Agenda packet, second session — Malibu City Council, September 25, 2025 (part 2 of 5)

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 06/14/23
Julian Stone-Kronberg CA 27
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 35 Y UPL
Avena barbata 10 N UPL
Ambrosia psilostachya 10 N FACU
Helminthotheca echioides 25 N FAC
150
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
95 285
10 40
45 225
150 550

3.67 ✔
243
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. 2 Location: 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:
27 0-12 2.5YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
244
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 28
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 100 Y FAC
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
0 0
100 300
0 0
0 0
100 300

3.00 ✔
✔
✔
245
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:
28 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
246
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 29
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 10 N FAC
Helminthotheca echioides 90 Y FAC
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
0 0
100 300
0 0
0 0
100 300

3.00 ✔
✔
✔
247
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:
29 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
248
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
Schmitz & Associates, Inc. CA 30
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
Helianthus annuus 25 Y FACU
25 The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
75 None
0 1
0%
0 0
0 0
0 0
25 100
0 0
25 100

4.00 ✔
249
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:
30 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
250
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 31
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
Bolboschoenus maritimus 75 Y OBL
Rumex crispus 30 Y FAC
Distichlis spicata 45 Y FAC
150
The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.

None None
3 3
100%
75 75
0 0
75 225
0 0
0 0
150 300

2.00 ✔
✔
✔
251
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:
31 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
252
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 32
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 ✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
30 ft
Salix lasiolepis 25 Y FACW
25 30 ft
Baccharis salicifolia 75 Y FACW
75 5 ft
Bolboschoenus maritimus 15 Y OBL
Rumex crispus 15 Y FAC
30 The 2022/2023 wet season was abnormal and there was nearly double the average amount of rainfall recorded.
70 None
4 4
100%
15 15
100 200
15 45
0 0
0 0
130 260

2.00 ✔
✔
✔
253
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:
32 0-12 10YR 3/2 100 sandy loam no redox
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
254
Appendix C
Healy Response Memorandum
255

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
1940 E Deere Avenue, Suite 250 ● Santa Ana, California 92705 ● 949.837.0404 PROJECT NUMBER: 1373-4CIVI
TO: Ed Mountford
FROM: Tony Bomkamp
DATE: December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]
SUBJECT: Response to Patt Healy Email dated November 7, 2022 and Comparison between 2018 Read Jurisdictional Delineation and GLA Jurisdictional Delineations of 2019 and 2023
I previously reviewed the Patt Healy email dated November 7, 2022 and referenced and attached Jurisdictional Delineation Report (Psomas JD) dated February 1, 2002 prepared by Edith Read of Psomas. It is important to note that this updated response follows an updated jurisdictional delineation conducted by Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) in 2023, which provided a review of the wetland during a rainfall year that was approximately 170-percent above normal, allowing for examination of the wetland area during extreme hydrology conditions and thus ensuring that the wetland has been review by GLA over a six year period with a full range of hydrological conditions. It is also noteworthy that during the three years when GLA collected wetland data, a total of 68 data points, mostly along the wetland boundary were examined as depicted on Exhibits 3 and 4 of GLA’s jurisdictional delineation memo dated June 30, 2023.

It is important to note that the field work for the Psomas JD was conducted over three years prior to the date of the report, specifically on December 10, 1998. Below are comments from Patt Healy followed by my responses as GLA Technical Director and Senior Wetland Specialist.

Further below, I discuss the 2018 JD update also prepared by Edith Read (though she was no longer associated with Psomas when she prepared the 2018 update).

Healy Comment:

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.

However the 2019 Glen [sic] Lukos Technical Memorandum prepared for Schmidt and Associates Inc didn’t strictly apply the Coastal Act definition since it excluded the saltgrass vegetation, a hydrophyte, existing on the property. Hence the Glen [sic] Lukos wetland Technical Memorandum and the Lukos Restoration Plan can’t be relied on or 256

MEMORANDUM
December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 2 ends

used to determine the wetland area and where the upland vegetation restoration needs to take place.

GLA Response: In the October 19, 2019 JD Memo, GLA clearly acknowledged the definition for wetlands in the Malibu LCP and Coastal Act and included a discussion of the single criteria test for making wetland determinations as excerpted below:

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:
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.
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. 257

MEMORANDUM
December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 3 ends

With regard to saltgrass, the commentor does not appear to understand that the presence of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter (e.g., saltgrass in this case) is not sufficient to make a finding that a specific area is a wetland under the CCC practice. An area must exhibit a “predominance” of wetland indicator species, as noted in “criteria (a)’ referenced above. The numerous data points, where GLA collected data along the northern edge of the wetland in both 2018 and again in 2023, consist of paired locations with the more northerly of the pairs located within areas that do not exhibit a predominance of wetland indicator plants while each adjacent paired pits do exhibit a predominance of species with a predominance of plants with a wetland indicator status of FAC or wetter. The areas along the northern edge do not exhibit wetland hydrology or hydric soils. Thus, the wetland edge was determined by the presence of a predominance of wetland indicator plants. To reiterate, all areas to the north of the wetland boundary, as now depicted on the wetland map using the consolidated data depicted on Exhibit **, failed the predominance test at the time of the GLA field work in 2018/2019 and 2023.

Healy Comment:

However, a February 1, 2002 wetlands delineation by Psomas for the Malibu Bay Company found the wetland area to be 3.40 acres, twice the size of the one found by the Lukos study.

GLA Response: there are a number of factors that need to be considered relative to the Psomas 2002 JD. First, the JD was conducted 24 years ago, and was conducted using the Corps’ 1987 Delineation Manual, which was superseded by the Corps’ 2008 Arid West Supplement such that the methods provided in the 1987 Manual have been updated and thus superseding the 1987 Manual. The updates include many refinements for how a determination for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are made. Most of the data points where a positive determination was made for hydric soils and wetland hydrology (recorded on the data sheets by Psomas in 1998) no longer meet the respective requirements for hydric soils and wetland hydrology. For example, many of the positive determinations for hydric soils were based on the presence of a soil matrix with a chroma of 2 and one percent redoximorphic features. Under the Arid West Supplement, areas with a chroma of 2, must contain at least five percent redoximorphic features in the soil. Thus all such data points fail the hydric soils criterion.

It is extremely noteworthy that Edith Read, who conducted the 2002 JD, in preparing the abovereferenced update in 2018, changed the wetland boundary substantially and noted that at the time of 2002 JD field work (which, as noted, occurred in December 1998), that the site hydrology was not well understood in 1998 and revised the findings and wetland boundaries accordingly for the 2018 update.

Nevertheless, it should also be noted that the wetland boundary established in 2018 by Edith Read was not determined based on paired data points along the northern edge, which is in contrast to the GLA JD, which (given the 2023 updated) is based on numerous (68 to be exact) 258

MEMORANDUM
December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 4 ends

data points as depicted on the attached Exhibits 3 and 4. Edith’s 2018 line follows closely the line that was routinely disked for weed abatement which occurred on a regular basis until a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued by the City for removal of non-native weeds in the wetland buffer. Prior to the NOV, GLA had established a boundary, working with Schmitz and Associates, who represented the previous property owner, that averaged about 15 feet beyond the wetland edge to ensure that the wetland was not impacted during weed abatement.

There is one other important point relative to the saltgrass, which occurs within the outermost wetland area, extending to the north of the wetland to an area dominated by upland grasses and forbs. The excerpt below, from the GLA October 24, 2019 JD addresses the reliability of saltgrass as a wetland indicator plant:

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 for sufficient duration to create anaerobic conditions. The presence of phreatophytes, 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… 3
The other plant species with an indicator status of FAC or wetter that occurs along the northern wetland boundary that extends to the north into the areas dominated by non-native upland grasses and forbs is alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis, FACW). Alkali weed is a small herbaceous perennial that emerges following the rainy season and flowers during the summer. It is my longterm observation that this species has been misclassified on the Corps’ National Wetland Plant List (NWPL) and should most likely be classified as a Facultative Upland (FACU) species. The NWPL acknowledges that many plant species on the NWPL do not have the correct indicator status and provide a mechanism whereby indicator statuses can be changed through submission of species-specific data. While serving as an adjunct faculty member for the California State University Fullerton (CSUF) Graduate Environmental Studies Program between 1994 and 2022, I oversaw a number of graduate projects that submitted data to the NWPL resulting in changes in the status of a variety of species. In all cases, the change in indicator status was from FAC (counts as wetland indicator) to FACU, which does not count as a wetland indicator. Similarly, 3 Pages 90-91 in the Corps of Engineers Arid West Supplement provide specific guidance for dealing with riparian phreatophytes. While the focus in the Arid West supplement is on woody riparian species such as cottonwoods and willows, the guidance applies to saltgrass which has been well documented in the literature to reach depths as deep as 11 feet to reach groundwater. See for example T.W. Robinson. 1958. Phreatophytes. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1423. U.S. Government Printing Office.
259

MEMORANDUM
December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]

Page 5 ends

GLA has also submitted data on a number of plants, which has resulted in change of status for plants previously considered wetland indicators and, in all cases, the plants were reclassified as FACU.

Because of the lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils along the northern wetland boundary, the alkali weed is currently not functioning as a “hydrophyte”. Nevertheless, it would be necessary to have the indicator status revised on the NWPL to FACU to ensure that the wetland boundary does not migrate north in the absence of disking. Because alkali weed is distributed through California and extends into the Great Basin Provence of the arid southwest (e.g., parts of Nevada, Arizona, Utah, and Idaho. Thus, collection of sufficient data would require an extensive effort. Given these factors, GLA treated alkali weed as a FACW indicator and both the 2019 and 2023 JD efforts reflect such.
260
1 Planning Commission
From: Bill Sampson >
Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2022 10:14 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 5A on 11/7/2022 agenda
Gentlepersons:

This seems pretty simple. Someone committed an illegal act and is being required to fix it. Let's do this. Thanks.

MalibuBill
Quiet enjoyment of neighborhoods is not a line item on a balance sheet See my endorsements here:

ATTACHMENT 4
261
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 9:20 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 11-7-22 item 5A
Attachments: psomas_- 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY - 4458-021-007 - WETLANDS REPORT.pdf; pc - smith wetland upland restoraation 11-7-22 (1).docx
FYI
From: [email protected] >
Sent: Saturday, November 5, 2022 9:54 AM
To: Kraig Hill < >; Dennis Smith >; John Mazza < >;
Mark Wetton < >; Jeffrey D Jennings < >
Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: 11‐7‐22 item 5A
Attached are Slow Growth's comments on the Smith property upland revegetation plan. Please let me know if you have questions. Patt
262
1 To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth by Patt Healy
Date: 11‐7‐22
Re: Item 5A Coastal Development Permit No. 22‐040 – An application to restore Upland Habitat that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement Honorable Commissioners,

PART ONE
Upland Restoration Area
The Planning Commission is being asked to grant a CDP for the restoration of a wetland upland area which the Glen Lukos Technical Memorandum considers outside the boundary of the wetland on this parcel. However, using the Coastal Act wetland definition this restoration is taking place in the wetland itself rather than the upland area.

Coastal Act Definition The Coastal Act is the controlling wetland definition to be used in Malibu.

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.

However the 2019 Glen Lukos Technical Memorandum prepared for Schmidt and Associates Inc didn’t strictly apply the Coastal Act definition since it excluded the saltgrass vegetation, a hydrophyte, existing on the property. Hence the Glen Lukos wetland Technical Memorandum and the Lukos Restoration Plan can’t be relied on or used to determine the wetland area and where the upland vegetation restoration needs to take place.

Wetland  Area
Before this item is heard the correct Coastal Act wetland area has to be determined. The city based the wetland area on the Glen Lukos  Technical Memorandum which stated the size of the wetland was approximately  only 1.7 acres. Hence the upland restoration plan is not accurate. 263
2 However , a February 1, 2002  wetlands delineation  by Psomas for the Malibu Bay Company  found the  wetland area  to be 3.40 acres ,twice the size of the one found by the Lukos study.

On Page 2 of the Psomas Delineation the Summary states: The south part of the property contains 3.34 acres of Corps jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S., which is of two types:
a) Civic Center Way) and plantings that were established by Malibu Bay Company as mitigation for other projects.
b) A seasonal saltgrass wetland located between the marsh and the upland zone, and extending around two willow clumps on the west side of the property. Portions of this seasonal wetland are dry in summer, and disturbed from disking, but salt grass persists Both of these types of wetlands appear to be hydrologically connected to the ocean via a series of storm drains and culverts. Therefore, the wetlands would not be considered isolated.

3.The south part of the property supports 3.40 acres of wetlands subject to regulation under the California Coastal Act.

Conclusion.

Despite annual unallowable disking the hydric saltgrass,has continued to thrive , year after year and can’t be ignored in determining the actual wetland area since it meets the Coastal Act wetland definition. The Psomas Report includes the saltgrass concluding the wetland to be 3.40 acres. This upland restoration has to be recalculated taking this Psomas Wetland Delineation into consideration.

PART TWO
Other Concerns
According to the Lukos Restoration Plan ‘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 need to enter and exit the Site through this route’. 264
3 It is disturbing to learn the only way to access the property for the proposed wetland restoration is through the wetland itself. The Lukos Restoration Plan fails to show the proposed entry point, the path through the wetland, the path width, the wetland plants that would be disturbed by this wetland intrusion and the kind and size of the equipment that will be entering the wetland. Further more,there is no restoration plan for this disturbed wetland area.

Thank you for considering our comments.

265

DELINEATION OF WETLANDS,

STREAMBEDS, AND JURISDICTIONAL

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
“SMITH” PARCEL SOUTHWEST OF THE

MALIBU CIVIC CENTER
February 1, 2002
Prepared For:

Malibu Bay Company
23705 West Malibu Road, Suite D2
Malibu, CA 90265
Prepared By:

PSOMAS
3187 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 250
Costa Mesa, California 92626
Contact: Edith Read, Ph.D. (714) 751-7373
CERTIFICATION: I certify that the facts, statements, and information presented in this report are true, correct, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief.

PSOMAS
__________________________________ Date:

Edith Read
Manager of Biological Resources
266
Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Summary 3
Introduction 4
Purpose and Location of the Delineation 4
Site History 4
Methods 5
Evaluation Criteria 5
Federal 5
State 6
Field Methods 7
Results 8
General Site Conditions 8
Physical Features 8
Vegetation 8
Delineation Results 8
Hydrology 8
Soils 9
Vegetation 9
Conclusions 9
Federal Jurisdiction 10
State Jurisdiction 10
Literature Cited 11
Appendix A Field Survey Forms
Appendix B Plant Species Observed
Appendix C Representative Site Photographs
Appendix D Tabular Summary of Field Observations
List of Tables
Table 1 - Total acreage for state and federal jurisdictional areas 10 List of Figures
Figure Follows Page
Figure 1 Project Location 4
Figure 2 Parcel Location 4
Figure 3 Historic Topography 4
Figure 4 Historical and 1997 Aerial Photographs 4
Figure 5 Site Topography and Plot Locations 8
Figure 6 Vegetation and Jurisdictional Areas 8
Figure 7 Soil Classification at Property Location 9
267
Summary
A wetland delineation was conducted on December 9-10, 1998 for the “Smith” parcel (#4458-021- 007) owned by Malibu Bay Company, followed up by a field update and verification on January 21, 2002. This parcel is located at the northwest corner of Pacific Coast Highway and Civic Center Drive within the City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California. The parcel size is 7.34 acres. The delineation was conducted according to protocols specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The delineation also addresses statutory requirements of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) and the California Coastal Act.

The north part of the property is occupied by highly disturbed, non-native annual grassland, most of which is periodically disked to comply with county regulations regarding fire hazard reduction. The southern end of the property is characterized by freshwater marsh with native vegetation. Historical photographs indicate that the property has been used for agriculture, at least as far back as 1928.

The south part of the parcel contains area that meets the Corps criteria for a wetland. Based on historical information and current survey data, this report reaches the following conclusions:

1. The south part of the property contains 3.34 acres of Corps jurisdictional wetlands and Waters of the U.S., which is of two types:
a) Created freshwater marsh that is an artifact of impaired drainage under the adjacent road (Civic Center Way) and plantings that were established by Malibu Bay Company as mitigation for other projects.
b) A seasonal saltgrass wetland located between the marsh and the upland zone, and extending around two willow clumps on the west side of the property. Portions of this seasonal wetland are dry in summer, and disturbed from disking, but salt grass persists as the dominant plant species.

Both of these types of wetlands appear to be hydrologically connected to the ocean via a series of storm drains and culverts. Therefore the wetlands would not be considered isolated.

2. Streambeds and ponds are not present on the property, therefore the California Department of Fish and Game has no jurisdiction under Sections 1600-1603 of the Fish and Game Code.

3. The south part of the property supports 3.40 acres of wetlands subject to regulation under the California Coastal Act.

4. No part of the property was at or below mean high tide elevation in 1899 and therefore the property is not subject to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

PSOMAS
268

Page 3 ends

Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination
Methods
Evaluation Criteria
Federal
Three sets of federal regulations potentially apply to a drainage, channel, or wetland: Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.

Waters of the U.S.. Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act apply to ‘Waters of the United States”. Examples of features that qualify under this category, including various types of wetlands, are listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR Section 328). However, the list of features covered under the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations was changed by a January 9, 2001 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court (Solid Waste A~ençy of Northwestern Cook County z’. United States Arn~y Co?ps ofEngineers et al.; hereafter referred to as the SWANCC decision) and a subsequent guidance memorandum issued by the Corps (US Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers 2001). Presently, ‘Waters of the United States” are defined to include waterways, streams, and wetlands that have a connection to navigable waters or their tributaries. In tidal waters, Corps jurisdiction extends to the high tide line. In non-tidal waters, the limits of jurisdiction under the category of ‘Waters” are “ordinary high water marks” that are identified through field observation of features such as shelving and debris deposits. Where wetlands occur above high tide or high water marks, they are considered “adjacent wetlands”, and are included within Corps jurisdiction, as long as such features are connected to navigable waters or their tributaries. The Corps no longer regulates wetlands or other waters that are isolated from navigable waters or their tributaries.

Wetlands. Numerous definitions of wetlands have been proposed over the years, but presently the Corps’ technical guidelines for defining wetlands are contained in their 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Manual). Page 13 of the Manual cites prior regulatory guidelines to define a wetland as a site that is “inundated or saturated. . . at a frequency and duration sufficient to support. . .vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. . . “. Soil saturation deprives plant roots of oxygen, limiting the types of plants that can grow. Absence of oxygen leads to “reducing” chemical conditions and to the development of unique soil types, called hydric soils. The Corps’ technical guidelines outlined in the Manual (pages 13-14) consist of three criteria for delineating a feature as a “wetland”: hydrology, soils, and vegetation. Under the procedures and criteria in the Manual, a feature must normally satisfy all three criteria to be classified as a wetland. These criteria are further defined as follows:
a. Wetland hydrology. Wetland hydrology is determined to exist if an area is inundated either permanently or periodically during the growing season of the prevalent vegetation (pages 14 and 34). Field indicators of wetland hydrology are described on pages 34-41 of the Manual and include flow data, direct observation, and /or indirect evidence of flow or saturation, such as high water marks, drift lines, or sediment deposits.

PSOMAS 5
269
Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination
b. Wetland soils. Wetland soil conditions are considered to be present if the soils are hydric or have characteristics that are associated with reducing chemical processes (page 14). Field indicators of wetland soil conditions are described on pages 26-33 of the Manual, and include a range of criteria for color and mottling. The 1.987 manual also specifies that a hydric soil “may be either drained or undrained, and a drained hydric soil may not continue to support hydrophytic vegetation. Therefore, not all areas having hydric soils will qualify as wetlands. Only when a hydric soil supports hydrophytic vegetation and the area has indicators of wetland hydrology may the soil be referred to as a ‘wetland’ soil.” (page 27).
c. Hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrophytic vegetation is defined as “the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present.” (page 16). The vegetation criterion is evaluated in terms of presence and dominance of certain plant species that are associated, to various degrees, with wetlands. This evaluation is based on regional lists (USFWS, 1996). In order to meet the federal criterion that defines wetland vegetation, at least 50 percent of the plant species must be composed of species that are on the regional list as Obligate ([OBL]—occurs almost always in wetlands), Facultative Wetland ([FACW]—usually occurs in wetlands), or Facultative ([FAC])—equally likely to occur in wetlands or nonwetlands). Collectively, plant species that fall into these categories are referred to as hydrophytic (page 19). Conversely, upland species are classified as Upland ([[JPL] —occurs almost always in uplands), or Facultative Upland ([FACTJ] —usually occurs in uplands). Plus (+) or minus (-) signs next to these designations indicates slight variations from these categories. Plant species that are not designated (ND) in relation to wetland status are usually considered as upland species, for practical purposes.

