily impacted, so the final objective of this plan is to restore what was impacted and provide for the long-term health and establishment of the habitat after the ten-year project period.

Below is Table 5 depicting the performance standards for the temporarily impacted areas within the wetland buffer for years 1 to 10.

TABLE 5

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR TEMPORARILY IMPACTED WETLAND BUFFER Year Performance Standard
First-year Monitoring No greater than 20-percent absolute cover by non-native species
Second-year Monitoring A minimum of 25-percent coverage by native species No greater than 25-percent coverage by non-native species Third-year Monitoring A minimum of 40-percent coverage by native species No greater than 25-percent coverage by non-native species Fourth-year Monitoring A minimum of 55-percent coverage by native species No greater than 20-percent coverage by non-native species Fifth-year Monitoring A minimum of 70-percent coverage by native species No greater than 10-percent coverage by non-native species Sixth to Tenth-year Monitoring A minimum of 70-percent coverage by native species No greater than 10-percent coverage by non-native species 90 13
Additional criteria, listed below, will be considered as indicators of successful revegetation throughout the life of the Project.

Survivorship of Container Stock
Prior to the first anniversary of plant installation, all dead plants shall be replaced during the winter months, unless their function has been replaced by natural recruitment. Dead, missing, or declining plants shall be replaced thereafter on an annual basis, during the winter months, throughout the life of the Project unless their function and value has been replaced by natural recruitment or by greater than anticipated growth of the survived container stock.

Evidence of a high container stock survivorship is indicative of improved habitat conditions, and can therefore be used as a factor in determining successful wetland buffer restoration.

Native Plant Recruitment
Evidence of native plant recruitment from year to year is another example of the successful creation of a functional, self-sustaining habitat. Especially with this plan, the recruitment of native species is highly relied on to build native vegetative ground cover. Noted recruitment would be considered a satisfied performance standard.

B. Monitoring Methods
Monitoring will assess the attainment of annual and final performance standards, as well as identify the need to implement contingency measures in the event of a failure. Monitoring methods include an annual tally of dead and/or declining plant stock, visual estimates of cover, visual estimates of wildlife usage, qualitative assessments of ecological function, as well as quantitative field sampling to be performed in accordance with the methodology developed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Please refer to A Manual of California Vegetation for further details on this sampling method. Quantitative sampling visits will be conducted only during the growing season.

Monitoring will be performed by a qualified Biologist/Ecologist, and continuity within the personnel and methodology of monitoring shall be maintained insofar as possible to ensure comparable assessments.

Qualitative Monitoring
The Project biologist will conduct qualitative monitoring surveys on a monthly basis during the first 24 months, quarterly for years three to five, then biannually thereafter for the remaining time of the ten-year monitoring period. Qualitative surveys will consist of walking the length of the restoration areas and documenting general observations, such as regrowth of non-native, invasive vegetation, natural recruitment of native species, establishment of planted container stock and seed, trash/debris, and signs of disturbance. Records will be kept of signs of erosion, predator bird species such as crows, and weed infestation. The Project biologist will determine adaptive management measures to be undertaken to ensure successful implementation of the plan. All adaptive management measures undertaken will be referenced in annual monitoring reports submitted to the City and CCC.

Quantitative Monitoring
The Project biologist will conduct quantitative monitoring on an annual basis, in the growing season, during the entire life of the Project. The monitoring will measure the success in completing the above performance standards each year. The initial quantitative monitoring will commence the first year after installation and 91 14
every year thereafter until the acceptance by the City and CCC. The quantitative vegetation sampling (percent native vegetation cover) will provide sufficient data to determine performance of the temporarily impacted wetland buffer areas.

Sampling Technique
Percent native vegetation cover of the temporarily impacted wetland buffer areas will be measured by using point-intercept sampling method centered in a 2-meter by 50-meter plot. At each 0.5-meter interval along each transect (beginning at the 50-cm mark and ending at the 50-meter), a point is projected vertically into the vegetation. Each plant species intercepted by a point is recorded, providing a tally of hits for each species in the herbaceous, shrub, and tree (if any) canopies, making it possible to record more than 100 hits in any 50-meter transect. Percent cover for each species, according to vegetation layer (herb, shrub, and tree) can be calculated from these data. A list of all additional species within the 250 square-meter belt is subsequently made.

The various transects will be randomly located for the first sampling event and permanently marked to facilitate their use in subsequent years.

Photo-documentation
Permanent stations for photo-documentation will be established before the initiation of the Project as a part of baseline data collection and recorded using GPS. Photos shall be taken during each quantitative monitoring event from the same vantage point and in the same direction each year and shall reflect material discussed in the annual monitoring reports.

C. Monitoring Schedule
The monitoring program will begin immediately following plant and seed installation. Qualitative monitoring will occur on a monthly basis during the first 24 months, quarterly for years three to five, and biannually thereafter for the remaining ten-year monitoring period. Quantitative monitoring will be conducted annually in spring months, with annual monitoring reports to be submitted to the City and CCC by the end of each year (December 31).

D. Annual Monitoring Reports
At the end of each of the ten years of maintenance and monitoring, an annual report shall be prepared by the Applicant for submittal to the City and CCC. These reports will document the restoration progress of the work areas and summarize maintenance activities that occurred during each respective year. At the end of the tenth monitoring year, the City will be notified in writing that the monitoring period is complete. All annual monitoring reports shall include the following:
• a list of names, titles, and companies of all persons who prepared the content of the annual report and participated in monitoring activities for that year; • a vicinity map indicating location of the encroachment removal and restoration sites; • a map identifying habitat types, transect locations, photo station location, etc. as appropriate; • a description of the status native plant communities, and percent cover by non-native species in the Project areas;
• an analysis of monitoring results; and
92 15
• copies of all monitoring photographs.

The Applicant will notify the City and CCC in writing when the ten-year monitoring period is complete. The final report will provide an assessment of the wetland buffer areas and achievement of the tenth-year performance standards. If any portion of the performance standards have not been met, adaptive management measures will be implemented to address any deficiency.