Section 10. Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Currently for projects in the Malibu area, the Corps is requesting that delineation studies address Section 10 in addition to the 401/404 issues (A. Allen, pers. comm. to E. Read). Such an analysis must address two parameters: a) whether or not the property was at or below the mean high tide line (i.e. subject to the ebb and flow of the tide) in 1899 when the Act was enacted; and b) whether or not tidal influence could be established under current conditions.

State
Sections 1601 and 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code are applied to streams. A stream is defined as a “body of water that flows at least periodically. . . through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. Tbis includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1, Chapter 1, Section 1.72). In our experience, CDFG has interpreted jurisdictional boundaries to be limited to the tops of stream banks (i.e., the limit of stream influence) and/or the limit of the canopy of riparian vegetation that is hydrologically connected to the stream, whichever is greatest. Wetlands, by themselves, are not protected under Sections 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code.

PSOMAS 6
270
Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination
The California Coastal Act, as administered by the Coastal Commission, does not specifically cover streambeds in the sense recognized by the Corps or CDFG. However, the Coastal Act does regulate wetlands, which may or may not occur within a streambed and coastal waters. The California Coastal Act regulates wetlands under Section 30121 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 Coastal Commission’s regulations (14 California Code of Regulations Section 13577(b)) also state that:
‘Wetland shall be defined as land where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall 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 tinie during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deep-water habitats.”
Field Methods
The potential occurrence of wetlands, streambeds and waters of the U.S. on the project site was evaluated through a literature review and a field evaluation conducted on December 9-10, 1998, followed by an updated verification on January 21, 2002. Protocols specified by the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987) were used to evaluate federal jurisdictional area. The National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands (Reed 1988; USFWS 1996), as applied to California, was used to determine wetland status of plant species. Plant taxonomy follows the most recent California flora (Hickman 1993). Literature reviewed included soils maps and descriptions (USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1967), topographic maps (USD1 Geological Survey 1981), and a previous wetland delineation report for the Malibu Civic Center Planning Area (lierra Macfre Consultants, Inc. 1992). Before visiting the site, a topographic map of the property, obtained from Malibu Bay company, was studied. In order to pinpoint soil test locations and wetlands in the field, survey control points were identified prior to going to the field. These points, plot locations, and wetland areas were surveyed using base station and rover Global Positioning System (GPS) equipment. Surveyed locations of soil test pits are accurate to within six inches. Boundaries of vegetation types (e.g. saltgrass vs. upland) were surveyed with GPS, based on visual observation of plant species dominance. It should be noted that due to the highly disturbed (disked) condition of the property area between the marsh and the nursery, it was difficult to delineate the boundary between areas dominated by saltgrass (a wetland species) and areas dominated by non-native upland grasses. In these areas, species dominance was estimated by evaluating surface fragments of stems and fruits to distinguish saltgrass from other species. All delineation data were recorded on standard field survey forms. The recent publication by Tiner (1999) was used to help resolve wetland delineation problems in the disked portion of the property.

PSOMAS 7
271
Malibu Be~..

Malibu Pt
1 Smith Parcel
Data Sources: Parcel boundary from Los
Angeles County Office of the Assesor.

Topography from USGS 7.5’ quad ‘Malibu
Beach, CA’ 1950, photorevised 1981.
1000 0
1” = 1000’
1000 Feet
Figure 2.

Malibu Bay Company
Smith Parcel
Parcel Location P S 0 M A S
272
Legend
Smith Parcel Boundary
USGS Historic Topography
/\/ Current Topography
Data Sources: Parcel boundary from Los
Angeles County Office of the Assesor.

USGS historic topo maps from USGS
Historic File, Topographic Division.
-
• . —~..~ .. -. .—..I
- — ~ _L_r_ •~•~Ih.. —. ~,, •~_•_~~ ,.~,_ —. .+•._•_ —— ~F. —~•‘~ • •~‘~ •~ ~• ‘~•• %iI .~-..,b..i. ~ •~, .-.-.-- _‘4~~•. — .•—,-—.,•— . I—•~ -
— =
•~-~
——-~
~-—
~.‘~‘~~
~
.~..~~~
1L ~., ~•~ ~ -.-~ ~~IflF. ~ . -~.__~ ~ •~_~• •~••___~
~ ~~ — — —eu.-.
“3
500 500 Feet
1’ = 500’
Figure 3.

Malibu Bay Company
Smith Parcel
273
Historic Topography P S 0 M A S
‘~• ;—~~-a~
.~..... ., -. .—. —
.4-. -.-‘. .. . —a-. . a-.
‘a — - — :.
—. f,, ~. .‘~. •. . -‘
-r.
-~ a, ~ .. /
f ,. ~,
~ kI~ —
‘ I - /‘ 2~ ~‘V’
—— ,N~1 ~
•~-. r~’ - . . . . - . - ‘is. ;~ - ..‘. ‘• -.-
a -. -.- . .,
—, I— —. — 4/
-~ I ~) ~ ~‘. ‘/
f. .-. a.. •~...• ..-•~ a. •. ~ .. a... -•~• .— 4.
•~.‘-a--I:.
—-
~
— .a -
~ . ~—- -.:~
—
~
— —4—
;- ~:a ~ a.~ - - - -1 1 —‘ -.~ — — —~1—.. ‘YjéZ~Sl
L ,~_• - T ‘~.. -. —- —.- ‘- . a. 7’ .- — J_a_•_• — :1: .— I- -- .‘~.---. ~ a- •(~
• -.‘_.. a - - .~m• “ij ~Y-’-.~’ ‘~
:,~‘
‘a~~
•-ti~.~~’ -a
I . -a.. - —.
:~~t1a,~ ~
• ~ ‘~ -.
• \Lç ~~a.
-~ •
-a; —~ k
-
‘~\ -a .-.~ ~- .;~ .
- - -.3 a
-a. -:-a. -.‘: .~..~ ~Ht •~•- :.~ •~•‘•
~
~
- ..,‘~—.- . ....- ~ . . ~~ . -~ :~, ~ P~ ~
• :‘~ ~
a
-.
:.
~ :~
.
:-‘~~‘~
4’.
~
~
-u a.’k • ~ - ~. ~4r .~:. . - -
-. .. ~•~‘ ~ ..-~‘ -: - - .
— ~. . - a~ ., a-
—: . “i.; .. ‘ “•
a - . ,- . a.._ . .I~ —•,. --
-~ y •. C— 3. a -~-
L r ‘
—i_-a- ~-. ~,a.•__ . . - -a a. -. -- •~-., ,.•— - .. -
— —. Laaa~~
‘-‘p. ~— .4 -
I ‘\ —
— — — — I r * ~ \~-~‘ - -
~ ~-_:‘~ -~ :~. .~ -. — :‘~‘ ~ ~ -..-. •~:~•-‘- - ~ --
—
— _.!~_.a-_3 -a .- — 1• - ~ — —-a - p ~ ,,4 I — 3
-a 1 ~
-- 1 ‘~ - -, . - - - . - - . - .. - . •.. ,-.~ .-. ~ 11 ~ - .- - ~ ~ ~
c-1~a.~1 —
~3. ---~ .. -a.
a1928 - - . 1944
/
-~ .c
/ . -.
-a.- - -
‘S
Legend
Smith Parcel boundary
Data Sources: Parcel boundary from Los
Angeles County Office of the Assesor.

Historic aerial photography from the Fairchild
Aerial Photography Collection, Whittier College,
CA.
1000 0 1000 Feet
1” = 1000’
Figure 4.
1956 1997
alibu Bay Company
Smith Parcel
istorical and 1997
274
Aerial Photographs PSOMAS
Legend
1,1 Smith Parcel Boundary
Soil Test Plots
Topography
Data Sources: Parcel boundary from Los
Angeles County Office of the Assessor.

Soil Pit location by GPS.
75 Figure 5.
0 1” = 75’
75 Feet
Malibu Bay ompany
Smith Parcel
Site Topography and
275
Plot Locations PSOMAS
Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination
introduction
Purpose and Location of the Delineation
This report was prepared for the Malibu Bay in connection with preparation of a development agreement with the City of Malibu for this property. The property is 7.34 acres in size, located in the Malibu Beach 7.5’ US Geological Survey quadrangle, TIS R17W S32 and the City of Malibu, Los Angeles County, California (Figures 1 and 2).

Site History
US Geological Survey maps were obtained that were based on ground survey and/or aerial photography (as available) for the years 1893 / 1900-1 and 1932 (Figure 3). Figure 4 provides aerial photographs from 1928, 1944, 1956, and 1997. The historical information shows no evidence that natural streams or ponds have occupied the property in the past, at least as far back as 1893.

Historical land uses appear to have been row crops and/or pasture.

Dr. A.T. Orme of the Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles has recently completed a study of the prehistoric and historic hydrology/geomorphology of lower Malibu Creek and the Civic Center region (Ambrose and Orrne 1999). This study and Figures 3-4 indicate that the property is situated on an old alluvial fan associated with drainages from hills to the north. The historical photographs indicate that there was probably insufficient water draining from these hills to support lush freshwater riparian habitat on the alluvial fans below, even prior to conversion of these areas to cropland. A small lagoon feature, prominent on the 1928 photograph (Figure 4) and 1932 topographic map (Figure 3) was located off site and was possibly a natural saltpan fringed with saltgrass, and tenuously linked to the main estuarine lagoon through subsurface seepage (Ambrose and Orme 1999 p. 1-24). This small lagoon was elinilnated by 1956 (Figure 4), as a result of development of the coast and realignment of Pacific Coast Highway. Construction of Pacific Coast Highway also impaired drainage from the property at the northwest corner of the Civic Center Way intersection. This area has been planted by the Malibu Bay Company as a freshwater marsh. There is no evidence that a marsh was present north of this intersection prior to the road construction.

There is also no evidence from the collection of historical information that the property area supported navigable waters. Site elevations and historical photos indicate that the property has been located well above the ordinary high water mark of Malibu Creek, and above mean high tide elevation, in the late 180Os.

Scott D. White of Tierra Madre Consultants, Inc. conducted a delineation of the Civic Center area for Waters of the U.S., streambeds, and wetlands in October of 1992. He identified the marsh on the Smith property but did not provide the acreage. The delineation was not certified.

PSOMAS 4
02-06-02
276
Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination
Results
The Appendix A to this report provides copies of completed survey forms for the site. Appendix B provides a list of plant species observed. Appendix C provides representative photographs of site conditions. Appendix D provides a tabular summary of the field observations at each plot location.

General Site Conditions
Physical Features
Figure 5 shows the site topography in relation to all of the plot locations studied. Elevation of the Smith property ranges from 11.1 feet above mean sea level at the southeast corner to 25 feet above mean sea level at the northwest corner. No USGS-designated “blueline” streams cross the site, according to the 1981 USGS map (Figure 2).

Vegetation
Prior to the field survey, the entire parcel except for fences, nursery, and the southern marsh had been disked to comply with County requirements for fire hazard reduction. This disturbance made plant species identification and delineation of the wetland/upland boundary difficult. Generally, the southern part of the parcel contains sedges and saltgrass in the marsh areas. The property area north of the marsh can be characterized as exotic annual grassland and nursery. A cultivated variety of exotic sedge (umbrella plant — C~erus involucratus) was observed in containers within the nursery.

Individuals of this wetland species appear to be naturalizing south of the nursery, associated with a clump of willows.

Delineation Results
The field survey for this report covered the southern marsh areas and continued to the northern area that was characterized by upland species. The southern area of this property consists of marsh that is permanently inundated with water 12+ inches deep. The area north of the marsh has been disked periodically to reduce fire hazard. Five transects of up to five plots each plus four additional plots were located throughout the parcel (Figure 5).

Figure 6 shows vegetation types and the jurisdictional boundaries delineated in this study. Appendix I) summarizes the field evaluation for each of the three Corps criteria (hydrology, soil, vegetation), for each plot that was studied.

Hydrology
Appendix 1), Table D-1 summarizes the hydrological evaluation for each plot. Approximately the northern ten meters (33 feet) of each transect had no hydrology indicators. However, south of this point most of the plots contained indicators such as saturated soil in the upper 12 inches and free PSOMAS 8
02-06-02
277
~‘ ~/~i
~
II I / /~/i
~
Nursery \ ~ \~_~~—__~ I ,~i
~ I / - / - -::~ / ~
~— !\ \\/\_/_~\~~\
/ I;’, ~28=
~H \
Si0~ 2~ 11.3 .. ~
/ / I
/ -~ \ S
Legend
Jurisdictional Boundaries
)\/ Corps and Coastal Act
Coastal Only
/\/ Smith Parcel Boundary
Vegetation and Jurisdictional Acreages
Vegetation Coastal Corps
— Willow
Freshwater Marsh 1.78 1.78
Saltgrass 1.32 1.32

0.10 0.10
Ruderal? 0.14 0.14
Freshwater Marsh
Alkali weed? 0.057 NJ
Annual Grassland
Annual Grassland NJ NJ
Berm? NJ NJ
Annual Grassland
Ruderal NJ NJ
Nursery NJ NJ
Total 3.40 3.34
NJ = Not Jurisdictional, i.e. the vegetation type
does not occur within a jurisdictional area.

Topography
Data Sources: Parcel boundary from Los
Angeles County Office of the Assesor.

Wetland feature delineation by GPS.

Figure 6.
75 0 75 Feet
1” = 75’
Malibu Bay Company
Smith Parcel
egetation and
278
JurisdictionalAreas PSOMAS
Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination
water standing in the soil test pit. The southern third of the property is very poorly drained with outflow restricted by a small culvert under Civic Center Way. The northern two thirds of the property are moderately well drained through overland flow and sheet runoff draining toward the south and west/east property boundaries. Some portion of the runoff presumably occurs yearround from irrigation of the nursery that occupies the northern third of the property.

Based on its connection to a culvert and an assumption that this culvert is part of a storm drain system that ultimately connects to the ocean, we conclude that the Smith property is not isolated from Waters of the U.S. or their tributaries.

Soils
One SCS soil type, Sorrento loam, is mapped on the parcel (Figure 7). Sorrento loam is an alluvial lowland soil. It is well drained with moderate alkalinity. Clay-loam inclusions may support wetlands where they occur on level topography. This soil type is not on the current National List of Hydric Soils.

Appendix D, Table D-2 summarizes results of the soils evaluation of the Smith parcel, sampled at the locations shown on Figure 5. Within wetland areas the soil texture was clay loam, forming sticky iumps when moistened. Outside of wetland areas, soil texture was characterized by sandy loams.

However, the soil in these areas had been disked prior to this survey and this disking may have disrupted the soil profile. Generally, historical aerial photographs (Figure 4) indicate that the property has been used for agricultural purposes for a long time and therefore a native, indigenous soil profile is impossible to reconstruct.

Vegetation
Appendix D, Table D-3 summarizes the results of the vegetation investigation on the Smith parcel, sampled at the locations shown on Figure 5. Approximately the northern half of the property is characterized by the nursery and by upland, exotic annual grasses and herbs. The southern half of the property is characterized by the presence of at least 5O% wetland species, thus, meeting the vegetation criterion for wetlands. The northwestern edge of the parcel also contains areas that Corps meet the vegetation criterion. These areas are directly adjacent to a nursery and a small dip in topography that runs along the western fenceline (see Figure 5).

Conclusions
Appendix D, Table D-4 summarizes all of the plot data provided in the appendices with regard to whether the plot does or does not qualify as a wetland under Corps criteria. Table 1 provides total acreages of federal and state jurisdiction (see also Figure 6).

PSOMAS 9
flOJTh~fl’)
279
Smith Property — Jurisdictional Determination
Table 1. Total acreage for state and federal jurisdictional areas.

Jurisdiction Designation Acres
Federal (Corps): Non-isolated Waters of the U.S. and 3.34 ‘CWA Section 404 Wetland
Federal (Corps): Navigable Waters None
2l?J4J~ Section 10
State (CDFG) Streambed None
State (Coastal Act)
1 Clean Water Act
2 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
Wetland 3.40
Federal Jurisdiction
As previously stated, federal jurisdiction requires the presence of all three of the diagnostic features.

If one of these features is missing, it is not a federally jurisdictional wetland. The Smith parcel contains federal jurisdictional wetlands on the southern half and northwestern section of the parcel, as characterized by the presence of hydrology, hydric soils and wetland vegetation. The remainder of the northern half of the parcel conforms to the Corps (1987 Manual) definition of a ccnonwetIand~~ provided earlier in this report and repeated here as follows: “Nonwetlands include uplands and lowland areas that are neither deepwater aquatic habitats, wetlands, nor other special aquatic sites. They are seldom or never inundated, or if frequently inundated, they have saturated soils for only brief periods during the growing season and, if vegetated, they normally support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life only in aerobic soil conditions” (p. 15 of the Manual).

State Jurisdiction
CDFG. Since there is no streambed as defined by the Fish and Game Code associated with the wetland on the Smith parcel, it is concluded that there is no CDFG jurisdiction in this case.

Coasta/Act. As stated in previous sections, the Coastal Act definition of a wetland requires that the water table be at, near, or above the land surface long enough for hydric soils to form or for hydrophytic vegetation to grow. The freshwater marsh on the Smith parcel is present year round and sustains both hydric soils and hycirophytes within the boundaries as shown in Fig. 6. Portions of the saltgrass wetland are dry in summer, especially in the northwestern corner near the nursery, but these areas nevertheless sustain a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation (saltgrass). Both types of wetlands, freshwater marsh and saltgrass wetland, fall under the jurisdiction of the Coastal Act.

PSOMAS 10
n2-n~-n2
280
APPENDIX A: FIELD SURVEY FORMS
281
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner: ~44 ~_Ll k”- ~ ~
Investigator(s): ~. ~.! €~ ~ • —
Date:J~/ ~ Community ID:

County: L- ‘~ Transect iD: I
State: C ‘~ Plot ID: / I T,’Z~”J~fr e4AiL~kr
h~~—’>/b. I
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? yas (~~)
Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(AtypicalSi~a~O~ ~ NO Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) ~es

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

1. AJD
~ Cf~’≤~- + ,f(~A5,~c ~
Percent of Dominant Species that are ___________________ OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No
7~’-’
1 ~
/ 7-.’
~ 7
~r
/‘
282
p;•(•
~
PRIMARY Indicators;
U Inundated
U Saturated In Upper 12’U Waler MarksU Drill LinesU Sediment DepositsU Drainage Patterns in Wetlands SECONDARY IndicatorsU Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12’U Water Stained leaves U Local Soil Survey DaleU FAC-Neulral Test
U Other (Explain In Remarks) _______________________ Field Observations Confirm _.l:_ Mapped Type: Yes No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Motile Mottle Texture,
(~~es Horizon IMunselt Moist) (Munsell Moist] Abundance/Contrsst Concretions,Structureetc.

J2~ ....~.L /~Yi~/’,/~ i’ic~C.
—
~re6~’i
±~2 IL/c~yfZ/qt2 ~e”~’~ —~
— I
HYDRIC SOB INDICATORS 17 ~ fr~l”- c.tt’fr~ or
~
~ _j_’
U Hislosol
Q Reducing Conditions
U Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
U Hislic Epipedon
U Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
U Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _—‘_
EJ Sultidic Odor ,~~poncrelions
~ (‘~~
U Listed on National Hydric Soils List
U Aquic Moisture Regime
U High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ___________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No REMARKS:
~
~
~
~ ~ /i/~r~t/~ (~ c ________ .5~ ( J?/ZJ~’ft~.

WETLAND DETERMINATION —.-~~—Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? No Is this sampling poi,~.a,V~etland?Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes (~) Yes Hydric Soils Present? Yes
REMARKS:
_j-_
A _Trnrtsect ID: I ______________PlollD:_ ;2/3
,~\&! iO.(
~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ‘~ So I/it
~ NO
\ t,s’t.C f~\~
~ 4~vr’~
~‘~
~
~
Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Afypica - v~s.Is the area a potential Problem Area’? (Explain in final remarks) ~‘es

VEGETATION
Dominant PI~ffl~p5cies Stratum _______ 1._D,y/&~_z~__~r~- J-/e4~ ______ 2. c~ fl’ ____ ________ ________ 3.

4. 5.6.

7. 8.

9. 10.

RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

U Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
U OtherU None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth ot Surface Water:
“4P (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit:.~E. (in.)Depth to Saturated Soil: ~‘ (in.) Wetland rob resent?
REMARKS:
-I-
-‘I
~~1,~
Project/Site: :‘ ~
Applicant/Owner: tiV~ ~x_(-.’ (.dLl ~‘~‘~y (_~~rAy~ C~.y Investigator(s): /~‘ . P
~ 7’. (rr.(~’
Date: f2
/
~ /? if’ Community tD:5 .h’31-~~ J$
County
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup):

Indicator
FY1~.
~
Percent of Dominant Species that are ____________________ __________________________ 0OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No ~c..