E. Adaptive Management
The ten-year maintenance period in this plan, as outlined in Section V, provides for an adaptive management component during the maintenance period, which includes application of native seed each of the ten years, as necessary, to promote infill of bare, unvegetated areas within the restoration areas. Additional adaptive management measures may include planting container stock and continuing weed abatement until performance standards are met. The monitoring period will be extended one year at a time until stated performance standards are satisfied and the Applicant has completed their maintenance and monitoring obligation within the encroachment removal areas.

VII. COMPLETION OF COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
A. Notification of Completion
The Applicant should notify the City and CCC in writing when the monitoring period is complete and the agency-approved performance standards have been met.

If the restoration meets all of the performance standards at the end of the ten-year monitoring period, the restoration will be considered a success. If not, the maintenance and monitoring program will be extended one full year at a time, and a specific set of remedial measures approved by the City will be implemented until the standards are met. Only those areas that fail to meet the performance standards will require additional monitoring. This process will continue until all year-ten standards are met or until the City determines that other measures are appropriate.

Final performance standards will not be considered to have been met until a minimum of two years after artificial irrigation has ceased. Should the revegetation effort meet all goals prior to the end of the ten-year monitoring period, the City, at their discretion, may terminate the monitoring effort and release the bond. At that time, the Applicant will be released from further maintenance and monitoring requirements of the mitigation area.

B. Agency Confirmation
Following receipt of the final annual monitoring report, the City and CCC will contact the Applicant as soon as possible to schedule a site visit to confirm the completion of the restoration effort put forth to address the temporary impacts made to the wetlands. The City and/or CCC project manager may decide to waive the site visit and provide written confirmation upon reviewing the annual monitoring report. 93 16
It is therefore critical that City and agency staff review annual reports on a timely basis and provide comments throughout the maintenance and monitoring program so that any project deficiencies they note can be addressed prior to the expected end of the program.
94 Exhibits 1 - 3
95 Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS User Community Source: ESRI World Street Map
0 2 4 8
MilesRegional Map
^_
Exhibit 1
±
PROPERTY AT 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY

PROJECT LOCATION
96 Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed Adapted from USGS Malibu, CA quadrangle
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ± PROPERTY AT 238
55 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Exhibit 2

PROJECT LOCATION
97 X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\RestorationGIS\1373-04_WetlandBufferRestorationArea.mxd 0 35 70 140
Feet
±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Wetland Buffer Restoration Area
Exhibit 3
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD83
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 15, 2023
Civic Center Way
1 inch = 70 feet
Pacific Coast Highway
Parcel Boundary
Wetland Boundary 2023
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! Restoration Area
within 100' Buffer (1.69 ac.)
98 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
29 Orchard Lake Forest California 92630-8300
Telephone: (949) 837-0404 Facsimile: (949) 837-5834
PROJECT NUMBER: 13730003MALB
TO: Ed Mountford
cc: Julian Stone-Kronberg
FROM: Tony Bomkamp
DATE: October 19, 2019 [Updated June 31, 2023]
SUBJECT: Results of Determination and Delineation of Potential Wetlands on the

7.19-Acre Smith Parcel, City of Malibu, California
Wetland Specialists from Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) conducted a site review of the Smith Parcel in the City of Malibu [Exhibits 1 and 2] to evaluate the site for areas of potential wetlands as defined by the City of Malibu LCP and California Coastal Act. The initial site visit by GLA was conducted on June 25, 2018, with subsequent visits conducted on April 4, May 23, 2019, and June 4, 2019. More recently, site visits were conducted by GLA to update the 2018 and 2019 data on June 14, 2023. The evaluation also considered whether the site contains wetlands subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or Waste Discharge Requirements of Porter Cologne, or a lake or stream under California Department of Fish and Wildlife pursuant to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code.

Site Description
The 7.13-acre Smith Parcel is in the City of Malibu, adjacent to Civic Center Way, just west of Stuart Ranch Road [Exhibit 2]. The northern approximately half of the parcel consists of nonnative grassland dominated by ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), and includes a few small clumps of non-native trees and native and non-native shrubs. A portion of the southern half of the parcel supports a mosaic of native vegetation including alkali meadow dominated by saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC) and alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis, FACW), and emergent marsh dominated by California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californica, OBL), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus, OBL), with patches of Mexican rush (Juncus mexicanus, FACW).

Between the bulrush-dominated marsh and saltgrass areas is an area dominated by a roughly equal mix of non-native curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC) and alkali bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus). A small number of arroyo willows (Salix lasiolepis, FACW) occur on the southern boundary along Civic Center Way that have an understory of upland weeds including carnation ATTACHMENT 3
99 MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 2 ends

spurge (Euphorbia terracinna, UPL), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL) and generally occur outside of the wetland boundary.

The area immediately west and northwest of the potential wetland areas (described below) is dominated by areas of pampas grass (Cortederia selloana, FACU), carnation spurge (Euphorbia terracinna, UPL), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), castor bean (Ricinus communis, FACU), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL) and is clearly upland. At the southwest corner of the wetland is a small patch of arroyo willow with an understory of pampas grass, carnation spurge, and other upland species that was evaluated for wetland conditions.

Similarly, areas to the north of the wetland consist of upland areas dominated by non-native grasses and forbs including ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), wild oats (Avena fatua, UPL), garland chrysanthemum (Glebionis coronaria, UPL), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya, FACU), and wild radish (Raphanaus sativus, UPL) with saltgrass which occurs beyond the wetland boundary where non-native upland grasses are predominant.

Wetlands Defined under City of Malibu LCP
In accordance with definitions in the Coastal Act, the City of Malibu LCP defines wetlands as follows:

WETLAND - is defined by Section 30121 of the Coastal Act as lands within the coastal zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens. The definition of wetland is further detailed by Section 13577 (b)(1) of the California Code of Regulations as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent and drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salts or other substances in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats.

According to the Coastal Commission, the presence of any one of three wetland indicators (hydrology, hydrophytes or hydric soils) qualifies an area as a wetland under this definition.

Furthermore, the Coastal Commission establishes the upland limit of a wetland as:
100

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 3 ends

a. the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover
b. the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly nonhydric; or
c. in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soils, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time during years of normal precipitation, and land that is not (14 CCR Section 13577).

The Commission’s determination of the presence of a “One Parameter Wetland” typically follows the methods contained U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual1 (Wetland Manual) and more recently, the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (AWS v.2.0).2 It should be noted, however, that the Army Corps of Engineers and the Wetland Manual requires the presence of all three factors – wetlands hydrology, hydric soils, and a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation – to determine the presence and delineate the boundaries of a federal wetland. As noted, while the Commission relies on the federal manuals to establish the presence of any of the three parameters, according to Commission staff, typically, the presence of a single parameter (e.g., a predominance of wetland vegetation) is sufficient to demonstrate the presence of a wetland and for the Commission to make a presumptive finding for the presence of wetlands.

Methodology
The site was evaluated during the noted site visits in 2018, 2019, and 2023 for the presence of 1) areas with a predominance of wetland vegetation, 2) the presence of hydric soils, and 3) the presence of field indicators for wetland hydrology. In accordance with the Malibu LCP and Coastal Act wetland definition, the presence of any one of these criteria is potentially sufficient for a determination that wetlands occur, and these same criteria were used to establish the geographic extent of potential wetlands on the site. As discussed in the results section below, as for most delineations in the Coastal Zone, the vegetation is often the criteria that defines the wetland boundary. As such, hydric soils and wetland hydrology are addressed first, followed by a discussion of the methods to define the boundary of potential wetlands based on a predominance of wetland vegetation.
1 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 101

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 4 ends

Hydric Soils
Soil pits were excavated at numerous locations on the site to determine whether hydric soils were present. Examination of the soils was performed in accordance with the methodology set forth in the AWS v.2.0. It is important to note, that soils pits were not excavated at each paired location because hydric soil indicators were entirely lacking along the wetland boundary in 2018, 2019, and again in 2023, and in fact, from most of the site. Weak indicators for the presence of hydric soils were only detected in the central, wettest portion of the wetland. Data sheets from 2018, 2019, and 2023 include the soils data collected during the site visits. Data Sheets from the 2018/2019 delineation efforts and from the 2023 data collection are included as Appendices A and B.

Wetland Hydrology
Indicators for the presence of wetland hydrology were evaluated at each of the locations where data was collected in accordance with the methodology set forth in the AWS v.2.0 during the June 25, 2018 and April 2, 2019 site visits. In addition, historic aerial photographs were examined for signs of standing or ponded water during the wet season (October through April).

Specifically, aerial photographs from December 2003, November 2004, December 2005, March 2006, April 2011, December 2013, and February 2016 were examined and the only aerial photograph that showed any ponding was the April 2011 photo which showed two small ponded areas near the western portion of the wetland, measuring 30 by 80 feet and 16 by 40 feet covering an estimated 0.65 acre. The 2022/2023 rainfall season produced nearly double the average rainfall which resulted in ponding that extended beyond the edge of the wetland as delineated in 2018 and 2019 and ultimately as mapped in 2023 based on the limits of areas with a predominance of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter as discussed below.

For an area to meet the minimum threshold for wetland hydrology according to the AWS v.2.0, it must exhibit saturation in the upper 12 inches of the soil surface for a duration sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions (typically considered 14 days) during at least every other year (i.e., 50/100 years). Given this requirement, the potential wetland area does not appear to exhibit wetland hydrology along the outer edges. This would be consistent with observation that saltgrass, a phreatophyte, dominate the outer edges of the wetland. In these areas saltgrass is supported by subsurface water at depths of six feet or deeper (up to 11 feet) as discussed below.

Wetlands Vegetation
Vegetation data was collected at numerous points in 2018 and 2019, with most of 36 data points collected during 2018 and 2019, established primarily along the northern boundary of the potential wetland determine the northern extent of wetland as well as at locations near the eastern and western boundaries of the wetland. Data collection in 2023 included 32 data points 102

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 5 ends

concentrated along the northern and western wetland boundaries. Exhibit 3 depicts the location of wetland based on data points in 2018, 2019. Exhibit 4 depicts the wetland based on the data collected in 2023. The vegetation data along the northern edge in 2018 and 2023, was in most instances collected at “paired” data point locations, with one of the paired data points in potential wetlands and a paired data point in the adjacent uplands along the eastern, northern and western boundary of the wetland [see Exhibits 3 and 4]. At each data point location, the percent cover for each species was recorded along with the wetland indicator status. The presence of hydrophytic wetland indictor plant species was determined based on The National Wetland Plant List.3 Typically, the paired data point locations were between five and six feet apart, and the wetland boundary was then flagged in a manner that bisected the data collection points. As discussed in more detail below, the results are potentially skewed in favor of expanded wetlands because one of the dominant wetland indicator plants, saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC) is a phreatophyte, meaning it has the capacity to reach shallow groundwater (up to 11 feet below the surface), and is thus not a reliable indicator for the presence of wetlands in the absence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. This is because for an area to be considered a wetland, hydrology must be present in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile (during 50/100 years) for sufficient duration to create anaerobic conditions. The presence of phreatophytes such as saltgrass, which are tapped into ground water at depths of many feet below the ground surface can lead to a “false positive” when considering the status of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter (a more detailed discussion regarding the indicator status of the plants on this parcel is included in the “Discussion” section below). After discussing the results of the 2018/2019 field investigations as well as in 2023 efforts, a discussion of previous wetland delineations for the site is provided.