REMARKS:
~ pf’~J’~4
~id
~
~ / €t( (OL(4’~
~ ‘~. it
~ ft
3 c
~
~
~
(~~DQ~4c (/‘—2~
~
c-p. ~(fsi_?.≤
\
- --..---. .- .--.----...
283
PRIMARY Indicators:

LI Inundated
E(Saturated In Upper 12~ __________ LI Water MarksLI Drill Lines _______ LI Sediment Deposits LI Drainage Patterns in Wetlands ______ SECONDARY Indicators J~ OV~Q~.

L~J Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12
LI Water Stained leaves
LI Local Soil Survey DataLI FAC-Neu~ral TestLI Other (Explain in Remarks) p~
~
~ H _____ SOIIS
Map UnitName~Drainage Class: ______ (Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ______ Field Observations Confirm ~j I Mapped Type: Yes No PROFILE DESCRIPTION
~
g• Depth Matdx Color Motile Mottle Texture, ‘1 (~~s Horizon ~lMLJrrsell~xjois_llMoistl Abundance/Contrast .~5~5teiior1sStruciureetc €~ L~ 1L
~
_~
~I
3~ L~ .JEL
~ L~ 4
HYDRtC SOIL INDICATORS
O Flistosol
Q Reducing Conditions
0 Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils .J
0 I-fistic Epipedon [] Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
0 Listed on Local Flydric Soils LIst
O Sullidic Odor
0 Coricrelions
0 Listed on National 1-lydric Soils List
0 Aquic Moisture Regime
o Nigh Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _~__ Hydric Soil Present? NoREMARKS:
j~’;-f 4i
~ ~( ~J i~J.
~
~
—~—

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? No Is this sam~~oint a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? No Yes No j~JHydric Soils Present? es NoREMARKS:

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATIONDATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site:

Applicant/Owner: 34i’~~ i&L?
~!~ x~gCi ~-i~
lflvestigator(s)•.~ . ~;,,
Date:
~/~,r CoirinturtitylD-
~
County:._/...~4~[~T lID /
S (‘A ID.
~2Z.? ~--~ ~j~c Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? (S’E~) NO Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species f~(e’
• I I ~IU..JLLl~ ~
RECORDED DATA (Describe In Remarks):

LI Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
t~JAerial Photographs
LI Other
LI None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:

Depth of Surface Waler:_‘ (in.) r~4(~’Depth to Free Water in PiLL~.. (in.) (~ Depth to Saturated Soil:._.2L(in.) ~
Wetland ology Present?
Yes No
REMARKS:
-I. OC~ (‘i)
I,,
~1r~Lgm ~fl~55aIor
jL~ui~_
&~
~
~
5 4.
~.11-I iC
/19
o
~_LL~i2_ J.LcL~_ r~≤~ ~

6. _________ _________ 7. __________ __________ 8. ________________________________ 9. ________________________________ _____ 1 ___________________________ Percent of Dominant Species that are /~ ~
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? No
REMARKS: - Fôe~;~..
~(~
~
)L
~
~
~
~;~
~
~
~14~k
~. ~L~J)
~rJ.
~
~ 4<7 ;:~)
~
~ ~. r!to~ L,..€4(C.4
284
Fl I ~JL~JI.~ I
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

DStream, Lake or Tide Gauge
~J Aerial Photographs
EJ Other
U None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth of Surface Water:_.k?.~.,,L (in.) Depth to Free Waler in Pil:....~.. (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil:_,~L(irt.)
Wetland rology Present?
Yes No
REMARKS:

PRIMARY Indicators:
~Ltnundated
J~Saturatect in Upper 12~
U Water Marks
U Drilt Lines
U Sediment DepositsU Drainage Patterns In WetlandsSECONDARY Indicators U Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12~U Water Stained leaves U Local Soil Survey Data
U FAC-Neutral TestU Other (Explain in Remarks)
Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Prerfent? Yes
REMARKS:

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site:,., ~~“~‘2’~ .,.,,.,.

Appticant/Owner:_J3~~ C4~i~~Investigator(s): .___i~J~f~d .7 .C~ t~,,,,,,, ~
Date: __L~L~≤~’ z’ K’__~,__ Community lD:.~
~
k
State: ~ “n’ Plot ID:,. ~,/ ____________ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sife?~~t~kc~’ ~ YES Is the site significantly & recently clisturbed?(Atypicat Situation) ~ NO Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES

VEGETATION

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color
~~l~es Horizon (Nunaell Moist> ___________________ ___ -‘:- HYDRlC~UN~CATORS
O Histosol Q Reducing Conditions EJ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 0 Hislic Epipedon Q Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors 0 Listed on Local Hydtjc Soils ListO Sulltdtc Odor Q Concretions 0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Q High Organic Slreaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ___________ Hydric Soil Present? No REMARKS: A-5sri~-~O
SOILSMap UnitName~ Drainage Class: ________ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup): __~~~_ Field Observations Confirm
..,~, ~ç- y ~- C Mapped ~ ~Type: I ~ ~Yes N9, ~
~ 43 I’- JC~ws4~ ‘~ ~. ~
Mottle Mottle ~ ~ Texture, ____________ lMnjnsetlHoMoist Abundance/Contrast ~elions~iruct!~r~tc ~Qrniflgn~gfliSec~s

3.,-.,..
.4. ,,

5. ,,,,

6..,. ,, ,,,,,

7. ~-.,.-, ,,. ,,,.,

8.,..9.,,~ ,,,, ,,
Stratum for
/0
0/

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydroptrytic Vegetation Present? No Is this samplirjg oint a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? No as No Hydric Soils Present? (t’es) NoREMARKS:
i1~ /‘7(T’~ ~ C~,c~~fweJ ~
c~J.1~pts..( t//j<J.I~1’~’ L./(’f~ f~fC-4 rE?
~
~ ~;rk(~3 ~ ~
285
PRIMARY Indicators:

D inundated
D Saturated in Upper 12~ __________ Q Water MarksD Drill LinesD Sediment DepositsD Drainage Patierns in Wetlands SECONDARY indicators t’t’l vied ________ D Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12 D Water Stained leavesD Local Soil Survey DataC FAC-Neutrat Test C Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class: ________ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup):

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture,
(~~es Horizon IMunselt Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast ConcretjonsStructure,elc. 12 IL /oY/~73/~ fir~t.~(! — HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
WETLAND DETERMINATION ~Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this sampling pol etland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes No _________ Hydric Soils Present? Yes N REMARKS:

4. 6.7.

8.9. 10.

Percent of Dominant Species that ate /Oo %
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? NoREMARKS:
f~t(S.~~)~ ( ~
~(.j ~

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

C Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
J~Aerial Photographs
C
C None Available
FIELD O8SERVATIONS:

Depth 01 Surface Water: (in.)Depih to Free Water in Pit:..........._.. (in.)Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) Wetland Hydroloc~resent?
Yes
REMARKS:
f2;1~ ~ i~~> ~
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site: .≤‘~1’\ 17-1 ________ ApplicantJOwner:__ /~7) ‘LA-~ Li ~ ~ I
Date:

Investigator(s):
1 ~ ~
~
Comntu:tity ID: .$~‘ C_L5 (k.! ~ ________ County: L /1 Transect ID: Z.

State: __________________ Plot ID: ~ “3
~
~. .3 ---)26 ‘~~M Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? NO ~ is the site significantly & recently ctisturbed?(Alypical Situation) ‘r’cs Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) ~cs ~ ~r_~_~O_~‘~ Dominant Plant Sg~g)gs . Stratum IndIcator

1. ~ _______ rA ~
2 __________ Field Observations Confirm
Mapped Type: Yes No
-‘~~
LI Histosol
LI Histic EpipedonLI Sultidic OdorLI Aquic Moisture Regime Hydric Soil Present?REMARKS:

LI Reducing Condilions LI Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils LI Gleyed or Low-Chrorna Colors LI Lisied on Local Hydric Soils List ~LI Concreiions LI Listed on National Hydric Soils listLI High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Yes~
286
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

O Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
~~I”Aerial Photographs
C OtherC None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:

Depth ot Surlaco Water: (in.) ,Depth to Free Water in Pit:.J~... (in.)Depth to Saturated Soil; /1~ (in.) ~ 2— Wetland (~ology Present?
Yes No
REMARKS:

PRIMARY Indicators:

C Inundated
J3Saturatedin Upper ~
O Water MarksC Dritt LinesC Sediment DepositsC Drainage Patterns in Wetlands SECONDARY indicators ~f° ~
C Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12”
C Water Stained leavesC Local Soil Survey Data C FAC-Neutral Test C Other (Explain in Remarks)
I I~I Id I II II... II 1.. I I_tIP lU L4 I_ I U_I $11111 Iti I It.#I 1UJfl I 7% I Id I tIll Project!Site: ~~
Applicant/Owner: t1l.cJ- 14’,. f~ ~ ‘~i i~
Investigator(s): ~E~’ /2 C~~I ~ ~ 1€..Date: i~/?~ Community ID: ~ County: LA’ ............_Transect ID: 2
State: cA Plot ID: 1/
1~ ~Q.oj p-s ~i ~
SOILS
Map Unit Name _______________________________ _________ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup):
-~‘~
~~1,~
Drainage Class:
,L~ -~. —~)‘i’-’i
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? NO
Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES NOis the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remaiks) YES NO VEGETATIONDominant Ptant Species Stratum Indicator

1. ~~ -(‘rtty~”(fr~j~.c ~ ~ PACP
I: CL~g~/~ < ,oc1 ~~lo _____________________ Field Observations Confirm ,~j— p( ~~-t -t~L ~ ~ Mapped Type: Yes No PROFILE DESCRIPTION ~e1 tl ~~‘J Depth Matrix Color Mettle Motile Texture, Horrzon (Munseti Moist) (Munselt Moist) Abundance/Contrast Concretions,Structure,eic, L~ ~L ~ w~/~/~z / %~ to ________ HYDFI1C SOIL INDICATORS EJ Hislosol jJ Reducing Conditions LI Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils LI Histic Epipedon LI Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors LI Lisled on Local I-Iydric Soils List LI Sullidtc Odor LI Concrelions LI Lisled on Nalional Hydric Soils ListLI Aquic Moisture Regime LI High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? Ye No
REMARKS:

WETLAND DETERMINATION ~Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y~ No is this samp)k’rg’çroint a Wetland? Wetland
Hydric Soils
Hydrology Preseni?
Present? es
NoNo
No ~
REMARKS:

Percent of Dominant Species that are 7 ~ 0
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ~fes) No REMARKS: ~//~ K ~ 1/
~C 1r~LJ
~
~ (~g-c 7’ ~c /~S~r
~““ ~. --
287
PRIMARY Indicators:
~Jtnundated
Li Saturated in Upper 12~Li Water Marks
i:i Dritt Lines
Li Sediment DepositsLI Drainage Patterns in WetlandsSECONDARY Indicators _______ Li Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12 Li Water Stained leavesLi Local Soil Survey DataLi FAC-Neutral Test Li Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILSMap Unit Name Drainage Class: ________ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup): ______________________ Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No
PROFILE DESCRIPTION ~ a..~ ~ c j’-~-~’i~—
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, ~~
Horizon (f~tunseIl Moisti lMunsell Moist Abundance/Contrast ConcretiousStructure etc HYDRIC S0U INDICATORS _i~_
EJ Histosol Li Reducing Conditions Li Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Li Hislic Epipedon Li Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors Li Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _-~Li Sullidic Odor Li Concrelions Li Listed on National Hydric Soils UstLi Aquic Moisture Regime Li High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ___________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No REMARKS:

WETLAND DETERMINATION ~
Hyctrophytic Vegetation Present? ~ No Is this sam,pl4ng~ point a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? (T~) No (‘x’~p NoHydric Soils Present? NoREMARKS:

Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (~~)REMARKS:

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

Li Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
~Aerial Photographs
Li OtherLi None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth of Surface Waler: (in.)Depth to Free Waler in~(in.)Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) Wetland rology Present?
Yes No
REMARKS:
~1~
-:~~
~.1.=
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION..DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site: S~.-1A (i)~
Applicant/Owner: ~ f~’c~. ~
Investigator(s):,. ~E. ,1cL≤I~., 7, ~Lf’___________________ Date: !~ 7? ~ Community ID: P ~
County: Z-14 Transect ID:_______________________
State: ~ Plot ID: 1
~> Lt/,~~ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) YES Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES

VEGETATION
Pominant Plant Species Stratum ffi~jcator ___ iif~— ~V{)

3. 4.

5. 6.

7. ___________________________________ 8.

9. _____________________________________ 10.
288
PRIMARY Indicators: f’fO ~‘x
U Inundated
U Saturated In Upper 12~
U Water Marks
U Drift Lines
U Sediment DepositsU Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY Indicators tI~1Q,..

U Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12O Water Stained leaves U Local Soil Survey Data
U FAC-Neutral Test
U Other (Explain in Remarks)
tiuuiu’~t WhILANU DETERMINATIONDATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site:,.,, 5~i. ?7~’i~ .. ~. ~
Applicant/Owner~~sL,~’ ~~ ~Ot/2~/Investigator(s):~/~ 0. cf,. 7”~ t’~ Date:_J.~..~”~’Z~LZ_cotntrtit,iityto. ~_~‘~‘
ID:,
State: ~ 71- ., ~. Plot ID:

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
tf_.”> ~
NO
Is the site significantly & recently dislurbed?(Atypical Situation) ves Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explairt in final remarks) yes

VEGETATION I
DomInant Plant
~
Spec lea
~
~/‘ Stratum Indicator
~

2._j~,~?-ec~~J ~Dd’nF~s’ft ‘~r~ i!≤.L~2__ .i4(eA’~

3. 4.

5. ,,, ,. _____ 6.__, ________________ 8.

9. —~ -. __________ ________ ... Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetatidri Present? NoREMARKS:
.~ > ~: /
--~
~
(~. /
REMARKS:

RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

U Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
U OtherU None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS•
Depth of Surface Water: ~.(in.)Depth to Free Water in Pil:_~~,. (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Wetland Hydr~~~,senl?
-.,~
ill.f / ~ (1 -~
-~-
-,~ _ -~-
Li Reducing Conditions Li Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils 1 Q Gleyed or Low-Chrome Colors Li Listed on Local Hydric Soils ListLi Concreilons Li Listed on Nalional Hydric Soils List Li High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Yesc~3
SOILS
Map UnitNarne~ Drainage Class: ________ (Series arrd PhRse) Taxonomy (Subgroup):~__Field Observations Confirm
Mapped Type: Yes No PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture,
~ Horizon lMrJI’rseIl~~4oIsIlMoIsll (Mtjr’rsetl t~1n Moist Abundance/Contrast ConcreljonsStruc~ete _Ii__ __/Q_>~?~L~/?. 11 ~1?s{2. — HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Li Histosol
Li Histic EpipedonLi Sullidic Odor
Li Aquic Moisture Regime
1-lydric Soil Present?
REMARKS:

WETLAND L)ETERMJNATION
Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ Is this sampling poit etland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes Yes NoHydric Soils Present? Yes REMARKS:
0I
c~ ~-
C ~ ~-‘.7’ ~f
ç
I.
/
289
PRIMARY Indicators:

U Inundated
—~ Saturated in Upper 12~ /ai~t /
U Water MarksU Dritt LinesU Sediment Deposits
U Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY Indicators ~ D~ ~_ ________ U Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12~ U Water Stained leaves U Local Soil Survey DataU FAC-Neutrat Test
U Other (Explain in Remarks) REMARKS:
/); J ‘1
SOILS
Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup):

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast ConcretionsStructure,elc. 4~_~/c~ y?<~/4/~F- / ___________ [IYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS LI Histosol LI Reducing Conditions U Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils LI Hislic Epipedon lJ Gteyed or Low-Chroma Colors LI Listed on Local Hydric Soils List LI Sullidic Odor Q Concretions LI Listed on National Hydric Soils ListLI Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Sudace Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
REMARKS:

WETLAND DETERM~NA1iONHydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y No Is this sam lit~g~ otnt a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? No Ye No Hydric Soils Present? es No
REMARKS:

HYDROLOGYRECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

U Stream Lake or Tide Gauge
~AeriaI Photographs
U OtherU None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth of Surlace Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Waler in pit:._L~L (in.)Depth to Saturated Soil:/.’ (in.) Wellan ology Present?
Yes No
Date: - County:

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
ProjecllSite: r
Applicant/Owner: j-!’l c~L , c~ j3 ,~ ~ ~
Investigator(s): 7~ (~( €.
(2. / 9 (?1f Community ID: ~
~ Transect ID: //
Plot ID: /
Field Observations Confirm
Mapped Type: Yes No
Ø—’>/o
Do Normat Circumstances exist on the bite? YES NO
Is the site significantly & recently d(sturb~cL?(I)!YPiCal Situation) (~E~ NOIs the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) ‘cs

VEGETATION
Dominant
~
Plant Species Stratum IndIcator
/i~cc~ l~ 40 /V()
Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes (N)
REMARKS:
0 0//0
290

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

El Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge $1 Aerial PhotographsEl OtherEl None Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth 01 Surlace Water:________ (in.)Depth to Free Water in Pit:.2.~i1 (in.)Depth to Saturated Soil: /( (in.) Wetland ology Present?
Yes No
REMARKS:

PRIMARY Indicators:

El Inundated
El Saturated in Upper 12~El Water MarksEl Drill LinesEl Sediment DepositsEl Drainage Patterns in Wetlands SECONDARY Indicators
El Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12*El Waler Stained leaves El Local Soil Survey DataEl FAC-Neutral Test
El Other (Explain in Remarks)
Reid Observations Confirm
Mapped Type: Yes No
Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAG (excluding FAG-)Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?REMARKS:
c~J~~.
r
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site: ~
Applicant/Owner: ‘4~’t~-~-~ ~‘~i ~ ~‘-72 ~
Investigator(s)... ..~~:: ~( ~.

Date: /-./? ~ CommitnitylD:

County: .---/ ,t Transect ID: _________________________ Slate: CA Plot ID: __________________________ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? NO Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Alypical Situation) YES Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES

VEGETATION
~nanLEIantSec~s ___ ___ 1. ñ1~ ~
Drainage Class:
,1 ~2 V 1~LQ Cf~ S ~( &~— /
SOILS~
Map Unit Name _____________________________ ________ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup):

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Maids Color Mottle Mottle Texture,
Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munseti Moist) Abundance/Contrast ConcrelionsStruclureetc.

L~ ~LfoY,~/?Z~2 çYf~,5/d~ , __________ — _____ _____ _______ _________ HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS Stratum — t/,*(Cfk /~(~i~2r&)

5. 6.

7. 8.9. ___ ~ 1O.,.~
LI Histoso) LI Reducing Conditions LI Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils LI Histic Epipedon LI Gleyed or Low-Chroma Cotors LI Listed on Local Hydtic Soils ListLI Sul)idic Odor ~ Concretions LI Listed on National Hydric Soils UstLI Aquic Moisture Regime LI High Organic Streaking in Surtace Layer in Sandy Soils ___________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes No REMARKS:

Indicator
F/)c~w
7Ôà %
WETLAND DETERMINATION — Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ‘ Is this sampling pain Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Y No Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? as No
REMARKS:
0//0
No ~l— ~/
V~c. ~~ C •i 1
~
291

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

El Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
~AeriaI Photographs
El OtherEl None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:

Depth 01 Surface Water:_________ (in.)Depth to Free Water in Pit:...L~L. (in.) Depth to Saturated
PRIMARY Indicators:•
El InundatedEl Saturated in Upper 12~El Water MarksEl Drill LinesEl Sediment Deposits El Drainage Patterns In Wellands
SECONDARY IndicatorsEl Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12El Water Stained leaves El Local Soil Survey DataEl FAC-Neutral Test
El Other (Explain in Remarks)
Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Wellan logy Present?
es No
REMARKS:

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
ProjectlSite: SL41~ ( 4L~.

Applicant/Owner: L/71 ~L~’ Lz~ ‘~t,_
Investigator(s): i~. /~C/~ 7~ ~( .~Date:County:

I 2/2O/?(f
Transect
~
ID:
~
ii ui i
SOILSMap Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm
Mapped Type: Yes No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture,
~bea Horizon IMunsell Moisti (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contraat Concrelions,Structure,etc. .L~ ~fOY’~/’//2 /~yf~/47(fr (4 — HYDRIC SOIL INDlCATORS Plot ID: c~-’-~ —~3~ s~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YESIs the site significantly & recently~(~~) NOIs the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES VEGETATIONDominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
,~I~(l1)~’~f ~ ~ fcf 15
IEJ Hislosol jJ Reducing Condilions D Organic Streaking iii Sandy Soils D Hislic Epipedon lJ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors D baled on Local Hyd~c Soils List ~D Sullidic Odor Q Concretions D Listed on Nalional Hyd~c Soils List 0 Aquic Moisture Regime Q High Organic Slreaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? as NoREMARKS:

Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? No Is this sampJ4t~point a Wetland? Welland Hydrology Present? No (Y~t) No __________ Hydric Soils Present? Yes No REMARKS:

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
REMARKS:

C) 0//0
292

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

D Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
~~AerlaI Photographs
U OtherU None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth of Surface Water: ‘~ (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit:.Depth to Saturated Soil:
~ (in.~3 ‘~
Wetland ology Present?
Yes No
REMARKS:

PRIMARY Indicators:

U Inundated
U Saturated In Upper 12~U Water Marks
U Drift LinesU Sediment Deposits
U Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY IndicatorsU Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12U Water Stained leaves U Local Soil Survey Data
U FAC-Neutrat Test
U Other (Explain in Remarks)
Or,~itIOtt~,.. c.41 ; —1t~
Applicant/Owner: j4A~It~t~’ ~rr~
~
~
Investigator(s): e~. /?~cf., 7:Date: I //~,/~;‘ J~ Community ID:_____________________ Cour —~ Transect ID: ‘State:

C
4 Plot ID: P~ ~i~f ~≤ ~≤A~
—~3~)~/ Do Normal CIrcumstances exist on the site? YES
Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) (~~3 NO Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES VEGETATIONDomInant Plant Species ______ _______ 1. __________________ ~):+ ~ !J.tt
- Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Mstrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture. j~~es Horizon lMt,r,sell~1ois~llMoisll (Munsell Moirrf) Abundance/Contrast Concrelions,Struclureetc. ±≤~ ~/‘~Y~
~
— ________ HYDFIIC SOIL INDICATORS

2. / ,:

EJ Histosol Li Reducing Conditions Li Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Li Hislic Epipedon Li Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Li Listed on Local Hydric Soils ListLi Sultidic Odor Li Concretions Li Listed on National Hyddo Soils List Li Aquic Moisture Regime Li Hi h Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ___________ Hydric Soil Present? Yes o REMARKS:

3.4.5.6.7.8.9. 10.

Stratum
[)
Indicator
WETLAND DETERMiNATK~N _____ Hydrophylic Vegetation Present? ~es Is this sampling poir)lte’4~1etland? Wetland Hydrology Present? (Isa’ N~, Yes ‘4tILl.—’
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
REMARKS:
0/
/0
Percent of Dominant Species that are ,~‘~?) ï)
OBL FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic VegetatIon Present? NoREMARKS:0.~
(~S (~)t~
~bA).S,l~.
~
s
/~
~
293
___ ~ti

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
LI Histosol LI Reducing Condilions LI Organic StreaNng in Sandy Soils LI Histic Epipedon LI Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors LI Listed on Local Hydric Soils List LI Sultidic Odor LI Concrelions LI Listed on National Hydric Soils List LI Aquic Moisture Regime LI High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils ___________ Hydric Soil Present? Ye No REMARKS: ~i:

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site: ~4,i•~ 7~\
Applicant/Owner: i4’t ~o.,G ~ f?ci..~ ~rs-~p~
Investigator(s): ‘7. (~Date: / ~Q .4/O ~‘?~ Community ID: ~ ~~c /~- ~(~ 1 ~d — County: £..-1’ r Transect ID: .~
State: ~4 Plot ID:
~v’ —•‘:.~ ~≥_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sile? ~ NO
is the site significantly & recently clislurbed?(Atypical Situation) ~csis the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) vss VEGETATIONDominant Plant S~~j~s Stratum ________ 1. ~~3~ ______ ______ 2. ~ S/~,~1(~i~ ( _________ C •~7~’ ≤~/‘~ ~4’ _______ 12*

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators:

U Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge U inundatedU Aerial Photographs U Saturated in Upper 1 2~U Other U Water Marks U None Available U Drift Lines U Sediment Deposits
FIELD ORSERVATIONS: - U Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in~(in.) SECONDARY Indicators
Depth to Saturated Soil:....__4S~_(in.) U Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER U Water Stained leaves Wetland rology Present? U Local Soil Survey Data
Yes No U FAC-Neutral Test
U Other (Explain in Remarks)
REMARKS:
~ / ~ - Map Unit Name .~. Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Motile Texture, Horizon lM~jrisell t~iois_ll Moist) lM~~nselt bloist_It Moist Abundance/contrast .2etiofisStrudlureelC~.

Ls~ ~ Jo~i!Yj~LE~ l~Y/~Z2~~ I ___________ in
IndIcator
Mc c4~’
FA(. rAcw
/~ ~7) 0//0
WETLAND DETERMINATION c—.

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (~) No Is this samp)im~{oint a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? .) No (Ye~) No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
REMARKS:

Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (Yes)
REMARKS: O?~\5~,’ .≤/~6). ~
P~1~,Po2L~
No
294

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

U Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
‘~I’Aerial Photographs
U Other
U None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth of Surlace Water: (in.)Depth to Free Water in Pit: / J~ (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: /~ (in.)
PRIMARY Indicators:
~‘ U Inundated
U Saturated In Upper 12~U Water Marks
U Drill LinesU Sediment DepositsU Drainage Patterns in Wetlands SECONDARY Indicators
U Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12U Water Stained leavesU Local Soil Survey DataU FAC-Neutral Test U Other (Explain in Remarks)
Wetland
~ ology Present?
as No
REMARKS:
1k. ,i ~
SOILSMap Unit Name _____________________________ ________ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup): _______________________ Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No

7. 8.9.

10. Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?REMARKS:

A
s
~ ~‘ ~-‘
P:sIc~~L~i:.~ ~/)~C~./k.
~‘y~ I’..’.!
~
j2~< ~e,>ç (~ ~“
q- ,~ -. ( (. .J—~’!’ (~t S ,1~
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site: .$-v~. ; -/-/-~
Applicant/Owner:Investigator(s): h.
4’ic~-1/
/-ø~~~/.
~
7 Dale: t 2 i/o /~s.F Community
County: _L_~:________ Transect ID: __________________________ State: _PIotlD: Z/ YES
Drainage Class:
-I.

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the sUe? . NO
ts the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES Dominant Plant Sj~~es Stratum

1. )~;~~1
~~;~~frc- (‘\~ ~2__ ~i4c)I~-

2. ~
~
~ iA~≤~’
~

3.1~,~’cH <~ ______
~ F~1~c,t7
~ ~i7). ________ 5. ~~f/~v-~ c-fYt-~.(;(.(kfl jjfi’() Ff).r+

6. ________________________________________ PROFILE DESCRIPTION Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture, Q!~~ex Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abuncience/Contrast Concretions,Structure,etc. — —(~____ y~/~ ____ ______ ~_______ HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
U Hislosol ~ Reducing Condtlions
U Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
U Htslic Epipedon
U Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
U Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
U Sulhdic Odor
U Concrelions
U Listed on National Hydric Soils List
U Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils I-Iydric Soil Present? Yes No
REMARKS:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vege(ation Present? ~ No Is this sampjJa~oint a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? No (Yes) NoHydric Soils Present? a No REMARKS:

No
295
FIELD OBSERVATIONS: —
Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit:j~.-~in.)
,-.~ —
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Wetland- rology Present?
Ye No
REMARKS:
1~7
~ ~
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup);

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? t~< No
Wetland Hydrology Present? (r’s~ N~g~
Hydric Soils Present? ~
REMARKS:

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks): PRIMARY Indicators:
~,SIream, Lake or Tide Gauge ~ Inundated -
~AeriaI Photcgraphs D Saturated in Upper 12~
~ Cther ~ Water Marks
~ None Available 0 Drift Lines
0 Sediment Deposits -
0 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY Indicators
________ 0 Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12~ ~ ~:
~ Water Stained leaves
0Local Soil Survey Data
0 FAC-Neutral Test -:
0 Other (Explain in Remarks)
~
Drainage Class
________________________ Field Observations Confirm ~
Mapped Type: Yes No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color Motile Mottle Texture.
(~~esl Horizon (Munsell Mq~) (Muriseil Moisll Abund~nce/Ccntrast Concrerions.Slruciure.elc. — .,-‘‘-_-, ____ -
~

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
G Hislosol D Reducing Conditions C Organic Slreaking in Sandy Soils C Histic Epipedon C Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors C Usled on Local Hydric Soils List C Sulfidic Odor ~ Concretions C Listed on National Hydric Soils List C Aquic Moisture Regime C High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? I
REMARKS ?~
Is this sam -oin~tland?
---
~4U
296

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

U Stream, Lake or Tide GaugeU Aerial PhotographsU OtherE~J None Available FIELD OBSERVATIONS:Depth of Surface Water: (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit:. _._ (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Yes No
Field Observations Confirm
Mapped Type: Yes No
Motke Texlure,
Abundance/Contrast Concretions,Structure,etc.

Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-)Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? 1~~)REMARKS:
~c (Dy” ‘~‘~t’ ~-‘ j
PRIMARY Indicators:

U InundatedU Saturated In Upper 12~
U Water MarksU Drill Lines
U Sediment DepositsU Drainage Patterns in etlands
SECONDARY tndicat? ~ ________ U Oxidized Root C~)ánneIs in UPPER 12 U Water Stained Waves U Local Soil Su~ey DataU FAC-Neutrgl’Test
REMARKS: U Other (E ç5iain in Remarks)
Map Unit Name / Drainage Class:(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subgroup):

ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL
Project/Site:~$.-i’~ 7
Applicant/Owner:
lnvestigator(s)~,~~,
~
~
/‘~‘y~,
L( ~
z~; ~:~≥J
~
~
Date: l~//h/~f Community ID:___________________
County: Transect ID: _________________________ State: ‘~/1 PlotlD: _______________________ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypicat Situation) ‘r~ns ~L ,..~fç(r.r,.9 ,‘~-.~~‘e~ Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum )ndllc~rtor
~
~~
~(~-c~~) ~
IA L~4< ~‘

3. c~~~i’~ %~ ~
~

4._~ ( vo((.r~1~

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Matrix Color r~llIe Horizon lMunsell Moist) (Murikeil Mois)) ___________________ _________________________ HYDRIC SOIL tNDtCAT~S EJ Histosol / fJ Reducing Conditions LI Organic Streaking in Sandy SoilsLI Hislic Epipedon / Q Gteyed or Low-Chroma Colors LI Listed on Local Hyd~c Soils ListLI Sultidic Odor / I:J Concret)ons LI Listed on National Hydric Soils ListLI Aquic Moisture1Aegime fl High Organic Streaking in Surtace Layer in Sandy Soils _,_ Hydric Soil Prhent? Yes NoREMARKS: /
WEI}ANDDETERMiNATK~N —-.~Hyd(bphytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Is this sampling point a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No — REMARKS:
%
No
297
REMARKS:
~O: i~ ~:Oo~(?~, 117
PRIMARY Indicators:

U InundatedU Saturated in Upper 12~U Water Marks
U Drill Lines
U Sediment Deposits
U Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
SECONDARY indicatorsU Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12 U Water Stained leaves
U Local Soil Survey Data
U FAC-Neutral Test
U Other (Explain in Remarks>
- Map Unit Name Drainage Class:
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy (Subaroug’i: Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Mat~e Color Mottle Mottle Texture, Horizon iMunselt Moisti (Munselt Moist) Abundance/Contrast Concretions,Struclure,etc.

II
— /O
~L~ —~
HYDRiC SOiL INDiCATORS
O Histosol
Q Reducing Condilions
0 Organic Slreakirtg in Sandy Soils
O Histic Epipedon
0 Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
0 Listed on Local Hydtic Soils List
0 Sulfldic Odor
0 Corrcrelions
0 Listed on National Hydric Soils List
O Aquic Moisture Regime High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
REMARKS:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydropltyiic Vegetation Present? (~e~ No is this samgW1~rçoint a Wetland?Wetland Hydrology Present? ~ No (~e~) No
Hydric Soils Present? c~)ts> No
REMARKS:

Project/Site: 5~.’-”~ s’7’~\
Applicant/Owner:
~
~
~
~
Investigator(s): 4~.’ - ~~71,
Date: I~ Community ID:
~(L~≤fro~)
County: t-i’1 Trartsect ID:State: Plot ID: 13Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) NO is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Spq~j~s 9/

1. ~(~‘.c~ ~. ________ ________ 2. ._ /~

3. /-~ fr9}~~/~~

4. 5.6.7.

8. . 9.

10. Percent of Dominant Species that are
OI3L, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? (~~i
REMARKS:
$~ ( ~ “~:c’-~
~
C~
~
~
~-~- /~ ~
p ‘c~.re~1 ~.

HYDROLOGYRECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

U Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
EI Aeriai Photographs
U Other
U None Availabie
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:

Depth of Surface Water:ZE~’ (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit:...L≤L (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil:.L≤2~_(in.)
Wetland ology Present?
Yes No
(~.
~
Stratum
i~ ~44
Indicator
(Al
7ô~
%
No
~‘CI1
~ ~_~(
~ L(~~
298

HYDROLOGY
12~
REMARKS:

SOILS _______ Map Unit Name~, Drainage Class: —;~ ____________ (Series and Phase) Taxonomy (Subgroup):, Field Obse~ationS Confirm Mapped Type: Yes No PROFILE DESCRIPTION —~—~
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Mottle Texture. Horizon tMrjneell~~ois_llMoist) (Mrir~~ll Moist Abundance/Contrast &g~gretionsStruCtUreetC.

L~ J&Y4Z~Z~ J~J≤/~ LY~

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS
LI Histosol Q Reducing Conditions LI Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils O Hislic Epipedon LI Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors EJ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List _r_ LI Sultidic Odor LI Concrelions LI Listed on National Hydric Soils List LI Aquic tvloisture Regim~ High Organic Streaking in Surtace Layer in Sandy Soils _~r~ Hydric Soil Present? Ye No
REMARKS: _________ +
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

D Stream. Lake or Tide Gauge
U Aerial PhotographsU Other
C None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:

Depth 01 Surface Water: (in.)Depth to Free Water in Pit:_ (in) Depth to Saturated Soil:_,L≤~L_On.)
Wetlan ~-4~cd ology Present?
Yes No
PRIMARY Indicators:

C Inundated
C Saturated In Upper 12~
C Water Marks
LI Drill Lines
C Sediment Deposits
C Drainage Patterns In Wetlands
SECONDARY Indicators
C Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER
C Water Stained leaves
C Local Soil Survey Data
C FAC-Neutral Test
C Other (Explain in Remarks)
~
,.—/~1
Investigator(s):

Date.,,. 1~_”~’/~
~
~ CommunityID:_~LL≤t~”~
County: /_ F? Transect lD:_~
State:~,. PlottD:_~~ A.~t f€’,-~c cj1-JLDo Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(AtypiCal Situation) NO Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) ycs VEGETATION (<rcfr’~’~-’~ .f~2
Dominant Plant S~çies -. Stratum
~. 4~—v.~9 t~ -~ c~ ,‘~.. ç ç $7) ~2dI_ 0

2. J~~/j’ ~C~
~ Ath
Percent of Dominant Species that areOBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes
REMARKS:

WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Y No Is this sam oint a Wetland? Wetland Hydrology Present? a No Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? ee No
REMARKS:
299

HYDROLOGY
RECORDED DATA (Describe in Remarks):

U Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
~Aerial Photographs
U OtherU None Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS:

Depth 01 Surtace Water:
— (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit:,.,.... (in.)
Depth to Saturated Soil:
— (in.)
PRIMARY Indicators:

U InundatedU Saturated in Upper 12’
U Water Marks
U Drill LinesU Sediment DepositsU Drainage Patterns In Wetlands SECONDARY tndicators A1 ~ CU Oxidized Root Channels in UPPER 12’ U Water Stained leavesU Local Soil Survey Data
U FAC-Neutral Test
U Other (Explain in aemarks)

4.5,6.7.

8. 9.

10. Percent of Dominant Species that are
OBL, FACW or FAG (excluding FAG-)
/‘~r’~
~II~IIi~ ~
~
“I
~ -‘‘~y~,::;’.
~
7,
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION-DATA FORM 1987 MANUAL _____ ~
~
~. /Z~-i 7-~•
~I e
Wetland Hydroto esent?
Yes No
REMARKS:
~ ; f
/
/ C~
~1k
SOILS
Map Unit Na~”~_____________________________
(Series and Phase)
Taxonomy _______________________ Field Observations Confirm _t_1 Mapped Type: Yes No

PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Maids Color Mottle Mottle Texture,
inches Horizon IMunsell Moisti (Munsell Moisti Abundance/Contrast Concretions,Structure,etc.

L~ 7oYg/3/f 9.~r>Y~/~’/,1’ ~‘ —• ____ ~l-1
D Hislosol
~ Reducing Conditions
a Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils I a Histic Epipedon
a Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors
a Listed on Local Hydtic Soils List
a Sulticlic Odor
a Concrelions
a Listed on National I-lydric Soils List I a Aquic Moisture Regime a High Organic Streaking in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils Hydric Soil Present? No
REMARKS:

Drainage Class:

HYDRtC SOIL INDICATORS
ProjectlSite:

Applicant/Owner:

Investigator(sy
Date: / 2’ .‘~•Z?J~’ Community ID:_____________County: Transect ID: _______________ State: (L~4 Plot ID: _.L)_______________ Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YES (‘~Is the site significantly & recently disturbed?(Atypical Situation) NO Is the area a potential Problem Area? (Explain in final remarks) YES VEGETATIONDomInant Plant Species Stratutit Indicator

1. ~
~ _______ _______ 2.
~
~ ~“:d~~~/’ ~M ________ ________ a_______________ ____ ____ t1r&?~ J
~
~.r’\
0 _______________________ /0
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes 6~) Cy~t ~ ~
REMARKS: ~p~- isp. f7~(fQi± ~/ij_c~ l~y~l~fJ~, )( ~
~
~
/
~
~
fi
~
WETLAND DETERMINATION - - /k J$.Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this sampling poi ettand?Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Hydric Soils Present? Yes No
REMARKS:
300
APPENDIX B: PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
301
Plant Species Observed
Smith Property Wetland Delineation
December 9-10, 1998
Latin Name Common Name

APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY
Foeniculum vulgare fennel

ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed
Picris echinoides ox-tongue
Xanthium strumarium cocklebur

BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Brassica rapa field mustard
Raphanus sativa wild radish

CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY
Atriplex hastata fat-hen
Cressa truxillensis alkali weed
Salicornia sp. pickleweed

CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY
Cyperus involucratus umbrella plant
Cyperus odoratus sedge
Scirpus microcaipus panicled bulrush

EUPHORBIACEAE CASTOR BEAN
Ricinis communis castor bean

MYOPORACEAE MYOPORUM FAMILY
Myoporum Iaetum Myoporum

POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
Avena barbata wild oat
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome
Cortaderia atacamensis pampas grass
Distichlls spicata saltgrass
Cyriodon dactylon bermuda grass
Lolium perenne ryegrass
Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass

POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Rumex crispus curly dock
Rumex salicifolius willow dock

SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY
Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow

TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY
Typha sp. (probably T. angustifolia or T. latifolia) cattail 302
•ç. :,~,
.~ ‘~i:h.
- -‘-~~ :
-~ ~
• k
• ~:~‘ •~-;--~-
i
~ ~.≥. •‘~-~-‘•~:~‘
- -S
— •. — S 4
~. :,.r~ •~--.._çm’.-0: ••;. • •-•- •••~ ~ •-‘
C cS&Ijes~f~tish~sç 1 -
~ -~
— S ‘- -a_-a-- • a
V~
I -?•,:~S~~ ~ :~~: •~- v-’:
• - p — - ~ • — .~a- • -.
a •-~•~ - 1~’ •~•. •4a• -.
—
- •r ~~e•
•g~ •fr•.a ~
• -.
a;: ~ I
Sedges
Saltgrass
-. I 9’
7 —
• Will
—--a --:~ •• •-_ • :.
-:: Rush~dc4arsh
A • ••~
if
‘‘:~ ~
A-.,
— _.__._
• r
• - , ~ ~r —‘
Pampas Grass
(invasive exotic)
~r ~ “-
303
• •.S. ~ ~• .5 ~ S
j~ S~
4 -~ ~ — ~ —5- Jkt~
•-~~-~: ~ “~~-~~r: ~ J
5, -----‘S
.~ II
~ 5-Ia ~
• 7
— ~S
S ~
~‘-~ ~~.• S ••
.~-
-~.S, •~
S •j~,~_•
• Sa{t ra~s ‘~ ;•-‘~~~ ~,
-IS
5-,
- - .•~•S•• — -
---,!-‘
~
-~
Nursery
~ .5. -
:~ Upi~Id
S ~ 5-. - -S -~
-.-~: : :-~--
,. -. S :,r-~
• 5’-
~1
—J
:-
.‘~-:-.
5;
—~ ~1p, ~t’ s~t~_ I
~
!~
I
-S
S.