Results
As already noted, portions of the southern half of the site support areas that exhibit a predominance of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter and thus are potentially wetland as defined under the Malibu LCP and the Coastal Act. Limited indicators for hydric soils were restricted to the wettest and lowest areas within central-portion of the wetland, which in some areas were not strong enough to make a positive determination for the presence of hydric soils. Primary indicators for the presence of wetland hydrology were not evident in the field during the June 25, 2018 site visit and a review of historic aerial photographs did not indicate that the central-portion of the wetland ponds water during years of average rainfall. For an area to exhibit wetland hydrology, it must exhibit wetland hydrology indicators in 50/100 years and occasional ponding in above-average years would not satisfy this criterion. Surface ponding was observed within the central portion of the wetland during the April 2, 2019 site visit but did not extend to the limits of the saltgrass along the northern edge of the wetland as discussed below. It is important to note that the 2018/2019 rainfall season was above average rainfall in Malibu, 3 Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X 103

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 6 ends

compared with the annual average of 14.92 inches.4
Thus, the extent of ponding during 2019
does not constitute average conditions (i.e., 50/100 years). As noted above, the rainfall was 169- percent of normal rainfall during the 2022/2023 rainfall season with the 2022/2023 rainfall totaling 25.08.5
Exhibit 4 depicts the extent of wetlands detected based on the predominance of wetland indicator plants during the 2023 site visit. Exhibit 5 shows the wetland boundaries from both 2019 and 2023 and it is evident that along the northern boundary, there was only minimal change with the boundary shifted slightly south at the eastern end of the northern edge of wetland with a few areas that extend slightly further north in the central portion of the northern edge when compared with the 2019 surveys. In 2023, the wetland boundary expanded at the northwest corner of the wetland and expanded to the west as well.

The slight shift to the south along the northern wetland boundary in 2023, which as noted was a very high rainfall period that produced extensive ponding that extended to the northern wetland boundary and beyond, is best explained by the proliferation of non-native grasses and other forbs due to the excessive rainfall such that many FACU and UPL plants were dominant along the wetland boundary. The proliferation of the upland plants resulted in areas with a predominance of FACU and UPL species in this area such that these areas failed by basic dominance test for wetland vegetation. Thus, we have determined that the most accurate delineation would be achieved by consolidating the 2018/2019 and 2023 mapping. Exhibit 6 represents the consolidation of the 2018/2019 and 2023 maps creating a wetland boundary using the outermost boundary from both years providing the most expansive/conservative wetland boundary based on the three years of data.

Previous Wetland Mapping by Others
Previous wetland delineations have been prepared for the site as discussed below. It is important to note that none of the previous delineation efforts are recent and none, except for the delineation by Edith Read in 2018 followed the Arid West Supplement, which is the current “Standard” recognized by Coastal Commission Staff. Appendix C addresses the previous jurisdictional delineations in detail, including a comparison with the GLA 2019 and 2023 delineation efforts.

Exhibit 7 depicts the extent of wetlands based on previous mapping, which includes the extent of wetlands as provided in a Coastal Commission Staff Report 5-91-086 dated March 4, 1991, which required 0.25 acre of willow plantings on the periphery of an “existing wetland mitigation area”, it appears that the potential wetland pre-dates 1991. 4 https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-precipitation-Rainfall-inches,malibu-california-us,UnitedStates-of-America 5 http://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we139b.php 104

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 7 ends

Exhibit 7 also depicts the extent of wetlands provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory (NWI) Maps. Both maps show the northern wetland boundary to the south of the area delineated by GLA in both 2019 and 2023 and overlain with the two maps on Exhibit 7. Both the Coastal Commission Staff Report map and NWI map show the wetland extending further to the west; however, this area is dominated by upland vegetation including pampas grass (Cortederia selloana, FACU), carnation spurge (Euphorbia terracinna, UPL), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), castor bean (Ricinus communis, FACU), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL) and is clearly upland.

Appendix A consists of data sheets that include the field data collected during June 25, 2018 and June 4, 2019 site visits for vegetation, soils and hydrology. Appendix B includes the 2023 datasheets. Dominant plants during both years within the potential wetland areas include California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californica, OBL), hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus, OBL) in the lower, wetter areas. Between the bulrush-dominated marsh and saltgrass areas is an area dominated by an approximately equal mix of non-native curly dock (Rumex crispus, FAC) and native alkali bulrush (Schoenoplectus maritimus, OBL). Saltgrass (Distichlis spicata, FAC) and alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis, FACW) are dominant along the northern boundary.

There is a somewhat abrupt topographic transition between the northern boundary and adjacent uplands where the dominant species include ripgut (Bromus diandrus, UPL), carnation spurge (Euphorbia terracinna, UPL), western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya, FACU), giant horseweed (Erigeron canadensis, FACU), and yellow sweet clover (Melilotus indicus, FACU).

Exhibit 4 includes site photographs of the wetland area taken during the April 2, 2019 site visit showing the lower areas exhibiting ponding and the margins of the wetland along the northern boundary.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jurisdiction
On January 18, 2023 the Corps issued new definitions for waters of the United States pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The new definitions because effective on March 20, 2023. Under the new definitions, the term "waters of the United States" is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as set forth below. On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Sackett et ux. V. Environmental Protection Agency et al. that addressed the jurisdictional status of wetlands that are not directly connected to traditionally navigable waters or relatively permanent waters. Under the Sackett decision, the Supreme Court determined that wetlands not connected to traditionally navigable waters or relatively permanent waters are not subject to regulation under Section 404. Under this decision, the regardless of the presence or absence of the three wetland criteria the wetland would be considered isolated and would not be subject to Section 404.
105

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 8 ends

Most recently, on June 26, 2023, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the following statement:

The Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of the Army (agencies) are in receipt of the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of this decision, the agencies are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett. The agencies are developing a rule to amend the final "Revised Definition of 'Waters of the United States'" rule, published in the Federal Register on January 18, 2023, consistent with the U.S.

Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023 decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. The agencies intend to issue a final rule by September 1, 2023.6
Until the revised definition is issued, the definition of Waters of the U.S. remains as follows.
(1) Waters which are:
(i) Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
(ii) The territorial seas; or
(iii) Interstate waters, including interstate wetlands; (2) Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
(3) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (2) of this section:
(i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water; or
(ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; (4) Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
(i) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or 6 https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-statement-sackett-v-epa 106

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 9 ends

(ii) Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3)(i) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters; or (iii) Waters identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section when the wetlands either alone or in combination with similarly situated water in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; (5) Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(i) That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3)(i) of this section; or
(ii) That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.

Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(b) exclude the following from being “waters of the United States” even where they otherwise meet the terms of paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) above:
(1) Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons, designed to meet the requirements of the Clean Water Act;
(2) Prior converted cropland designated by the Secretary of Agriculture. The exclusion would cease upon a change of use, which means that the area is no longer available for the production of agricultural commodities.