SSS(
I. •‘ ~‘r5i.’’
‘I. ~
.5
- SedgesiRus es.

5. 4. ~‘-. ~ •
~1
304
APPENDIX C: REPRESENTATIVE SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
(All taken December, 1998 from east property boundary)
305
APPENDIX D: TABULAR SUMMARY OF FIELD OBSERVATIONS
306
Table D-1. Summary ofHydrologic Evaluation.

Plot Description Wetland
Identification Hydrology?
T1PI Pit depth: 17 inches. No hydrology indicators NO
present.

T1P2 Pit depth: 16 inches. Saturated at 11 inches; free YES water in pit at 16 inches.

T1P3 Pit depth: 16 inches. No hydrology indicators NO
present.

TIP4 No pit dug. Inundated; depth of surface water: YES 12+ inches. Soils saturated.

T2P1 Pit depth: 17 inches. No hydrology indicators NO
present.

T2P2 Pit depth: 18 inches. Saturated at 16 inches; free YES water in pit at 16 inches.

T2P3 Not sampled; assumed same as T2P2. YES
T2P4 Inundated; not sampled; assumed same as T2P2 YES
T3P1 Pit depth: 19 inches. No hydrology indicators NO
present.

T3P2 Pit depth: 12 inches. Saturated soil at 11 inches; YES free water in pit at 12 inches.

T4P1 Pit depth: 24 inches; sample at 16 inches. YES
Saturated soil at 15 inches; free water in pit at 24
inches.

T4P2 Pit depth: 19 inches. Saturated soil at 16 inches; YES free water in pit at 16 inches.

T5PI Pit depth: 18 inches. Saturated soil at 13 inches; YES free water in pit at 13 inches.
307
Table D-1. Summary of Hydrologic Evaluation (Continued) T5P2 Pit depth: 18 inches. Saturated soil at 18 inches; YES free water in pit at 18 inches.

T5P3 Pit depth: 16 inches. Saturated soil at 13 inches; YES free water in pit at 13 inches.

T5P4 Pit depth: 25 inches. Saturated soil at 12.5 inches; YES free water in pit at 12.5 inches.

A Pit depth: 16 inches. Saturated soil at 14 inches; YES free water in pit at 14 inches.

B Pit depth: 18 inches. Saturated soil at 14 inches. YES C Pit depth: 16 inches. No hydrology indicators NO
present.

ID Pit depth: 16 inches. No hydrology indicators NO
present.
308
Table D-2. Summary of Soil Evaluation.

Plot Soil Description Hydric Soil?
Identification
T1PI Soil color: IOYR/4/2. No mottles, no oxidation. NO Concretions present.

TIP2 Soil matrix 7.5YR/4/2. Mottles: 1%, 7.5YR/6/8. YES T1P3 Soil matrix 1OYR/4/2. Mottles: 1%, 7.5YR/6/8. YES
TIP4 Soil not sampled. Assume the same as T1P3. YES
T2PI Soil color: 1OYR/3/2. No mottles, no oxidation. NO T2P2 Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1%, 1OYR/5/8. YES
T2P3 Soil not sampled. Assume the same as T2P2. YES
T2P4 Soil not sampled. Assume the same as T2P2. YES
T3P1 Soil color 1OYR/3/2. No mottles, no oxidation. NO
T3P2 Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1%, 1OYR/6/8. YES
T4P1 Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1-2%, 5YR/5/8 YES
and 1OYR/6/8.

T4P2 Soil matrix 1OYR/4/2. Mottles: 1%, 1OYR/6/8 YES
T5P1 Soil color 1OYR/3/2. No mottles, no oxidation. YES T5P2 Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1%, 1OYR/7/8. YES
T5P3 Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1%, 2.5YR/5/8 YES
and IOYR/7/8.

T5P4 Soil color IOYR/3/2. No mottles, no oxidation. NO
A Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1%, 2.5YR/4/8. YES
B Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1%, 1OYR/6/8. YES
C Soil matrix 1OYR/3/1. Mottles: 1%, 7.5YR/6/8. YES
D Soil matrix 1OYR/3/2. Mottles: 1%, 7.5YR/5/8. YES
309
Table D-3. Summary ofVegetation Evaluation.

Plot Vegetation Description, Indicator Status, and Hydrophyte? - Identification Dominance by Stratuml
T1P1 HERBS YES
Wild oat/ Brome grass (Avena spp./ Brornzis
spp.) ND. 50% cover.

Alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis) FACW. 50%
cover.

T1P2 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Dislithiis .rpicala) FACW. 100%
cover.

T1P3 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Distich/is spicata) FACW. 100%
cover.

TIP4 HERBS YES
Nutsedge (Cjperus odoratus) FACW 100%
Scirpus (Sdipus microcarpus) OBL 100%
T2P1 HERBS NO
Wild oat/Brome grass (Avena spp./ Brornus
spp.) ND. 100% cover.

T2P2 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Distich/is spicata) FACW. 100%
cover.

T2P3 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Dislich/is ~rpicata) PACW. 100%
cover.

T2P4 HERBS YES
Alkali weed (Cressa truxillensis) FACW 50%
Nutsedge (Cjpeiws odoratus) FACW 50%
T3P1 HERBS NO
Wild oat/Brome grass (Avena spp./Bromus
spp.) ND. 100% cover.

T3P2 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Dislich/is spicata) FACW
Nutsedge (Cyperus odoratus) FACW
310
Table D-3. Summary ofVegetation Evaluation.

T4P1 HERBS NO
Wild oat/Brome grass (Avena spp./Bromus
spp.) ND. 100% cover.

T4P2 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Distich/is rpica≠a) FACW. 100%
cover.

T5P1 HERBS NO
Wild oat/Brome grass (Avena spp./Bromus
spp.) ND. 100% cover.

T5P2 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Disiichlis spicata) FACW. 100%
cover.

T5P3 HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Distich/is spicata) FACW 30% cover
Wes tern ragweed (AmbrosiapsiIostac!~ya) FAC
30% cover
Nutsedge (Cjperus odoratui) FACW 30% cover
T5P4 HERBS Total Cover Approx. 80% YES
Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium) FAC+
Nutsedge (Cjq)erus odoratus) FACW
Alkali weed (Cressa truxilknsis) FACW
Bristly ox-tongue (Picris echinoides) FAC

A TREE YES
Arroyo willow (Salix Iasiolepii) FACW. 85%
cover.

HERBS
Saltgrass (Distich/is spicata) FACW. 10% cover.

Umbrella plant (C1perus aItem~b/ius) OBL. 5%
cover.

B HERBS YES
Saltgrass (Distich/is spicata) FACW. 100%
311
Table D-3. Summary ofVegetation Evaluation. (Continued)

C HERBS NO
Pampas grass (Corfaderia spp.) ND. 50%
cover.

Castor bean (Ricinis commzrnis) FACU. 50%
cover.

D HERBS NO
Wild mustard/wild radish (Brassica Bermuda grass is
spp./Raphanus spp.) ND. 50% cover, not a hydrophyte in
Bermuda grass (Cjnodon dac~ylon) FAC. 50% this case
cover.
‘Status codes: FAG = facultative species (equal chance of occurring in or out of wetlands); FACW = facultative wetlands species (67% of occurrences in wetlands); FACW+ same as FACW except greater tendency to occur in wetlands; OBL = obligate wetland species (only occurs in wetlands); FACU = facultative upland species (<33% of occurrences in wetlands); ND not designated as a wetland species (treated as Upland here). 312
Table D-4. Summary of Wetland Determination, by Plot
Wetland Hydric Hydrophytic Plot . Wetland? Hydrology Soil Vegetation Corps Coastal Act
TIPI No No Yes No Yes
TIP2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T1P3 No Yes Yes No Yes
T1P4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T2P1 No No No No No
T2P2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T2P3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T2P4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T3P1 No No No No No
T3P2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T4P1 Yes Yes No No Yes
T4P2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T5PI Yes Yes No No Yes
T5P2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T5P3 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
T5P4 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
A Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
B Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
C No Yes No No Yes
D No Yes No No Yes
313
1 Rebecca Evans
From: Patricia Salazar
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: FW: 5A 11-7-22 smith wetland restoration
From: healy >
Sent: Monday, November 7, 2022 11:10 AM
To: Kraig Hill < >; Dennis Smith < >; John Mazza < >;
Mark Wetton < >; Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>; Karen Farrer <[email protected]>
Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>
Subject: 5A 11‐7‐22 smith wetland restoration
Honorable Commissioners, To clarify our previous written Communication, Slow Growth is requesting the Commission to decide:

1.This restoration plan doesn’t reflect the actual on the ground situation and therefore has to be replaced with an accurate wetland and upland restoration plan which includes the restoration of the saltgrass wetland and the remainder of the northern part of the parcel restored with appropriate wetland upland vegetation.

2. if there has been any removal or destruction of Marsh wetland vegetation, then then the marsh wetland should also be restored. This may have occurred through unpermitted disking and bringing the heavy equipment for the illegal disking through the Marsh wetland. 314

BIOLOGY REVIEW

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

TO: City of Malibu Biologist
City of Malibu Planning Department REVISED DATE12/18/2023 JOB ADDRESS: 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY, Parcel
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Ed Mountford, Cornerstone Real Estate Consulting APPLICANT ADDRESS: 6232 Dolphinwood drive
APPLICANT PHONE #: (949)351-3334
APPLICANT FAX #:

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Restoration of the Wetland ESHA Buffer Huntington Beach, CA 92648
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 22-040
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: Tyler Eaton
TO:

The project review package is INCOMPLETE and; CANNOT proceed through Final Planning Review until corrections and conditions from Biological Review are incorporated into the proposed project design
(See Attached).

The project is APPROVED, consistent with City Goals & Policies associated with the protection of biological resources and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

The project may have the potential to significantly impact the following resources, either individually or cumulatively: Sensitive Species or Habitat, Watersheds, and/or Shoreline Resources and therefore Requires Review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).

Signature Date
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of plan revision Contact Information:

Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 05/29/2018
X
1/2/24
ATTACHMENT 5
315
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Page 1 of 4 ends

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Ed Mountford, Cornerstone Real Estate Consulting
[email protected]
Project Address: 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY, Parcel
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 22-040
Project Description: Restoration of the Wetland ESHA Buffer Date of Review: January 2, 2024
Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

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

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan:

Site Survey:

Landscape Plan:

Hydrozone Plan:

Irrigation Plan:

Fuel Modification Plan:

Grading Plan:

OWTS Plan:

Bio Assessment: Jurisdictional Delineation (6/31/23) Glen Lukos Bio Inventory:

Native Tree Survey:

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous: Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (updated November 2023) Glen Lukos Associates Previous Reviews: 8/9/22 (Approved), 11/14/23 (Incomplete)

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

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

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

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 316
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 22-040
23855 Civic Center Way
January 2, 2024

Page 2 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION:

1. The previous Jurisdictional Delineations for the subject parcel are all over two years old. An updated Jurisdictional Delineation was requested to update the wetland boundary to current conditions and the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) was updated accordingly. The new Jurisdictional Delineation incorporates the old (2018/2019) and new (2023) results in the formation of the wetland boundary.

2. The overall project includes restoration of a wetland buffer on the Project Site as well as a 5-year monitoring plan.

Pursuant to LIP Section 4.5.1 B, the proposed work is a permitted use in wetlands as it meets the criteria of “wetland restoration projects where the primary purpose is restoration of the habitat”.

Pursuant to LIP Section 4.5.4 B and C, the proposed work is a permitted use in ESHA buffers as it involves habitat restoration and will include removal of invasive plant species.

Pursuant to Malibu Ordinance 17.53.030.B, the proposed work is exempt from the landscape requirements because it is for an ecological restoration project that does not require a permanent irrigation system.

Since the project meets the criteria for permitted use, review by the Environmental Review Board is not required.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

A. Each of the mitigation measures outlined in the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) shall be implemented as approved except for the following additions:
• 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.
• 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. • The HRMP states that the site will be monitored for five (5) years but the standard for mitigation as laid out in Chapter 4 of the LIP is ten (10) years. Therefore, the site will be monitored on an annual basis for ten (10) years.
317
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 22-040
23855 Civic Center Way
January 2, 2024

Page 3 of 4 ends

• The work timeline is off and is noted to have started in 2022. The site preparation work should begin as soon as the HRMP is approved and determined an ideal time to begin invasive removal efforts.

B. 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 active 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.

C. 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.

D. No new lighting is being proposed. Therefore none is approved. Night lighting from exterior and interior sources shall be minimized. All exterior lighting shall be low intensity and shielded so it is directed downward and inward so that there is no offsite glare or lighting of natural habitat areas.

Up-lighting is prohibited
E. 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.

2. PRIOR TO CLOSING THE CODE VIOLATION, 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. 318
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 22-040
23855 Civic Center Way
January 2, 2024

Page 4 of 4 ends

-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
319
320
ATTACHMENT 6
From: Bill Sampson
To: Planning Commission; Kraig Hill; John Mazza; Jo Drummond Cc: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Re: Item Item 5C – CDP No 22-040 / 23855 Civic Center Way - Greater Wetland Restoration needed Date: Monday, February 5, 2024 6:48:50 AM
Thank you Jo
MalibuBill
On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 05:39:47 AM PST, Jo Drummond wrote:

Please find MTC's comments regarding the above attached.

Thank you, Jo Drummond
EXHIBIT 6
321
Leter Re: item 5c - restora�on of the Malibu Wetlands Marsh! Emily <
To: Planning Commission
Dear Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission.

Please require restoration of this 7 acre ESHA that has been disked over the years. As members of the Planning Commission, you know more than everyone else that Malibu is like no other place on earth. The air is fresh. The sunsets are world-famous. And the people are a unique breed: There is no dress code in Malibu. Visitors to our town never forget us: 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.

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, that 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, the ground is covered in a cool and spooky fog that has never been seen anywhere else in our travels. 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 red-tail hawks that nest in the palm 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.

Everyday we see brush rabbits, California ground squirrels and foxes weaving in and out of the palms and shrubs. 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. 322
As you can see from the photos, these 7 acres are all beautiful and rare ESHA wetlands. The entire 7 acres should be restored!
Sincerely,
Malibu Residents
323
324
325
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond <
Sent: Monday, February 5, 2024 5:40 AM
To: Planning Commission; Kraig Hill; John Mazza
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Jo Drummond
Subject: Item Item 5C – CDP No 22-040 / 23855 Civic Center Way - Greater Wetland Restoration needed Attachments: mtcwetlandrestorationfinal.pdf
Please find MTC's comments regarding the above attached.

Thank you, Jo Drummond
326
327
Chair Hill and Members of the Planning Commission.

Please require restoration of this 7 acre ESHA that has been disked over the years.

As members of the Planning Commission, you know more than everyone else that Malibu is like no other place on earth. The air is fresh. The sunsets are world-famous, literally. And the people are a unique breed: There is no dress code in Malibu. Visitors to our town never forget us: they get a visible light in their eyes as they recall the serenity and connection with nature that is present throughout this natural ecosystem.
lt’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.

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. l know from walking by it daily, this 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.

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. Everyday we see brush rabbits, California ground squirrels and foxes weaving in and out of the palms and shrubs. 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.

Since these 7 acres are ESHA, the entire 7 acres should be restored.

Wu)
328
1 Planning Commission
From: Rebecca Evans
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 4:56 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: FW: February 5, 2024 Regular Planning Commission From Leticia, Item No. 5.C.

From: Leticia Aloi
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2024 4:39 PM
To: Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Re: February 5, 2024 Regular Planning Commission From Leticia Dear Members of the Planning Commission,.

I have lived in Malibu Cyn Village since 1999 My unit overlooks the Smith Property . When Malibu Bay company owned the property they would do minor brush clearance on the northern portion of the property near the nursey but not beyond the cluster of trees on the western side.

When Third Point bought the property in approximately 2019-2020 they began disking the property from the northern property line through the Wetlands .

Please note on the staff report page 3 of 12 figure 2 the restoration area in green is incorrect. The Disking was done all the way from the northern property line down into the wetlands .

On the LCP This Parcel was mapped ALL ESHA .Which is included in your own report and this fact is being ignored.

Thank you
Malibu CYN Village Homeowner and HOA board member
Leticia Aloi
On Friday, January 26, 2024 at 12:07:48 PM PST, Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> wrote:

Please Do Not Reply All
You are receiving this email because you are listed as an owner, applicant or interested party for an item on the February 5, 2024 Regular Planning Commission meeting agenda.
329
2 The agenda and staff reports for the Monday, February 5, 2024 Regular Planning Commission meeting are now available online.

Regards,

Rebecca Evans | Sr. Administrative Analyst | Planning Department 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
(310) 456-2489 extension 246

330
1 Rebecca Evans
From:

Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 10:32 AM
To: Kraig Hill; Skylar Peak; Drew Leonard; Dennis Smith; John Mazza; Rebecca Evans Subject: planning Commission 2-5-24 item 5C
Attachments: pc smith restation plan 2-5-24 ff.pdf
Attached are Slow Growth's comments . Two emails to follow. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Patt
331
1 To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth by Patt Healy
Date: 2-5-24
Re: Item 5C Coastal Development Permit No. 22-040 – An application to restore wetland buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement.

Honorable Commissioners,
Introduction
Please deny this wetland restoration plan and direct the applicant to prepare a wetland restoration plan of the entire mapped ESHA or at the very least based on the 3.4 acre Psomas delineation done in 2002. A video of the Smith parcel flooded after a rain will prove to you that the wetland on this property is far larger than the 1.69 acres that the city is recommending for restoration. (See next email ) Summary
The entire 7+ acre parcel was mapped ESHA and under the LCP is still afforded ESHA protection despite the illegal discing that took place in 2019 and 2020.The disking destroyed much of the ESHA’s ‘native habitat but it is still protected as ESHA because it was illegally disked. A restoration of this entire parcel has to take place.Tthis 1.69 acre restoration plan is not sufficient to restore the damage done by illegal disking.

Despite the years of continual disking prior to the LCP’s adoption in 2002 the Psomas report said the wetland delineation was 3.4 acres.

Of all the wetland delineations done on this property the Lucas delineation of 1.69 acres site visits were done just 1-3 months after the longest drought ever recorded in California history ended. Hence it is the smallest of the 3 wetland delineation studies and it is an inaccurate portrayal of the actual wetland boundaries which are much larger but dormant after such a long period of drought.

The wetland buffer for the 1.69 restoration is incorrect. It needs to be at least 100 feet beyond the upland portion of the wetland not next to the wetland.

Most importantly, if you approve this CDP request wetland restoration it will lock in this wetland boundary at 1.69 acres forever since it will be the baseline for the wetland boundary and this CDP runs with the land. 332
2 Finding 3 cannot be made. The least environmentally damage alternative is to restore the entire illegaly disked portion of the 7+ acres or at the very least the 3.4 acres identified by Psomas in 2002.

For all the reasons, please deny this wetland restoration plan and direct the applicant to prepare a wetland restoration plan based on the parcel’s ESHA designation or at least on the 3.4 acre Psomas delineation done in 2002.

ESHA
This entire parcel is designated ESHA , as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. which was adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 13,2002.

The staff report under finding 4 and number A.3 of the resolution mischaracterizes the LCP map notation. By stating the project is in a designated wetland ESHA buffer, as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map is simply not true. The Map clearly states that the entire parcel is ESHA. When a parcel is designated ESHA . it doesn’t include the buffer zone. The buffer is the 100 foot setback beyond the ESHA.

The disking destroyed much of the ESHA’s ‘native habitat but it is still ESHA because it was illegally disked. Under LIP 4.3.C1. 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.

Wetlands Are Not Static
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.

We googled the following:

What was the longest drought in California history?
• Drought in California from 2000–Present 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. The most intense period of drought occurred the week of July 29, 2014, where D4 affected 58.41% of California land.

It is informative to note that the wetland studies the applicant and city are relying were done immediately after the longest drought in recorded California history when the wetland area was the smallest.
333
3 The Edith Read report for PSOMAS commissioned by the Malibu Bay Company was done in January of 2002 and she delineated the wetland at 3.4 acres.

A second Edith Read report prepared at the bequest of the City of Malibu dated March 28, 2018 (one year before the drought ended) was prepared at the height of the longest recorded drought. It delineated the wetland at 2.8 acres. For some odd reason this 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 acreage.