Notwithstanding the determination of an area’s status as prior converted cropland by any other Federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with EPA;
(3) Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only dry land and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water; (4) Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to dry land if the irrigation ceased;
(5) Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; (6) Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons;
107

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 10 ends

(7) Waterfilled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the United States; and
(8) Swales and erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes) characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow.

In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(4) as:
...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.
“Adjacent wetlands” are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(c)(2) as those wetlands that are “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring” other waters of the United States, and include those “separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes, and the like...”
The term "significantly affect” is defined by 33 CFR 328.3(c)(6) as:

A material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section. To determine whether waters, either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, have a material influence on the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the functions identified in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section will be assessed and the factors identified in paragraph (c)(6)(ii) of this section will be considered:
(i) Functions to be assessed:
(A) Contribution of flow;
(B) Trapping, transformation, filtering, and transport of materials (including nutrients, sediment, and other pollutants);
(C) Retention and attenuation of floodwaters and runoff; (D) Modulation of temperature in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or
(E) Provision of habitat and food resources for aquatic species located in waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
(ii) Factors to be considered:
(A) The distance from a water identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
108

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 11 ends

(B) Hydrologic factors, such as the frequency, duration, magnitude, timing, and rate of hydrologic connections, including shallow subsurface flow;
(C) The size, density, or number of waters that have been determined to be similarly situated;
(D) Landscape position and geomorphology; and
(E) Climatological variables such as temperature, rainfall, and snowpack.

The term “wetlands” (a subset of “waters of the United States”) is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual and Supplement provide detail in methodology and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria:
• more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands7);
• soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and • Whereas the 1987 Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criterion with the exception for areas with “problematic hydrophytic vegetation”, which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland.

Discussion
Based on the predominance of vegetation with an indicator status of FAC or wetter, the site currently contains approximately 1.74 acres of potential wetland in accordance with current interpretations by Coastal Staff of the Coastal Act wetland definitions, which as noted, require the presence of only one of the wetland three criteria (wetland vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology). There are a variety of factors which should be considered when making such determinations; however, it must also be stressed that the boundary of potential wetlands on Exhibit 6 would be the Commission’s default determination in the absence of more compelling 7 Lichvar, R. W. 2013. The National Wetland Plant List: 2013 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2013-49: 1-241. 109

MEMORANDUM
October 19, 2019 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 12 ends

data. It also should be noted that the wetland depicted in the 1991 Coastal Commission Staff Report referenced above, shows the wetland extending to the west into areas currently dominated by upland plants including dense thickets of pampas grass (Cortederia selloana, FACU) that also lack wetland hydrology and hydric soils.
• Because the potential wetland areas do not exhibit each of the three wetland criteria, the area would not be subject to Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
• The area does not meet the CDFW definition of a lake or stream and would not be subject to CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code. • As noted for Section 404, because the potential wetland areas do not exhibit each of the three wetland criteria, the area would not be subject to Regional Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act or under the Waste Discharge Requirements under Porter Cologne.

Appendix C is an updated Technical Memorandum that was prepared in response to public comments that supported earlier jurisdictional delineations and rejected GLA’s 2018/2019 delineation. GLA believes that the consistency between the 2018/2019 and 2023 delineations conducted by GLA provides compelling evidence for the accuracy of the GLA delineation which in total is based on 68 data points evaluated over three separate years.

P:1373-3_Smith_Wetland_Memo_063123.docx
110
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors,and the GIS User Community Source: ESRI World Street Map
0 2 4 8
MilesRegional Map
^_
Exhibit 1
±
PROPERTY AT 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY

PROJECT LOCATION
111
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Adapted from USGS Malibu, CA quadrangle
Vicinity Map
0 1,000 2,000 4,000
Feet ± PROPERTY AT 238
55 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Exhibit 2

PROJECT LOCATION
112
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\DelineationGIS\1373-04_JD_2019.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Wetland Delineation 2019
Exhibit 3
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: June 30, 2023
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
(2019, GLA)
Data Points
(June 4, 2019)
Data Points
(June 25, 2018)
Outflow
113
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\DelineationGIS\1373-04_JD_2023.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Wetland Delineation 2023
Exhibit 4
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: June 30, 2023
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
(2023, GLA)
Data Points
(June 14, 2023)
Outflow
114
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\DelineationGIS\1373-04_JD_2019_2023_Consolidated.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Wetland Delineation 2019 & 2023 Consolidated
Exhibit 6
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: July 2, 2023
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Wetland Delineation Status
2019 Only
2023 Only
Both 2019 & 2023
Outflow
115
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\DelineationGIS\1373-04_JD_Historic.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet
±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historical Wetland Delineations
Exhibit 7
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: June 30, 2023
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Delineation Status
2019 Only
2023 Only
Both 2019 & 2023
Historical Delineations
Wetland Boundary (2018, Read)
Wetland Boundary (1998, Read)
Wetland Boundary
(1991, Tierra Madre Consultants)
USFWS National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Pond
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Outflow
116
Appendix A
2018 and 2019
Wetland Data Sheets
117
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 1
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30 ft
Salix lasiolepis 40 Yes FACW
40 30 ft
Baccharis salicifolia 1 Yes FAC
1 30 ft
Schoenoplectus acutus 30 Yes OBL
Euphorbia terracina 20 Yes UPL
Brassica nigra 1 No UPL
Xanthium strumarium 5 No FAC
56 3
4 75%
30 30
40 80
6 18
0 0
21 105
97 233

2.4 ✔
✔
✔
118
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Reduced Vertic (F18) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present, Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1) Salt Crust (B11) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2) Biotic Crust (B12) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) Saturation (A3) Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Other (Explain in Remarks) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:

Remarks:
1 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
119
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 2
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 20 Yes FAC
Euphorbia terracina 40 Yes UPL
Hirschfeldia incana 3 No UPL
Xanthium strumarium 3 No FAC
Schoenoplectus acutus 2 No OBL
68 1
2 50%
2 2
0 0
23 69
0 0
43 215
68 286