The Glen Lukos Technical Memorandum dated 0ctober 19,2019 states this delineation was done for the former property owner, Third Point, after site visits in April, May and June of 2019 just after the drought ended on March 5th of that year. Lukos delineated the wetland at 1.69 acres.

It is interesting to note that the city is supporting the restoration of 1.69 acres when the Read Report commissioned at the cities bequest in 2018 indicated the wetland was 2.8 acres, more than an acre larger.

Baseline for Wetland Boundary
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 and delineated the wetland at 1.69 acres.

Since the Lukos delineations,if approved will provide the baseline for the wetland boundaries and were done at the very height of the longest recorded drought they can’t be considered an adequate or accurate wetland boundary.

If you approve this resolution you will locking in the smallest wetland delineation forever since this decision runs with the land and is binding on all future owners.

This would be a tragic mistake especially since the boundary of the wetland is much larger after rains. In drought conditions the wetland seeds are dormant until enough rain arrives for the native wetland seeds sprout and flourish..

Disking
.Another factor which can’t be ignored is the effect Disking had on this parcel .

1. Don Schmidt, the owner’s facilitator, asserts that this property has been disked annually for many years. Disking of ESHA has been prohibited since the enactment of the LCP in September 2002 when this entire parcel was designated ESHA. Under LIP

4.3.C1. 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 334
4 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 and is ESHA.

2. The major effect of disking is it allows the invasive nonnatives to overtake the native plants. At the same time Disking can destroy not only native wetland plants but the roots of some of these natives.. Disking explains why there are so many invasive nonnative plants on the Smith parcel.

3.Despite the years of continual disking prior to the LCP’s adoption in 2002 the Psomas report said the wetland delineation was 3.4 acres. For the reasons stated herein Slow Growth recommends that that the baseline for wetland boundary should be the entire mapped ESHA or at the very least the 3.4 acres. The Commission should direct staff to restore the mapped ESHA or at a minimum the entire portion of the disked area 3.4 acres.

4. Please note that Letecia Aloi, who lives a condo unit closest to Civic Center Way and directly above the delineated wetland, witnessed the disking in 2019 - 2020 She stated that the parcel was disked not just the proposed area of restoration. She took pictures of the tractor disking the wetland area below her residence and a picture of the area after the disking. (Pictures in a separate email.)
Malibu Bay Company (MBC) Respected Parcel’s 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 for 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 :” 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.

Findings
Finding 3 cannot be made. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

The 1.69 acre wetland delineation and the restoration of only a small portion of the illegally disked parcel is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. 335
5 Finding 3 can be met by finding the least environmentally damage alternative is to restore the entire disked portion of the 7+ acres or at the very least the 3.4 acres identified by Psomas in 2002.

ESHA Protected
Restoration of the ESHA will protect the wetland, the animals and birds that forage, nest and roost on the Smith property. In addition, this wetland is in the Pacific Flyway and is needed for the successful migration of migrating birds. This is a very valuable wetland parcel which should be protected from environmental degradation, especially since 90% of all wetlands in the state of California have been destroyed.

Something is Not Right
The current 2-5-24 Item 5C Coastal Development Permit No. 22-040 state it is an application to restore wetland buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement.

LIP Section 4.6.1(B) provides that all new development (including removal of vegetation) must maintain no less than a 100 foot buffer from the upland limit of the wetland.

Upland Habitat and Wetland buffer have two different meanings and one must question why the area targeted for restoration is called buffer when the Lukos Technical Memorandum dated 10-19-19 refers to it as upland. The memorandum states : The area immediately west of the potential wetland areas… is clearly upland. At the southwest corner of the wetland other upland species….Similarly, areas to the north of the wetland consist of upland areas.

The conclusion reached by Slow Growth is the upland area was renamed buffer restoration area to limit the wetland size and to omit the actual minimum 100 foot required buffer setback area. This so-called buffer area in the project before you is actually the upland boundary of the Lukos wetland delineation.

The upland boundary is from where the 100 foot buffer setback has to be measured.

The actual LCP required 100 foot buffer area of the proposed 1.69 begins at the upper boundary of the upland area and goes a minimum of 100 feet beyond the upland area.

Thank you for considering Slow Growth’s comments.
336
1 Rebecca Evans
From:

Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 10:53 AM
To: Kraig Hill; Dennis Smith; John Mazza; Drew Leonard; Skylar Peak; Rebecca Evans Subject: item 5C 2-5-24 hearing leticia smith wetland discing pictures Commissioners, Here are pictures of illegal disking The first 2 photos show the tractor disking in the wetland area. The third picture shows the area disked when disking complete. Note in the third picture the disking went to the northern boundary of the parcel and this whole area needs to be restored not just the 1.69 aces which is just a small portion of the area damaged by the discing.
5/29/2020
5/39/2020
337
2 338
3 339
1 Rebecca Evans
From:

Sent: Sunday, February 4, 2024 11:12 AM
To: Kraig Hill; Skylar Peak; John Mazza; Drew Leonard; Dennis Smith; Rebecca Evans Subject: Fw: item 5C 2-5-24 hearing 3.4 acre wetland boundary Attachments: Patt.pdf
Attached is an outline of the of the various wetland delineation boundary's. Note the yellow line indicates the boundary of the 2002 Psomas/ Edith Read 3.4 acre wetland boundary. It shows the actual boundary in her study is much larger than the 1.69 acres

340
.
'
\
D Approximate Project Site
Wetland Delineation Status
2019 Only 2023 Only
Both 2019 & 2023
Hlstoctcat oenneattoos
CJ Wetland Boundary (2018, Read)
-
Wetland Boundary (1998, Read)
Wetland Boundary
(1991 , nerra Madre Consultants)
USFWS National Wetland Inventory
Freshwater Pond,
E22:'.] Freshwater Emergent Vl/etland
30 60 120
Feet
1 Inch • 60 feet
N
Coordinate System State Plane 5 NAO 83 1',
Projection Lambert Conformal Corne
Datum NAO 1983 2011 Map Prepered by B Gtle GLA Date Preper~ June 30, 2023

GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES
Exhibit 7
X. \1100 AFTER THE RESn1373-04CIVl'GIS'D9111NbDnGl6I1373-04_JD_HHIIIC.mxd • 341
R. L. Embree
February 5, 2024
City of Malibu Planning Commission
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, California 90265
via email: [email protected]
Re: Item 5C – CDP No 22-040 for 23855 Civic Center Way - Wetlands Planning Commissioners:

The proposed permit is inadequate to address the necessary task to completely restore the historic wetlands on the subject parcel that was damaged by the property owner.

In the cyclical El Nino years in Malibu, including 1983, the subject wetland has proven to be much larger than the claimed scope of the application before you; the permit is simply a negotiated offer that would be insufficient to cure the problem. The wetlands are at least twice the size of 1.7 acres falsely-stated in the report and application before you. Instead, the Planning Commission needs verification and confirmation from known and available sources which necessitates either a denial or continuance of this item at tonight’s hearing.

Professional studies by the City shortly after incorporation, the U.S. Geological Survey, Stone Environmental, Peter Warshall, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, CalFire, and Los Angeles County Tax Assessor have imagery and data of the wetlands in additional to aerial photography in private hands.

Further, more than 28 condominiums with direct view of this wetland. Undoubtedly, residents private photos and professional real estate photos have captured this historic wetland over the last four dozen years.

Of particular note, I recall one evening in the 1990’s when thousands of frogs hatched and climbed the western banks of the wetland and appeared at the northern-most end of the condominium buildings (Unit 125) and blanketed the walkways within Malibu Canyon Village so completely that residents had to walk on tip-toes to avoid stepping on the miniature frogs.

The hundreds of residents of Malibu Canyon Village vividly recall this occurrence. Due to the massive vertical retaining wall below our pool and Units 112-125 north of the pool, the building, the frogs had to enter around the north end near Allied Nursery’s gated entry on Stuart Ranch Rd. and adjacent to Malibu Canyon’s south tower. Some residents still occupy their same Units and could testify upon any necessary appeal as to the vast extent of the wetland far exceeding the minimal amount purported in the current application.

I attach two photos into the record showing the extent of the wetland. The photos were taken from Malibu Canyon Village condominiums – the adjacent neighbor sharing the largest with the large western property boundary. The photos clearly show ponding water – which is merely a SUBSET of the wetland and NOT the delineation of the wetland.

Please DO NOT APPROVE the application because it serves to erase the wetland designation via certification of this action – which biologically can’t really be done – but is improperly before you nonetheless.

R. L. Embree
342
343
344

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
1940 E Deere Avenue, Suite 250 ● Santa Ana, California 92705 ● 949.837.0404 PROJECT NUMBER: 1373-4CIVI
TO: Victor De la Cruz
FROM: Tony Bomkamp
DATE: March 10, 2025
SUBJECT: Responses to Comments Associated with Appeal on CDP No. 22-040, 23855 Civic Center Way, Malibu, California
Below, please find responses to comments associated with the above-referenced appeal to CDP No. 22-040 specific to the proposed wetland buffer restoration at 23855 Civic Center Way, Malibu, California, which was approved by the City of Malibu Planning Commission on February 5, 2024.

The comments are excerpted below and are provided in Arial font with the GLA response provided in blue Times New Roman font to aid in review.

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 southwestern portion of the property- just west of the wetland - to prevent future weed encroachment into the wetland; This condition does not 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.

GLA Response: The HRMP includes removal of all non-native plants within the buffer as stated on pages 2 and 3. Thus, the comment is already fully addressed in the HRMP with the pertinent language set forth below:
345

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 2 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, as depicted on Exhibit 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.

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 ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides) found in the southwestern portion of the site – just west of the wetland and within the wetland buffer; and 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 a new illustration of the buffer area needs to be attached to the resolution.

The buffer is 1.69 acres and this is consistent with the original Notice from the City, which is the rationale for the size of the area to be restored.
d. The spreading of a native seed mix within the wetland buffer; and done by hand.

The HRMP calls for hand broadcasting of seed as set forth in the excerpt from the HRMP below.

The HRMP allows for hydroseeding, which would be implemented if determined as the best method by the project restoration specialist.

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. e. Ten years of maintenance and monitoring following initial planting and seeding A regular maintenance schedule over the 10 years should be spelled out in the resolution.

Table 1 of the HRMP provides a detailed work schedule. Thus, this comment is fully addressed in the existing HRMP.
346

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 3 ends

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 nonnative 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.

Detailed methods for removal of invasive plants and other non-native weeds within the buffer is set forth in the HRMP that includes hand pulling in areas adjacent to the wetland. The remainer of the areas will be treated using a grow-and-kill cycle that includes mowing. This is standard practice for removal of non-native invasive plants and other weeds.

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. The Water Buffalo may or may not be the best method. of irrigation. The irrigation methods which is the least harmful to the habitat should be used.

Contrary to the assertion by the commenter, irrigation is required for both the grow-and-kill cycle and for establishment of both seed and container stock as set forth in the HRMP:

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.

The use of a water buffalo is only one option that will be considered based on the availability of irrigation water. All methods of irrigation would be implemented in a manner that ensures protection of the habitat during installation and operation. Additional detail on the timing of the irrigation is also provided in the HRMP as excerpted below.

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 347

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 4 ends

during the first winter and spring following planting. During this period, roots are not wellestablished, 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.

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

The HRMP includes a ten-year monitoring and maintenance program as set forth on page 12 as follows:

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.

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 It is important to note that the monitoring is not restricted to a single monitoring event. Table 1, “Schedule of Work” includes two lines for monitoring. Line 4 addresses “Qualitative Monitoring” 348

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 5 ends

which is to be conducted quarterly; while Quantitative Monitoring is addressed in Line 6 and is a once-annual event for purposes of collecting quantitative data to show compliance with the performance standards set forth in Table 5, which is excerpted from the HRMP.

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. Lukos biologist at the hearing described the need for greater monitoring and they need to be put in as a condition.

As noted in the discussion of irrigation above, site preparation work will be implemented as dictated by the wet season and ability to germinate weeds and implement the grow-and-kill program.

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 into 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.

GLA will add a provision to protect nesting avifauna and other wildlife to the HRMP if requested by the City Council.

Relative to grading or excavation, neither of these terms occur in the HRMP and neither are proposed. Removal of invasive plants such as pampas grass will be conducted using hand tools as set forth in the HRMP: “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.”

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. The animals on site have to be free to roam and forage and get to their dens. We were wondering if fencing 349

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 6 ends

is needed in this wetland restoration. The restoration needs to be done by hand to protect the wildlife. Please add this as a condition.

The HRMP does not require construction fencing and it is not needed for the restoration efforts.

Accordingly, we would be supportive of deleting the construction fence requirement should the City Council be so inclined.

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 no heavy, loud or polluting vehicles or equipment are allowed on site to protect the wildlife.

Heavy equipment will not be required except for removal of the pampas grass and mowing of areas that are not immediately adjacent to the wetland (i.e., within 10 feet of the wetland as noted in the HRMP). Use of mechanical equipment including weed whackers, mowers, and chain saws as noted in the response to Comment 19 above, will be implemented in a manner that protects native avifauna as noted in response to Condition 19 above that includes a condition to protect nesting avifauna.

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. 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.

GLA has no objection to this request if the City Council deems it advisable.

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.

GLA has no objection to this request if the City Council deems it advisable.

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.

This is already included in Section VI(D) of the HRMP as excerpted below:
350

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 7 ends

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
• 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.

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.

GLA generally has no objection to this request, with the caveat that the overall schedule must be dictated by the wet season and ability to germinate weeds and implement the grow-and-kill program.

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.

GLA Response: The commentor’s use of the term “fluctuating wetland” is addressed below and is not applicable to the site. The Psomas wetland delineation is also addressed below and for the stated reasons cannot be used.
351

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 8 ends

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 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.

GLA Response: The proposed buffer restoration project would have no effect on or otherwise degrade any of the resources associated with the wetland, while the proposed restoration would enhance the biological functions of the wetland and the wetland buffer.

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 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).

GLA Response: Exhibits 1a – 1g comprise a series of representative aerial photographs between August 2002 and August 2019. Important points must be considered when evaluating the ESHA determination for the site. At least between 19981
and July 2008, the northern approximately one
1 The 2002 Psomas Jurisdictional Delineation Report was based on field work conducted on December 9th and 10th 1998. Figure 6 of that report is a vegetation map, which depicts the northern approximately one-third of the site as 352

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 9 ends

third of the site consisted of active nursery operations and contained no native habitat and as such, would not have met the LCP’s definition of ESHA. The area between the nursery and the wetland was subject to maintenance and supported no native vegetation and was mapped by Psomas as “Ruderal” which is a non-native vegetation association. The series of aerial photos also show that disking was generally limited to areas north of the wetland, which is overlain on the series of aerial photos. With very slight exceptions as shown in the 2002, 2007, 2015 and 2016 aerial photos, a portion of the northeast corner of the wetland was disked. Assertions that the entire site was disked at any point during the period between 2002 and the present are not accurate. The series of aerial photographs show a clear line north of the wetland where disking stopped and in the 2015 and 2016 aerial photographs only about six to eight feet of a small wetland protrusion was disked.

Moreover, this area exhibited full recovery during the 2018 and 2019 GLA site visits. As noted, the wetland delineation is shown on each of the exhibits and disking barely encroached on the wetland in some years.

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.

GLA Response: The series of historic aerial photographs in combination with the Psomas 2002 JD show that the northern approximately one-third of the site was active nursery between 1998 and 2007 and supported no native habitat and once nursery operations were eliminated, the site has been subject to maintenance such that the northern portion of the site did not support native vegetation from 1998 to the present. A more detailed discussion of ESHA is provided below.

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.

GLA Response: As noted above, and depicted on Exhibit 2, the entirety of the 7.19-acre site is designated as ESHA on the City of Malibu ESHA and Marine Resources Map 3: Dan Blocker to Malibu Pier map.2 However, as discussed below, most of the site supports non-native vegetation alliances including areas with non-native invasive species. The 1.84-acre wetland area at the southeast corner of the site meets the City’s wetland criteria, but the remainder of the site does not support native habitats defined in the City of Malibu LCP as ESHA, including: stream/riparian, “Nursery”. It also shows much of the area between the Nursery and wetland as “Ruderal” which is a non-native category.
2 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-maps-8mm2.pdf 353

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 10 ends

woodland, coastal bluff, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or other ESHA, and has not supported such habitats since at least 1998.

The wetland does not support special-status vegetation alliances or special-status species and thus would not meet ESHA criteria for special-status biological resources; nevertheless, the wetland status of the feature requires avoidance and provision of an adequate buffer to protect the functions of the wetland, which is addressed in the impact section below.

As noted, a wetland covering 1.84-acres occupies the southeast corner of the Property and would be avoided during restoration activities, except for removal of non-native plants within the wetland. The remainder of the 7.19-acre site is largely dominated by upland non-native forbs and grasses of Mediterranean origin, including forbs such as wild radish, black mustard, and garland-chrysanthemum. Other areas adjacent to the wetland extending across the property support non-native invasive species as listed on the CalIPC website, including pampas grass, carnation spurge, Brazilian pepper, Mexican fan palm, and desert carpet. These areas do not meet any of the categories of ESHA listed in the LCP (i.e., Woodland ESHA, Coastal Bluff ESHA, Coastal Sage ESHA, or Chaparral ESHA).

Furthermore, the area outside of the wetland does not support any other special-status habitats or habitats capable of supporting special-status plants or animals as documented during focused plant surveys and general wildlife surveys. Specifically, except for the 1.84-acre wetland, the site does not contain any of the following areas set forth in the LCP as potential ESHA:

1. Any habitat area that is rare or especially valuable from a local, regional, or statewide basis.

2. Any habitat area that contributes to the viability of plant or animal species that are designated or are candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law.

3. Any habitat area that contributes to the viability of species that are designated “fully protected” or “species of special concern” under State law or regulations.

4. Any habitat area that contributes to the viability of species for which there is other compelling evidence of rarity, for example plant species eligible for state listing as demonstrated by their designation as “1b” (Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere) or designation as “2” (rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere) by the California Native Plant Society.

Rather, the area outside of the wetland, including the 100-foot wetland buffer to be restored, should be removed from the City’s ESHA and Marine Resources Map 3: Dan Blocker to Malibu 354

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 11 ends

Pier map3
because it exhibits no biological functions consistent with the current ESHA designation in accordance with the City of Malibu LCP provisions:

2. If the City finds that an area previously mapped as ESHA does not meet the definition of ESHA, a modification shall be made to the Malibu LUP ESHA Map and the Malibu LIP ESHA overlay map. Such a modification shall be considered an LCP amendment, subject to approval by the Coastal Commission.

3. If an area is not ESHA or ESHA buffer, LCP policies and standards for protection of ESHA and ESHA buffer shall not apply and development may be permitted (consistent with all other LCP requirements) even if the LUP ESHA Map and ESHA Overlay Map have not yet been amended.

The restoration project has been designed to avoid impacts to the 1.84-acre wetland and associated 100-foot wetland buffer other than the beneficial effects associated with restoration of the 100-foot buffer and potential removal of non-native plants from the wetland. Therefore, restoration of the buffer would not result in impacts to ESHA as defined by the City of Malibu LCP.

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.

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 3 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-maps-8mm2.pdf 355

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 12 ends

under this definition. Furthermore, the Coastal Commission establishes the upland limit of a wetland as:
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).

This definition was expanded upon in GLA’s updated Wetland Memo dated July 31, 2023 as follows:

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:
a. the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover
356

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 13 ends

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).

Thus, GLA relied upon the Local Coastal Program’s wetland definition.

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 ‘fluctuating 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 [sic], 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 northwest boundary of the site. (EX4) The “fluctuating wetland” referenced in the underlined portion of the definition above is not the type of wetland that occurs on the subject parcel. The wetland definition referenced is from Section 13577 (b)(1) of the California Code of Regulations and derives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service wetland definition in the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States by Cowardin, Carter, Golet and LaRoe (1979) (“Cowardin”) and as noted in the above is specific to non-vegetated wetlands. In Cowardin, this is referring to features such as sandy beaches or tide pools as defined in the Marine System of the Cowardin classification system. Such wetlands are subject to water fluctuations associated with such factors as “wave activity”. Thus, the commentor is not correct in the application of the Cowardin Classification to the subject parcel. This conclusion is further supported by the portion of the definition which notes the absence of vegetation, which clearly does not apply to the subject wetland, which is densely vegetated.

GLA concurs that the wetland area on the parcel floods during many rainfall years, as GLA documented, including 2019 when the initial jurisdictional delineation was completed and again in 2023, when the jurisdictional delineation was updated. GLA specifically noted in the July 31, 2023, updated wetland delineation the following:

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 357

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 14 ends

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.