4.2 ✔
120
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
2 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
121
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 3
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Brassica nigra 70 Yes UPL
Euphorbia terracina 20 No UPL
Distichlis spicata 10 No FAC
100
0 1
0%
0 0
0 0
10 30
0 0
90 450
100 480

4.8 ✔
122
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
3 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
123
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 4
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Schoenoplectus californicus 100 Yes OBL
100
1 1
100%
100 100
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
100 100
1 ✔
✔
✔
124
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
4 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
125
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 5
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 15 No FACW
Salicornia pacifica 3 No OBL
Euphorbia terracina 1 No UPL
99 1
1 100%
3 3
15 30
80 240
0 0
1 5
99 278

2.8 ✔
✔
✔
126
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
5 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
10-12 2.5YR 3/3 100 - - - - loamy fine sand no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
127
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 6
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Bromus diandrus 70 Yes UPL
Cressa truxillensis 40 Yes FACW
Distichlis spicata 40 Yes FAC
150
2 3
66%
0 0
40 80
40 120
0 0
70 350
150 550

3.6 ✔
✔
128
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
6 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
10-12 2.5YR 3/3 100 - - - - loamy fine sand no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
129
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 7
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Bromus diandrus 70 Yes UPL
Cressa truxillensis 15 No FACW
Distichlis spicata 30 Yes FAC
115
1 2
50%
0 0
15 30
30 90
0 0
70 350
115 470

4.1 ✔
130
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
7 0-10 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
10-12 2.5YR 3/3 100 - - - - loamy fine sand no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
131
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 8
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Bromus diandrus 3 No UPL
Cressa truxillensis 20 Yes FACW
Distichlis spicata 70 Yes FAC
Euphorbia terracina 2 No UPL
Ambrosia psilostachya 5 No FACU
100
2 2
100%
0 0
20 40
70 210
5 20
3 15
100 285

2.85 ✔
✔
✔
132
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
8 0-10 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
10-12 2.5YR 3/3 100 - - - - loamy fine sand no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
133
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 9
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 60 Yes FAC
Euphorbia terracina 30 Yes UPL
Ambrosia psilostachya 30 Yes FACU
Bromus diandrus 20 No UPL
Cressa truxillensis 10 No FACW
150
1 3
33%
0 0
10 20
60 180
30 120
50 250
150 365

3.8 ✔
134
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
9 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
135
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 10
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 75 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 20 No FACW
Bromus diandrus 10 No UPL
105
1 1
100%
0 0
20 40
75 225
0 0
10 50
105 315
3 ✔
✔
✔
136
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
10 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
137
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 11
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 40 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 15 No FACW
Bromus diandrus 80 Yes UPL
Euphorbia terracina 2 No UPL
137
1 2
50%
0 0
15 30
40 120
0 0
82 410
137 560

4.1 ✔
138
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
11 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
139
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 12
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 30 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 60 Yes FACW
Bromus diandrus 10 No UPL
100
2 2
100%
0 0
60 120
30 90
0 0
10 50
100 260

2.6 ✔
✔
✔
140
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
12 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
141
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 13
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Bromus diandrus 40 Yes UPL
Distichlis spicata 30 Yes FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 20 No FACU
Cressa truxillensis 20 No FACW
110
1 2
50%
0 0
20 40
30 90
20 80
40 200
110 410

3.7 ✔
142
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
13 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
143
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 14
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 30 Yes FACW
Ambrosia psilostachya 10 No FACU
Bromus diandrus 5 No UPL
125
2 2
100%
0 0
30 60
80 240
10 40
5 25
125 365

2.9 ✔
✔
✔
144
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
14 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
145
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 15
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 10 No FAC
Cressa truxillensis 25 Yes FACW
Bromus diandrus 50 Yes UPL
85 1
2 50%
0 0
25 50
10 30
0 0
50 250
85 330

3.9 ✔
146
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
15 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
147
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 16
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 60 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 25 Yes FACW
Ambrosia psilostachya 15 No FACU
100
2 2
100%
0 0
25 50
60 180
15 60
0 0
100 290

2.9 ✔
✔
✔
148
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
16 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
149
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 17
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 40 Yes FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 30 Yes FACU
Bromus diandrus 30 Yes UPL
Cressa truxillensis 15 No FACW
115
1 3
33%
0 0
15 30
40 120
30 120
30 150
115 420

3.6 ✔
150
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
17 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
151
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 18
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 75 Yes FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 1 No FACU
Cressa truxillensis 40 Yes FACW
116
2 2
100%
0 0
40 80
75 225
1 4
0 0
116 309

2.7 ✔
✔
✔
152
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
18 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
153
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 19
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 20 Yes FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 25 Yes FACU
Bromus diandrus 50 Yes UPL
Cressa truxillensis 5 No FACW
100
1 3
33%
0 0
5 10
20 60
25 100
50 250
100 420

4.2 ✔
154
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
19 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
155
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 20
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 60 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 30 Yes FACW
Bromus diandrus 10 No UPL
100
2 2
100%
0 0
30 60
60 180
0 0
10 50
100 290

2.9 ✔
✔
✔
156
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
20 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
157
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 21
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 60 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 10 No FACW
Bromus diandrus 30 Yes UPL
100
1 2
50%
0 0
10 20
60 180
0 0
30 150
100 350

3.5 ✔
158
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
21 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
159
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 22
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 70 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 30 Yes FACW
100
2 2
100%
0 0
30 60
70 210
0 0
0 0
100 270

2.7 ✔
✔
✔
160
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
22 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
161
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 23
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 50 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 5 No FACW
Ambrosia psilostachya 25 No FACU
Melilotus indicus 50 Yes FACU
130
1 2
50%
0 0
5 10
50 150
75 300
0 0
130 460

3.5 ✔
162
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
23 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
163
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 24
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 10 No FACW
90 1
1 100%
0 0
10 20
80 240
0 0
0 0
90 260

2.8 ✔
✔
✔
164
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
24 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
165
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 25
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Melilotus indicus 10 Yes FACU
Cressa truxillensis 3 No FACW
Euphorbia terracina 20 Yes UPL
33 0
2 0%
0 0
3 6
0 0
10 40
20 100
33 146