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.

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 mesophytic (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.

GLA Response: GLA concurs with both definitions; however, it is important to note that the parentheticals added to subparagraph 1 are not in the original definition and are not accurate. 358

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 15 ends

Specifically, “hydrophytes” are defined in Cowardin as “Any plant growing in water or on a substrate that is at least periodically deficient in oxygen as a result of excessive water content.” It is also important to note that for vegetation to be considered as “hydrophytic” the vegetation must exhibit a predominance as defined in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual4 (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). 5 Specifically, dominance is used to determine “predominance” and is set forth as follows on pages 21 and 22 of the AWS v 2.0:

Description: More than 50 percent of the dominant plant species across all strata are rated OBL, FACW, or FAC.

User Notes: Use the “50/20 rule” described below to select dominant species from each stratum of the community. Combine dominant species across strata and apply the dominance test to the combined list. Once a species is selected as a dominant, its cover value is not used in the dominance test; each dominant species is treated equally. Thus, a plant com- munity with seven dominant species across all strata would need at least four dominant species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC to be considered hydrophytic by this indicator. Species that are dominant in two or more strata should be counted two or more times in the dominance test.

Procedure for Selecting Dominant Species by the 50/20 Rule: Dominant plant species are the most abundant species in the community; they contribute more to the character of the community than do the other non-dominant species present. The 50/20 rule is a repeatable and objective procedure for selecting dominant plant species and is recommended when data are available for all species in the community.

Dominant species are chosen independently from each stratum of the community. In general, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total coverage of vegetation in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total. For the purposes of this regional supplement, absolute percent cover is the recommended abundance measure for plants in all vegetation strata. See Table 4 for an example application of the 50/20 rule in evaluating a plant community.

Steps in selecting dominant species by the 50/20 rule are as follows:
4 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 5 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. 359

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 16 ends

1. Estimate the absolute percent cover of each species in the first stratum. Since the same data may be used later to calculate the prevalence index, the data should be recorded as absolute cover and not converted to relative cover.

2. Rank all species in the stratum from most to least abundant.

3. Calculate the total coverage of all species in the stratum (i.e., sum their individual percent cover values). Absolute cover estimates do not necessarily sum to 100 percent.

4. Select plant species from the ranked list, in decreasing order of coverage, until the cumulative coverage of selected species exceeds 50 percent of the total coverage for the stratum. If two or more species are equal in coverage (i.e., they are tied in rank), they should all be selected. The selected plant species are all considered to be dominants. All dominants must be identified to species.

5. In addition, select any other species that, by itself, is at least 20 percent of the total percent cover in the stratum. Any such species is also considered to be a dominant and must be accurately identified.

6. Repeat steps 1-5 for any other stratum present. Combine the lists of dominant species across all strata. Note that a species may be dominant in more than one stratum (e.g., a woody species may be dominant in both the tree
and sapling/shrub strata).

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.

GLA Response: As already stated, subparagraph 3 above, specifically DOES NOT apply to the subject wetland and only applies to areas defined in Cowardin, such as tide pools and beaches, that lack vegetation and are subject to fluctuation such as wave action.

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.) GLA Response: There are a number of factors that need to be considered relative to the Psomas 2002 JD. First, the JD was conducted in December 1998 or 26 years ago, and was conducted using the Corps’ 1987 Delineation Manual, which was superseded by the Corps’ 2008 Arid West Supplement. The methods provided in the 1987 Manual have been substantially updated. The updates include many refinements for how a determination for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology are made. Most of the positive determinations for hydric soils and wetland hydrology recorded on the data sheets by Psomas in 1998 would no longer meet the respective requirements for the presence of hydric soils and wetland hydrology. For example, nearly all of the positive determinations for hydric soils were based on the presence of a soil matrix with a 360

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 17 ends

chroma of 2 and only one percent redoximorphic features. Under the Corps’ 2008 Arid West Supplement, which superseded standards in place in 1998, for areas with a chroma of 2, there must be at least five percent redoximorphic features in the soil, a circumstance that simply does not exist in much of the areas previously delineated by Psomas.

The presence of localized ponding does not constitute wetland conditions, and as the area noted supports a predominance of upland vegetation and lacks hydric soils, it is not wetland. As discussed below, regarding the Read 2018 JD, it is noteworthy that Edith Read, who conducted the 2002 JD for Psomas, prepared the update in 2018 and changed the wetland boundary substantially. In the 2018 update, she noted that at the time of 2002 JD field work (which, as noted, occurred in December 1998), the site hydrology was not well understood and, accordingly, she revised the findings and wetland boundaries for the 2018 update.

The Glen [sic] 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.

GLA Response: Site visits conducted by GLA for the Biological Technical Report, include the dates summarized in Table 3-1, excerpted from the 2024 Biological Technical Report:

Table 3-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Property.

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 18 ends

Survey Date Survey Type Surveying
Biologist Weather
June 29, 2020 • General Botanical and Wildlife
Survey T. Bomkamp
67º F
cloud cover
Wind 1-3 mph
June 14, 2022 • General Botanical and Wildlife
Survey
T. Bomkamp
W. Jaikwang
66º F
cloud cover
No Wind
June 14, 2023, • Wetland Delineation V. Park
J. Stephens Not Recorded
January 30 and
February 28,
2024.
• General Biological Surveys
• Updated Habitat Assessment B. Lee Not Recorded
GLA’s surveys required the entire site to be walked on foot on numerous occasions. The assertion that areas outside the wetland or wetland buffer were not evaluated is not correct.

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
Comparison of GLA 2019 and Read 2018 JDs
Regarding the Read 2018 JD, it is noteworthy that Edith Read, who conducted the 2002 JD, prepared the above-referenced update in 2018, changed the wetland boundary substantially and noted that at the time of 2002 JD field work (which, as noted, occurred in December 1998), the site hydrology was not well understood. Accordingly, she revised the findings and wetland boundaries for the 2018 update.
362

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 19 ends

Nevertheless, it should be noted that the wetland boundary established in 2018 by Edith Read was not determined based on paired data points along the northern edge, which contrasts with the GLA JD, which was based on numerous paired pits as depicted on the attached Exhibit 1.

Edith’s 2018 line follows closely the line that was routinely disked for weed abatement, which occurred on a regular basis until a Notice of Violation (NOV) was issued by the City for removal of non-native weeds in the wetland buffer. Prior to the NOV, GLA had established a boundary, working with Schmitz and Associates, who represented the previous property owner, that averaged about 15 feet beyond the wetland edge to ensure that the wetland was not impacted during weed abatement. Read’s 2018 JD also includes a large thicket of pampas grass (Cortederia selloana, FACU) at the northwest corner of the wetland with the area also exhibiting dense patches of carnation spurge (Euphorbia terracinna, UPL) (Bomkamp personal observation during multiple site visits). Given the dominance of these species and no predominance of plants with an indicator status of FAC or wetter in this area, it should not be included within the wetland boundary. This is a significant error in the Read 2018 JD.

There is one other important point relative to the saltgrass, which occurs within the outermost wetland area, extending to the north of the wetland to an area dominated by upland grasses and forbs. The excerpt below, from the GLA October 19, 2024 JD addresses the reliability of saltgrass as a wetland indicator plant:

Page 91 ends

Examples of species that occur in these situations include cottonwoods (e.g., Populus deltoides, P. fremontii) and tree-forming willows (e.g., Salix gooddingii, S. laevigata). These areas may have a high frequency of phreatophytic species that, when mature, are able to exploit groundwater that is too deep to support wetlands. [Emphasis Added] While saltgrass is not included in the above list which is focused on “riparian trees”, application of the caution is appropriate as this species has been documented to function as a phreatophyte.6 6 T.W. Robinson. 1958. Phreatophytes: Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1423. United States Government Printing Office, Washington. Page 56.
363

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 20 ends

Because of the lack of wetland hydrology and hydric soils along the northern wetland boundary, the saltgrass is currently not functioning as a “hydrophyte” at this location. Nevertheless, the saltgrass has been treated as a wetland indicator wherever detected making the JD very conservative.

In conclusion, given that the City requires wetland delineations be conducted within two years of submittal of development plans to the City, GLA updated the 2019 GLA JD in 2024 and slightly expanded the wetland area.

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. 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.

The commentor does not understand the science of wetland delineation, which uses long-term data for determining wetland boundaries. The Arid West Supplement V. 2.0 specifically uses average years for making wetland determinations, which is defined as 50/100 years. The Supplement recognizes that years or periods of extreme wetness or drought can result in under or over-delineation of wetlands. Because wetland delineation uses three separate indicators or criteria for determining the presence and extent of wetlands (predominance of hydrophytic vegetation, predominance of hydric soils, and wetland hydrology defined as inundation or soil saturation in the upper 12 inches for a minimum of 14 days during an average rainfall year), the science of wetlands delineation allows consistent results regardless of wet or dry conditions.

With this as background, it is important to note that the 2018 and 2019 delineation efforts captured a below-average and above-average rainfall years and the 2024 delineation effort was conducted following the two wettest back-to-back years in recorded history for southern California. Exhibit 5 from the 2024 delineation update that shows minimal changes following the update in 2023, which was confirmed in 2024.

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 364

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 21 ends

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 [sic] 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 (go to Planning Commission 2- 5-24 meeting 1. 37. 02) (EX 6 video of wetland water draining into storm drain).

GLA concurs with this observation and reported this as noted; however, it does not appear that elevations were changed. Rather, the width of the channel and size of the storm drain inlets were increased such that the wetland drains more quickly. However, the current drainage patterns are based on the existing elevations, and it would not be possible modify the drainage patterns without major engineering.

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 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. Because the parcel was illegally disked in 2019 and 2020, this entire parcel is still protected as ESHA.

GLA response: See above discussion regarding ESHA.

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 photos) GLA response: See above discussion regarding ESHA.

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.
365

MEMORANDUM
March 10, 2025

Page 22 ends

GLA response: GLA’s delineation is based on observations made over a period of six years with the initial two years including a drier and wetter-than-average rainfall. The last two years included conditions that represent the wettest in recorded history. It was conducted using the Arid West Supplement which is relied upon by both State and Federal Agencies including the Coastal Commission and represents the “state of the art” methodology.

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.

As noted above, the 2002 Psomas JD was revised by the original delineator who acknowledged the inaccuracy of the 2002 report.
366
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (August 2002)
Exhibit 1A
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
367
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (October 2007)
Exhibit 1B
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
368
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (December 2013)
Exhibit 1C
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
369
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (May 2015)
Exhibit 1D
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
370
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (October 2016)
Exhibit 1E
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
371
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (November 2018)
Exhibit 1F
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
372
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (August 2019)
Exhibit 1G
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
373

BIOLOGICAL TECHNICAL REPORT

THE SMITH PARCEL

CITY OF MALIBU

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

PREPARED FOR
Julian Stone-Kronberg
23855 Civic Center Way LLC
500 108th Avenue N.E. Suite 1100
Bellevue, Washington 98004

PREPARED BY
Glenn Lukos Associates
1940 East Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Anta, California
Contact: Tony Bomkamp
(949) 929-1651
May 2019 [Updated August 2024 and September 2024]
374

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................1

1.1 Background ........................................................................................................2

1.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................2

1.3 Results of Field Studies .....................................................................................3

1.4 Proposed Project Impacts to Biological Resources and Mitigation ...................4

2.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................4

2.1 Location of Study Area ......................................................................................5

2.2 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................5

2.3 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area ...........................................................5

2.4 Project Description.............................................................................................5

3.0 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................6

3.1 Summary of Surveys ..........................................................................................7

3.2 Botanical Resources ...........................................................................................8

3.3 Wildlife Resources ...........................................................................................14

3.4 Jurisdictional Determination and Delineation .................................................20

3.5 Environmental Sensitive Habitat Area.............................................................21

4.0 RESULTS .............................................................................................................22

4.1 Botanical Resources .........................................................................................22

4.2 Wildlife Resources ...........................................................................................25

4.3 Special-Status Habitats ....................................................................................25

4.4 Jurisdictional Features .....................................................................................26

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS ..........................................................................................28

5.1 California Environmental Quality Act .............................................................29

5.2 Direct Impacts to Vegetation Associations and Special-Status Habitats .........29

5.3 Riparian and other Special-Status Communities .............................................30

5.4 State of Federal Wetlands ................................................................................30

5.5 Wildlife Movement ..........................................................................................31

5.6 Conflict with Local Policies.............................................................................32

5.7 Conflict with the provisions of an HCP or NCCP ...........................................34

6.0 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................35 375
TABLES
Table 3-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Study Area ..........................................8 Table 3-2. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Study Area ...........................................9 Table 3-3. Special-Status Animals Evaluated for the Study Area .....................................16 Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Study Area ..........................22 Table 5-1. Summary of Impacts to Vegetation/Land Use Types .......................................30

EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Map
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 Vegetation Map
Exhibit 4 ESHA Map
Exhibit 5 Historic Aerial Photographs

APPENDICES
Appendix A Floral Compendium
Appendix B Faunal Compendium
Appendix C Rare Plant Memorandum
Appendix D Jurisdictional Delineation
376
1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Background
This document is a Biological Technical Report prepared to evaluate the subject Property with respect to a proposed wetland buffer restoration project that would restore 1.69 acres through removal of non-native vegetation within the buffer and planting of native vegetation within the buffer (“Restoration Project”). Specifically, this Biological Technical Report considers the extent of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat as defined in the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and any potential impacts to specialstatus biological resources associated with the proposed wetland buffer restoration. The subject Property includes approximately 7.19 acres of land and is located adjacent to Civic Center Way, just west of Stuart Ranch Road [Exhibit 3] [Exhibit 1: Regional Map, Exhibit 2: Vicinity Map, Exhibit 3: Vegetation Map]. This report sets forth the scope methodology of the biological analyses, the results of habitat assessments and general and focused biological surveys, the impact assessments and design features geared at maximizing protection of the environment. General and focused surveys were conducted on June 25, 2018, as well as April 4 and May 21, 2019, as was a wetland delineation on June 25, 2018. Additional biological surveys were conducted on June 29, 2020, June 14, 2022, June 14, 2023, January 30 and February 18, 2024, and updates to the jurisdictional delineation were conducted on June 14, 2023.

The 7.19-acre Property is currently undeveloped. The northern approximately half of the Property and western one third, consists of non-native grassland and forbs 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 and eastern twothirds of the Property 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). 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 spurge (Euphorbia terracinna, UPL), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL).

The area immediately north and west of the potential wetland areas (described below) is dominated by areas of pampas grass (Cortederia selloana, FACU), carnation spurge (Euphorbia terracinna, UPL), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL), castor bean (Ricinus communis, FACU), and summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana, UPL) and is clearly upland and does not support any substantial native vegetation alliances.
377
2 1.1 Scope and Methodology
The scope of this report includes (1) the characterization of biological resources associated with the Study Area, including (1) vegetation mapping, (2) an evaluation of the Study Area for the presence or potential presence of State or federally listed endangered species or other special-status species, (3) a review of the site with regard to its potential as a wildlife movement corridor, (4) a jurisdictional delineation to identify the extent of aquatic features potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Regional Quality Control Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act, and (5) an evaluation of areas that meet the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program definition of Wetlands and Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). This report also includes a discussion of existing conditions for the Study Area, all methods employed regarding habitat assessments and general biological surveys, and the documentation of botanical and wildlife resources identified.

Methods of study included a review of relevant literature and databases, habitat assessments, general field surveys, and a Geographical Information System (GIS)-based analysis of vegetation communities. This report is consistent with relevant accepted scientific and technical standards and survey guideline requirements issued by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the CDFW, and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). As previously noted, Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) conducted sitespecific habitat assessments and general and focused biological surveys within the Study Area on June 25, 2018, April 4, 2019, June 29, 2020, June 14, 2023, and January 30 and February 18, 2024.

1.2 Existing Conditions
The northern and western portions of the 7.19-acre parcel were previously subject to weed control for purposes of fuel management/fire reduction, which was performed through mowing or disking. Fuel management was halted by the City of Malibu pursuant to a Notice of Code Violation issued August 20, 2021. There has been no fuel management and associated disking or mowing since issuance of the code violation. The Property is adjacent to undeveloped land and Stuart Ranch Road on the east and Civic Center Way on the south. The western and northern boundaries consist of landscaping associated with adjacent development and a nursery. There is a wetland area at the southeast corner of the site that supports a mosaic of native and non-native wetland plants described in more detail below.

1.3 Results of Field Studies

1.3.1 Vegetation Alliances/Land Uses
Vegetation mapping of the Study Area identified 22 different vegetation/land use types of which 13 consist of non-native species: (1) Acacia redolens Ornamental Acacia Semi378 3 Natural Thickets; (2) Ambrosia psilstachya (Western ragweed Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands – western ragweed stands; (3) Baccharis pilularis thickets – Coyote brush thicket (4) Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance Mulefat Thickets; (5) Bromus diandrus Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands – Ripgut brome grasslands; (6) Cortedaria selloana Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands Pampas grass patches; (7) Distichlis spicata – Saltgrass Meadow; (8) Distichlis spicata/Ambrosia psilostachya – Saltgrass Ragweed Meadow; (9) Echium candicans, - Pride of Madeira stand (10) Eucalyptus globulus – blue gum eucalyptus individual; (11) Euphorbia terracina Carnation Spurge Semi-Natural Stands – spurge stands; (12) Carnation Spurge/saltgrass – carnation spurge/saltgrass stands (13) Helminthotheca echioides patches – Bristly ox tongue patches; (14) Malacothrix saxatalis – Cliff Aster (with short pod mustard) Herbaceous Stands; (15) Phoenix canariensis individuals, Canary Island date palms (16) Ricinus communis thickets – Castor Bean thickets, (17) Ricinus communis thickets – Castor Bean/carnation spurge thickets (18) Rumex crispus Curly Dock Herbaceous Stands; (19) Salix lasiolepis shrubland Alliance – Arroyo willow thickets; (20) Schinus molle – Peruvian Pepper individuals; (21) Schoenoplectus californicus and acutus Marsh Alliance – bulrush marsh; and (22) Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Semi-Natural Stands.

1.3.2 Special-Status Plants
No special-status plants were detected on the site. Focused surveys conducted for special-status plant species within the Study Area did not detect any other special-status plant species. A Technical Memorandum, dated September 14, 2021 addressing the potential for the site to support special-status plants was prepared and submitted to the City of Malibu which found that there was no potential for special-status plants.1

1.3.3 Wildlife Resources
No reptile or mammal species were directly observed during biological surveys.

However, common species are expected to occur within the Study Area. Several common bird species were detected and/or observed during biological surveys, including Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Ana’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata).

1.3.4 Special-Status Wildlife
No special-status animal species (i.e., State- or federally- listed or CDFW special status) were detected within the Study Area and none are expected to occur. 1 Glenn Lukos Associates. September 14, 2021. Rare Plant Surveys for 7.19-Acre Smith Parcel, City of Malibu, California.
379
4 1.4 Proposed Project Impacts to Biological Resources and Mitigation The Restoration Project would not result in any significant direct or indirect impacts to any special-status biological resources. The Restoration Project would avoid impacts to migratory birds and the wetland at the southeast corner of the site while converting nonnative weedy vegetation within a 100-foot buffer to native vegetation along the northern and western boundaries of the wetland.

It is important to note that the 7.19-acre parcel is mapped as Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) on the City of Malibu ESHA and Marine Resources Map 3: Dan Blocker to Malibu Pier map.
2 However, as addressed in detail below, the 5.45-acre area surrounding the wetland does not support special-status plants, animals, or vegetation alliances and does not meet the City of Malibu definition for ESHA.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
Biologists from Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) conducted surveys of the 7.19-acre Property to identify the presence of special-status species or habitats capable of supporting special-status species. GLA also conducted a jurisdictional delineation of the site to determine the limits of wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act, and as defined under the City of Malibu LCP and California Coastal Act.

Potential impacts associated with restoration of the wetland buffer (direct and/or indirect) to special-status species and habitats are addressed below for purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP). In addition, addressed below are potential impacts to (1) special-status species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and (2) specialstatus species listed as threatened or endangered by the State of California and regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to the State ESA.

Wildlife that are assigned other designations by CDFW (i.e., species of special concern, fully-protected species, etc.), and plants given special status by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) are not granted additional protection, except that potential impacts to these species sometimes require evaluation pursuant to CEQA.