4.4 ✔
166
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
25 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
167
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 26
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 70 Yes FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 10 No FACU
Cressa truxillensis 20 Yes FACW
100
2 2
100%
0 0
20 40
70 210
10 40
0 0
100 290

2.9 ✔
✔
✔
168
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
26 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
169
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 27
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 30 Yes FAC
Cressa truxillensis 5 No FACW
Ambrosia psilostachya 10 No FACU
Melilotus indicus 40 Yes FACU
85 1
2 50%
0 0
5 10
30 90
50 200
0 0
85 300

3.5 ✔
170
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
27 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
171
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 28
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Yes FAC
Helminthotheca echioides 5 No FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 5 No FACU
Euphorbia terracina 3 No UPL
Foeniculum vulgare 2 No UPL
95 1
1 100%
0 0
0 0
85 255
5 20
5 25
95 300

3.1 ✔
✔
172
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
28 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
173
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 29
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 40 Yes FAC
Helminthotheca echioides 5 No FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 50 Yes FACU
Foeniculum vulgare 10 No UPL
105
1 2
50%
0 0
0 0
45 135
50 200
10 50
105 385

3.7 ✔
174
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
29 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
175
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 30
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 60 Yes FAC
Euphorbia terracina 10 No UPL
Cressa truxillensis 20 Yes FACW
Rumex crispus 10 No FAC
100
2 2
100%
0 0
20 40
70 210
0 0
10 50
100 300

3.0 ✔
✔
✔
176
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
30 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
177
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
Morphological Adaptations1
(Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 31
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Helminthotheca echioides 15 Yes FAC
Euphorbia terracina 20 Yes UPL
Cressa truxillensis 5 No FACW
Rumex crispus 5 No FAC
Erigeron canadensis 2 No FACU
47 1
2 50%
0 0
5 10
20 60
2 8
20 100
47 178

3.7 ✔
178
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
31 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data - extrapolated from previous point
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
179
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/25/18
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 32
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Rumex crispus 3 No FAC
Atriplex patula 2 No FACW
Cressa truxillensis 90 Yes FACW
95 1
1 100%
0 0
92 184
3 9
0 0
0 0
95 193

2.0 ✔
✔
✔
180
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
32 0-4 10YR 3/2 90-95 7.5Y 4/6 5-10 - - sandy loam
4-8 10YR 3/2 85 10YR 7/2 15 - - sandy loam
lowest point in area
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
181
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/4/19
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 1
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30 ft
Salix lasiolepis 80 Yes FACW
80 30 ft
Malosma laurina 10 Yes UPL
10 30 ft
Euphorbia terracina 15 Yes UPL
15 1
3 33%
0 0
80 160
0 0
10 40
15 75
105 275

2.6 ✔
✔
182
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
1 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
183
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/4/19
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 2
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30 ft
Salix lasiolepis 80 Yes FACW
80 30 ft
Cortaderia selloana 60 Yes FACU
60 1
2 50%
0 0
80 160
0 0
60 240
0 0
140 400

2.9 ✔
✔
184
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
2 0-2 - - - - - - organics organic material
2-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
185
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/4/19
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 3
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30 ft
Salix lasiolepis 75 Yes FACW
75 30 ft
Baccharis pilularis 20 Yes UPL
20 30 ft
Euphorbia terracina 40 Yes UPL
40 1
3 33%
0 0
75 150
0 0
0 0
60 300
135 450

3.3 ✔
186
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
3 0-2 - - - - - - organics organic material
2-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
No soil data taken - extrapolated from previous data point ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
187
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 6/4/19
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 4
T.Bomkamp and J.Stephens unsectioned, T.1S., R17W.
depression concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37"W NAD83
220—Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Helminthotheca echioides 70 Yes FAC
Sonchus asper 10 No FAC
Rumex crispus 5 No FAC
Xanthium strumarium 1 No FAC
Cyperus eragrostis 2 No FACW
88 1
1 100%
0 0
2 4
86 258
0 0
0 0
88 262

3.0 ✔
✔
✔
188
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
4 0-4 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
4-12 10YR 3/2 100 - - - - clay loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
189
Appendix B
2023
Wetland Data Sheets
190
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 1
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Bromus diandrus 60 Y UPL
Euphorbia terracina 30 Y UPL
Distichlis spicata 25 Y FAC
Cressa truxillensis 5 N FACW
120
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 3
33%
0 0
5 10
25 75
0 0
90 450
120 535

4.46 ✔
191
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
1 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
192
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 2
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 10 N UPL
Euphorbia terracina 7 N UPL
Cressa truxillensis 5 N FACW
102
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
1 1
100%
0 0
5 10
80 240
0 0
17 85
102 335

3.28 ✔
✔
193
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
2 0-10 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam no redox
10-12 2.5YR 3/3 100 loamy fine no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
194
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 3
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL
Euphorbia terracina 25 Y UPL
Sonchus asper 10 N FAC
125
The 2022/2023 season recorded abnormally high rainfall for the area, approximately double the normal. 1 3
33%
0 0
0 0
60 180
0 0
65 325
125 505

4.04 ✔
195
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
3 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
196
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 4
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Y FAC
Polypogon monspeliensis 15 N FACW
Euphorbia terracina 3 N UPL
Rumex crispus 5 N FAC
Helminthotheca echioides 10 N FAC
113
The 2022/2023 season recorded abnormally high rainfall for the area approximately double normal rainfall.

None None
1 1
100%
0 0
15 30
95 285
0 0
3 15
113 330

2.92 ✔
✔
✔
197
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
4 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 - - - - sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
198
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 5
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 30 Y UPL
Lactuca serriola 25 Y FACU
Helminthotheca echioides 5 N FAC
Euphorbia terracina 3 N UPL
Sonchus asper 2 N FAC
Polypogon monspeliensis 2 N FACW
117
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
1 3
33%
0 0
1 2
57 171
25 100
33 165
117 438

3.74 ✔
199
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
5 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
200
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 6
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 40 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 25 Y UPL
Sonchus asper 20 N FAC
Euphorbia terracina 25 Y UPL
Cressa truxillensis 5 N FACW
Polypogon monspeliensis 2 N FACW
117
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
1 3
33%
0 0
7 14
60 180
0 0
50 250
117 444

3.79 ✔
201
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
6 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
202
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 7
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 70 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 10 N UPL
Polypogon monspeliensis 30 Y FACW
Euphorbia terracina 10 N UPL
Cressa truxillensis 15 N FACW
135
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
2 2
100%
0 0
45 90
70 210
0 0
20 100
135 400

2.96 ✔
✔
203
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
7 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
204
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 8
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 20 N FAC
Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL
Sonchus asper 65 Y FAC
Euphorbia terracina 10 N UPL
Cressa truxillensis 2 N FACW
137
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
2 3
67%
0 0
2 4
85 275
0 0
50 150
137 429

3.13 ✔
✔
205
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
8 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
206
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 9
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 85 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 15 N UPL
Cressa truxillensis 10 N FACW
Lactuca serriola 2 N FACU
112
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
1 1
100%
0 0
10 20
85 255
2 8
15 75
112 358

3.20 ✔
✔
207
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
9 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
208
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 10
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Ambrosia psilostachya 40 Y FACU
Bromus diandrus 30 Y UPL
Avena barbata 5 N UPL
Distichlis spicata 30 Y FAC
Malva parviflora 10 N UPL
115
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 3
33%
0 0
0 0
30 90
40 160
45 225
115 475

4.13 ✔
209
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
10 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
210
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 11
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 60 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL
Avena barbata 8 N UPL
Lacutuca serriola 5 N FACU
Cressa truxillensis 2 N FACW
115
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 2
50%
0 0
2 4
60 180
5 20
48 240
115 444

3.80 ✔
211
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
11 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
212
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West ! Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM ! Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances# present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ! Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION ! Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 12
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 20 N UPL
Cressa truxillensis 23 N FACW
123
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 1
100%
0 0
23 46
80 240
0 0
20 100
123 386

3.13 ✔
✔
213
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West ! Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
12 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
214
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 13
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 85 Y FAC
Cressa truxillensis 30 Y FACW
Bromus diandrus 20 N UPL
135
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
2 2
100%
0 0
30 60
85 255
0 0
20 100
135 415

3.07 ✔
✔
215
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
13 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
216
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 14
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC
Cressa truxillensis 10 N FACW
Bromus diandrus 20 Y UPL
Avena barbata 5 N UPL
Sonchus asper 10 N FAC
Ambrosia psilostachya 20 Y FACU
115
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 3
33%
0 0
10 20
60 180
20 80
25 125
115 405

3.52 ✔
217
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
14 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
218
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 15
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC
Cressa truxillensis 1 N FACW
Bromus diandrus 50 Y UPL
Avena barbata 2 N UPL
Bolboschoenus maritimus 20 N OBL
Ambrosia psilostachya 20 N FACU
Polypogon monspeliensis 15 N FACW
158
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 2
50%
20 20
16 32
50 150
20 80
52 260
158 542

3.43 ✔
219
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
15 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
220
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 16
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Y FAC
Salicornia pacifica 35 Y OBL
Cressa truxillensis 5 N FACW
Ambrosia psilostachya 5 N FACU
125
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
2 2
100%
35 35
5 10
80 240
5 20
0 0
125 305

2.44 ✔
✔
✔
221
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
16 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
222
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 17
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 75 Y FAC
Cressa truxillensis 15 N FACW
Polypogon monspeliensis 10 N FACW
100
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 1
100%
0 0
25 50
75 225
0 0
0 0
100 275

2.75 ✔
✔
✔
223
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
17 0-12 2.5YR 3/3 100 loamy sand no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
224
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 18
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 40 Y UPL
Cressa truxillensis 15 N FACW
105
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 2
50%
0 0
15 30
50 150
0 0
40 200
105 380

3.61 ✔
225
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
18 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
226
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 19
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 90 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 8 N UPL
Cressa truxillensis 2 N FACW
100
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 1
100%
0 0
2 4
90 270
0 0
8 40
100 314

3.14 ✔
✔
227
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
19 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
228
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 20
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 50 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 60 Y UPL
Cressa truxillensis 2 N FACW
112
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 2
50%
0 0
2 4
50 150
0 0
60 300
112 454

4.05 ✔
229
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
20 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
230
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 21
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 95 Y FAC
Bromus diandrus 10 N UPL
Cressa truxillensis 1 N FACW
Euphorbia terracina 2 N UPL
108
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 1
100%
0 0
1 2
95 285
0 0
12 60
108 347

3.21 ✔
✔
231
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
21 0-3 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
3-12 2.5YR 3/3 100 loamy sand no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
232
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 22
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 75 Y FAC
Euphorbia terracina 30 Y UPL
Sonchus asper 15 N FAC
Lactuca serriola 18 N FACU
138
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
1 2
50%
0 0
0 0
90 270
18 72
30 150
138 492

3.56 ✔
233
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
22 0-12 10YR 3/3 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
234
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.

Dominance Test worksheet:

Total % Cover of: Multiply by:

OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:

Dominance Test is >50%
Prevalence Index is 3.01
Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1
(Explain)
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.

Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status

1. 2.

3. 4.
= Total Cover
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. 8.
= Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )

1. 2.
= Total Cover
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum % Cover of Biotic Crust
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks:

Smith Parcel Malibu/Los Angeles County 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 23
J. Stephans and V. Park US, T 1S, R 17W
Depression Concave 0-5
LRR-C 34°02'08"N 118°41'37" W NAD83
220 -- Elder fine sandy loam, coastal, 0 to 2 percent slopes Palustrine ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
5 ft
Distichlis spicata 80 Y FAC
Euphorbia terracina 5 N UPL
Bromus diandrus 10 N UPL
Polypogon monspeliensis 50 Y FACW
145
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
2 2
100%
0 0
50 100
80 240
0 0
15 75
145 415

2.86 ✔
✔
✔
235
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:

1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2 Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.

Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :

Restrictive Layer (if present):

Type:

Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:

Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):

Remarks:
23 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
236
US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Arid West Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:

Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:

Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:

Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):

Subregion (LRR): Lat: Long: Datum:

Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

Malibu City CouncilJuly 14, 2025

Malibu City Council
July 14, 2025