2.1 Location of Study Area
The 7.19-acre Property is adjacent to Civic Center Way on the south and Pacific Coast Highway just further south. The eastern and western boundaries consist of commercial and residential properties.
2 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-maps-8mm2.pdf 380
5 2.2 Existing Conditions
The 7.19-acre Property consists of undeveloped land that supports predominately nonnative vegetation land cover including: (1) Acacia redolens Ornamental Acacia SemiNatural Thickets; (2) Ambrosia psilstachya (Western ragweed Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands – western ragweed stands; (3) Baccharis pilularis thickets – Coyote brush thicket (4) Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance Mulefat Thickets; (5) Bromus diandrus Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands – Ripgut brome grasslands; (6) Cortedaria selloana Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands Pampas grass patches; (7) Distichlis spicata – Saltgrass Meadow; (8) Distichlis spicata/Ambrosia psilostachya – Saltgrass Ragweed Meadow; (9) Echium candicans, - Pride of Madeira stand (10) Eucalyptus globulus – blue gum eucalyptus individual; (11) Euphorbia terracina Carnation Spurge Semi-Natural Stands – spurge stands; (12) Carnation Spurge/saltgrass – carnation spurge/saltgrass stands (13) Helminthotheca echioides patches – Bristly ox tongue patches; (14) Malacothrix saxatalis – Cliff Aster (with short pod mustard) Herbaceous Stands; (15) Phoenix canariensis individuals, Canary Island date palms (16) Ricinus communis thickets – Castor Bean thickets, (17) Ricinus communis thickets – Castor Bean/carnation spurge thickets (18) Rumex crispus Curly Dock Herbaceous Stands; (19) Salix lasiolepis shrubland Alliance – Arroyo willow thickets; (20) Schinus molle – Peruvian Pepper individuals; (21) Schoenoplectus californicus and acutus Marsh Alliance – bulrush marsh; and (22) Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Semi-Natural Stands.

2.3 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area
The 7.19-acre Smith parcel is designated as ESHA in the City of Malibu LCP. As noted, the site contains a wetland area at the southeast corner covering approximately 1.84 acres. The remaining portion of the site supports a predominance of non-native vegetation as described above, components of which are considered invasive species including pampas grass, carnation spurge, Mexican fan palm, Brazilian pepper, and curly dock. Vegetation alliances including non-native vegetation are depicted on Exhibit 3.

2.4 Project Description
The northern and western portions of the Project Site were previously 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 buffer and thus required 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, the Habitat Restoration and Monitoring Plan (HRMP) prepared to address the code violation proposes restoration efforts within the 100-foot wetland buffer on the north and west sides of the wetland. All the affected area supports predominantly nonnative upland vegetation, therefore the HRMP addresses the above-referenced violation by proposing weed removal and native plantings within the wetland buffer, resulting in 381
6 the conversion of the wetland buffer from a predominance of non-native habitat with a number of invasive plant species to native habitat.

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, as well as removal of woody species such as castor bean and trees such as Mexican fan palms, Canary Island palms, blue gum eucalyptus and Peruvian pepper.

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. Implementation of the following requirements under the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5 to ensure that nesting birds, including raptors, are not harmed during project implementation. It should be noted that raptor species are not expected to nest within the wetland buffer restoration area due to onsite observations showing a lack of nesting raptors on the site because of a general lack of suitable habitat:
a. If feasible, the removal of vegetation should occur outside of the nesting season, generally recognized as February 15 to August 31 (potentially earlier for raptors). If vegetation removal must occur during the nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey prior to any vegetation removal. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall flag vegetation containing active nests. The biologist shall establish appropriate buffers around active nests to be avoided until the nests are no longer active and the young have fledged. Buffers will be based on the species identified, but generally will consist of 50 feet for non-raptors and 300 feet for raptors.
b. If, for some reason, it is not possible to remove all vegetation during the non-nesting season, then vegetation to be removed during the nesting season must be surveyed by a qualified biologist no more than three days prior to removal. If no nesting birds are found, the vegetation can be removed. If nesting birds are detected, then removal must be postponed until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed. Furthermore, the biologist shall establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed.
c. Similarly, for vegetation being preserved, if construction is to occur during the nesting season, preserved vegetation should be surveyed for the presence of nesting birds. If nesting birds are detected, the biologist shall 382
7 establish an appropriate buffer zone where construction activity may not occur until the fledglings have vacated the nest or the biologist has determined that the nest has failed.

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

3.0 METHODOLOGY
To adequately identify biological resources within the Study Area, GLA assembled biological data based in part on the following work:
• Performance of vegetation mapping for the 7.19-acre Property; • Performance of site-specific habitat assessments for special-status plants and animals for the 7.19-acre Property;
• General and focused biological surveys to evaluate the presence/absence of special-status plant and animal species (or potentially suitable habitat) for the

7.19-acre Property; and
• Performance of a jurisdictional delineation for areas potentially subject to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) as a water of the U.S. pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to the Porter Cologne Act, and wetlands as defined under the City of Malibu LCP and the California Coastal Act.

The focus of the biological surveys was determined through initial site reconnaissance, a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) [CDFW 2017 and then updated to the 2019 and 2024 versions for this report], the CDFW Special Animals List (CDFW 2019 and 2024), the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online Inventory (CNPS 2019 and 2024), the USFWS online list of threatened and endangered species for Los Angeles County, the USDA Soil Conservation Service’s (SCS) soil maps for the Study Area, other pertinent literature, and knowledge of the region. Vegetation associations and land use types within the Study Area were also surveyed on foot and mapped directly onto a 100-scale aerial photograph based on A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition or MCV II, which is the California expression of the National Vegetation Classification3
. Habitat assessments and focused surveys within the Study Area were conducted on foot for each target plant or animal species identified below.

3.1 Summary of Surveys
The field studies focused on the following primary tasks: (1) general reconnaissance surveys and vegetation mapping per the MCVII; (2) general botanical surveys; (3) general wildlife surveys; (4) habitat assessments for special-status plants; (5) habitat 3 Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society.
383
8 assessments for special-status animals; (6) focused surveys for special-status plants (7) jurisdictional delineation. Observations of all plant and wildlife species were recorded during each of the above-mentioned survey efforts [Appendix A: Floral Compendium and Appendix B: Faunal Compendium]. Table 3-1 provides a summary list of survey dates, survey types and personnel.

Table 3-1. Summary of Biological Surveys for the Property.

Survey Date Survey Type Surveying
Biologist Weather
June 25, 2018
• General and focused Botanical
Survey;
• Jurisdictional Delineation;
• Special-Status Animal Habitat
Assessment
T. Bomkamp
J. Stephens
65º F
Clear
Wind 1-3 mph
April 4, 2019
• General Botanical and Wildlife
Survey
• Focused Survey for Special-Status
Plants;
• Vegetation Mapping
T. Bomkamp
J. Stephens
63º F
cloud cover
Wind 1-3 mph
June 29, 2020 • General Botanical and Wildlife
Survey T. Bomkamp
67º F
cloud cover
Wind 1-3 mph
June 14, 2022 • General Botanical and Wildlife
Survey
T. Bomkamp
W. Jaikwang
66º F
cloud cover
No Wind
June 14, 2023, • Wetland Delineation V. Park
J. Stephens Not Recorded
January 30 and
February 28,
2024.
• General Biological Surveys
• Updated Habitat Assessment B. Lee Not Recorded

3.2 Botanical Resources
A site-specific survey program was designed to accurately document the botanical resources within the Study Area, and consisted of seven components: (1) a literature search; (2) preparation of a list of target special-status plant species and sensitive vegetation communities that could occur within the Study Area; (3) general field reconnaissance surveys; (4) vegetation mapping according to the MCV II; (5) habitat assessments for special-status plants; (6) focused surveys for special-status plants; and (7) preparation of a vegetation map for the Study Area.
384
9 3.2.1 Literature Search
Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region surrounding the Study Area was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included the following:
• California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/; and • California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2024) for the USGS 7.5’ Malibu Beach quadrangle which contains the Study Area, and the eight surrounding quadrangles including Point Dume, Topanga, Thousand Oaks, Calabasas, and Canoga Park.

According to the CNDDB (2024), eight special-status habitats occur within the Malibu Beach quadrangle and the five surrounding USGS 7.5 quadrangles (Point Dume, Topanga, Thousand Oaks, Calabasas, and Canoga Park), including California Walnut Woodland, Southern California Coastal Lagoon, Southern California Steelhead Stream, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, Valley Needle Grassland, Valley Oak Woodland.

None of these habitats occur on the site.

Table 3-2 is a list of special-status plants evaluated for their potential presence in the Study Area through habitat assessments. Species were evaluated based on several factors, including (1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or near the Study Area using the above-referenced USGS quadrangles and (2) any other special-status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the Study Area, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the Study Area.

Table 3-2. Special-Status Plants Evaluated for the Study Area Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Agoura Hills dudleya
Dudleya cymosa ssp.
agourensis
Federal: FT
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Rocky and volcanic soils in
chaparral and cismontane
woodland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Beach spectaclepod
Dithyrea maritima
Federal: None
State: ST
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub
(sandy).

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Blochman's dudleya
Dudleya blochmaniae
ssp. blochmaniae
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Coastal bluff scrub, chaparral,
coastal sage scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Rocky
soils, often of clay or
serpentinite.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Braunton's milk-vetch
Astragalus brauntonii
Federal: FE
State: None
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
385
10 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Usually carbonate soils.

Recent burn or disturbed
areas.

Brewer's calandrinia
Calandrinia breweri
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Sandy or loamy soils in
disturbed sites and burns.

Chaparral, coastal scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

California Orcutt grass
Orcuttia californica
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Vernal pools Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

California screw moss
Tortula californica
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Sandy soil in chenopod scrub,
and valley and foothill
grassland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Catalina mariposa lily
Calochortus catalinae
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Chaparral nolina
Nolina cismontana
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub.

Occurring on sandstone or
gabbro substrates.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Chaparral ragwort
Senecio aphanactis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
2B.2
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub.

Sometimes associated with
alkaline soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Club-haired mariposa-lily
Calochortus clavatus var.
clavatus
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Usually occurring on
serpentinite, clay, and rocky
soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Coastal dunes milk-vetch
Astragalus tener var. titi
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Often in vernally mesic areas
within coastal bluff scrub
(sandy), coastal dunes, and
coastal prairie (mesic).

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Conejo buckwheat
Eriogonum crocatum
Federal: None
State: Rare
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Conejo dudleya
Dudleya parva
Federal: FT
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Coastal sage scrub, valley and
foothill grassland. Occurring
on rocky, gravelly, and clay
soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Coulter’s goldfields
Lasthenia glabrata ssp.
coulteri
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Playas, vernal pools, marshes
and swamps (coastal salt).

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Coulter's saltbush
Atriplex coulteri
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Occurring on alkaline or clay
soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
386
11 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Davidson’s saltscale
Atriplex serenana var.
davidsonii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Alkaline soils in coastal sage
scrub, coastal bluff scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Decumbent goldenbush
Isocoma menziesii var.
decumbens
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, coastal scrub
(sandy, often in disturbed
areas)
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Dune larkspur
Delphinium parryi ssp.
blochmaniae
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral (maritime), Coastal
dunes
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Hubby's phacelia
Phacelia hubbyi
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Gravelly, rocky, and talus
soils in chaparral, coastal
scrub, and valley and foothill
grassland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Island mountainmahogany
Cercocarpus betuloides
var. blancheae
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
Chaparral.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Lewis' evening-primrose
Camissoniopsis lewisii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 3
Sandy or clay soils in coastal
bluff scrub, cismontane
woodland, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, and valley and
foothill grassland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Lyon's pentachaeta
Pentachaeta lyonii
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Chaparral (openings), coastal
sage scrub, valley and foothill
grassland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Malibu baccharis
Baccharis malibuensis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Many-stemmed dudleya
Dudleya multicaulis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
valley and foothill grassland.

Often occurring in clay soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Marcescent dudleya
Dudleya cymosa ssp.
marcescens
Federal: FT
State: Rare
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral, on volcanic soils. Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Mesa horkelia
Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Sandy or gravelly soils in
chaparral (maritime),
cismontane woodland, and
coastal scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Mount Pinos larkspur
Delphinium parryi ssp.
purpureum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.3
Chaparral, Mojavean desert
scrub, pinyon and juniper
woodland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Nuttall's scrub oak
Quercus dumosa
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Closed-cone coniferous forest,
chaparral, and coastal sage
scrub. Occurring on sandy,
clay loam soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
387
12 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Ocellated Humboldt lily
Lilium humboldtii ssp.
ocellatum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, riparian woodland.

Occurring in openings.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Ojai navarretia
Navarretia ojaiensis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Chaparral (openings), Coastal
scrub (openings), Valley and
foothill grassland
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Parish's brittlescale
Atriplex parishii
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Chenopod scrub, playas,
vernal pools.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Parry’s spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var.
parryi
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Sandy or rocky soils in open
habitats of chaparral and
coastal sage scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Plummer's mariposa lily
Calochortus plummerae
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Granitic, rock soils within
chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, valley and foothill
grassland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Salt marsh bird's-beak
Chloropyron maritimum
ssp. maritimum
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Coastal dune, coastal salt
marshes and swamps.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Salt Spring checkerbloom
Sidalcea neomexicana
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
2B.2
Mesic, alkaline soils in
chaparral, coastal sage scrub,
lower montane coniferous
forest, Mojavean desert scrub,
and playas.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

San Fernando Valley
spineflower
Chorizanthe parryi var.
fernandina
Federal:

Candidate
State: SE
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Coastal sage scrub, occurring
on sandy soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Santa Monica dudleya
Dudleya cymosa ssp.
ovatifolia
Federal: FT
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub.

Occurring on volcanic soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Santa Susana tarplant
Deinandra minthornii
Federal: None
State: Rare
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral and coastal sage
scrub. Occurring on rocky
soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Slender mariposa lily
Calochortus clavatus var.
gracilis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Chaparral and coastal sage
scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Small-flowered morningglory
Convolvulus simulans
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Chaparral (openings), coastal
sage scrub, valley and foothill
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
388
13 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence grassland. Occurring on clay
soils and serpentinite seeps.

Sonoran maiden fern
Thelypteris puberula var.
sonorensis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
2B.2
Meadows and seeps (seeps
and streams)
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

South coast branching
phacelia
Phacelia ramosissima
var. austrolitoralis
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 3.2
Sandy, sometimes rocky soils
in chaparral, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub, and marshes and
swamps (coastal salt)
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

South coast saltscale
Atriplex pacifica
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.2
Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal sage scrub,
playas.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Southern California black
walnut
Juglans californica
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub,
alluvial surfaces.
14 individuals were
detected.

Ventura Marsh milkvetch
Astragalus pycnostachyus
var. lanosissimus
Federal: FE
State: SE
CNPS: Rank
1B.1
Coastal dunes, coastal scrub,
marshes and swamps (edges,
coastal salt or brackish)
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Vernal barley
Hordeum intercedens
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 3.2
Coastal dunes, coastal sage
scrub, valley and foothill
grassland (saline flats and
depressions), vernal pools.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Western bristly scaleseed
Spermolepis lateriflora
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 2A
Sonoran desert scrub Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Western spleenwort
Asplenium vespertinum
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank 4.2
Rocky soils in chaparral,
cismontane woodland, and
coastal scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

White-veined monardella
Monardella hypoleuca
ssp. hypoleuca
Federal: None
State: None
CNPS: Rank
1B.3
Chaparral and cismontane
woodland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Federal State
FE - Federally Endangered SE - State Endangered
FT - Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
FC – Federal Candidate
California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
List 1A - Plants presumed extinct in California
List 1B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.

List 2A - Plants Presumed Extirpated in California, But Common Elsewhere List 2B - Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere.

List 3 – Plants about which more information is needed.

List 4 – Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).

Threat Code Extensions
.1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) 389
14 3.2.4 General Reconnaissance Surveys and Habitat Assessments General site-specific surveys of the Study Area were conducted to identify potential habitat for special-status plants as presented in Table 3-2 above, and to establish the accuracy of the data identified from the literature. An aerial photograph and topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive and uncommon taxa or communities within the Study Area. The reconnaissance surveys also considered the guidelines adopted by CNPS (Nelson 1984, CNPS 2001, and CDFW 2018).

3.2.5 Vegetation Mapping
Vegetation alliances within the Study Area were mapped according to the membership rules set forth in the MCV II as provided in the habitat descriptions (where applicable) in Section 4.1.1, below. Where necessary, deviations were made, including description of vegetation cover types not included in the MCV II or when areas did not fit into exact habitat descriptions provided by the MCV II. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 100-scale (1” = 100’) topographic map. Exhibit 3 [Vegetation Map] provides vegetation mapping for the Study Area at a scale of 1” = 70’).

3.2.6 Focused Surveys for Special-Status Plants
Based on initial site reconnaissance, habitat assessment, and vegetation mapping, it was determined that because of the high level of disturbance, the Study Area does not support suitable habitat for special-status plants with the exception of the California walnut.

Nevertheless, focused surveys were conducted throughout the Study Area in accordance with CDFW’s March 20, 2018 “Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to SpecialStatus Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities”, which require the survey provide for inspection of all areas of potential habitat by direct observation by walking meandering transects through areas of suitable habitat. All species observed during the surveys were recorded and a complete list of plant species observed within the Study Area is provided in Appendix A.

3.3 Wildlife Resources
Wildlife species were evaluated and detected during field surveys by sight, call, tracks, nests (when applicable), and scat. Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow inspection of the Study Area by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. Observations of physical evidence and direct sightings of wildlife were recorded in field notes during each visit. A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Study Area is provided in Appendix B. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow Collins (1997) for amphibians and reptiles, Jones, et al. (1992) for mammals, and AOU Checklist (1998) for birds.
390
15 3.3.1 General Surveys
Birds
During each survey within the Study Area, birds were identified within each habitat type.

Birds were detected by both direct observation and by vocalizations and were recorded in field notes.

Mammals
During each survey within the Study Area, mammals were identified within each habitat type. Mammals were detected both by direct observations and by the presence of diagnostic sign (i.e., tracks, burrows, scat, etc.). The Property contains very limited potential habitat for two special-status bat species, including western red bat which utilizes willows and other trees typically associated with riparian areas and western yellow bats which use dead palm fronds on Mexican fan palms and as such could occur on the property in limited numbers.

Reptiles and Amphibians
During each survey within the Study Area, reptiles and amphibians were identified within each habitat type. Habitats were examined for diagnostic reptile sign, which include shed skins, scat, tracks, snake prints, and lizard tail drag marks. All reptiles and amphibian species observed, as well as diagnostic sign, were recorded in field notes.

3.3.2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Evaluated for the Study Area Table 3-3 provides a list of special-status animals evaluated for their potential presence in the Study Area through habitat assessments and focused surveys (where suitable habitat was present). Species were evaluated based on various factors, including (1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or in the vicinity of the property and (2) any other special-status animals that are known to occur within the vicinity of the property, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs on site. 391
16 Table 3-3. Special-status Animals Evaluated for the Property Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Invertebrates
Quino checkerspot butterfly
Euphydryas editha quino
Federal: FE
State: None
Larval and adult phases each
have distinct habitat
requirements tied to host plant
species and topography.

Larval host plants include
Plantago erecta and Castilleja
exserta. Adults occur on
sparsely vegetated rounded
hilltops and ridgelines and are
known to disperse through
disturbed habitats to reach
suitable nectar plants.

Does not occur due to lack
of suitable habitat and
outside of current
document range which is
limited to portions of
Riverside and San Diego
counties.

Fish
Arroyo chub
Gila orcuttii
Federal: None
State: None
Headwaters, creeks, and small
to medium rivers, often
intermittent streams
Does not occur. No
suitable streams on site.

Southern steelhead - southern
California DPS
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
Federal: FE
State: None
Clear, swift moving streams
with gravel for spawning.

Federal listing refers to
populations from Santa Maria
river south to southern extent
of range (San Mateo Creek in
San Diego county.)
Does not occur. No
suitable streams on site.

Tidewater goby
Eucyclogobius newberryi
Federal: FE
State: SSC
Occurs in shallow lagoons and
lower stream reaches along the
California coast from Agua
Hedionda Lagoon, San Diego
Co. to the mouth of the Smith
River.

Does not occur. No
suitable lagoons or streams
on site.

Amphibians
Arroyo toad
Anaxyrus californicus
Federal: FE
State: SSC
Breed, forage, and/or aestivate
in aquatic habitats, riparian,
coastal sage scrub, oak, and
chaparral habitats. Breeding
pools must be open and
shallow with minimal current,
and with a sand or pea gravel
substrate overlain with sand or
flocculent silt. Adjacent banks
with sandy or gravely terraces
and very little herbaceous
cover for adult and juvenile
foraging areas, within a
moderate riparian canopy of
cottonwood, willow, or oak.

Does not occur. No
suitable streams on site.

California red-legged frog
Rana draytonii
Federal: FT
State: SSC
Lowlands and foothills in or
near permanent sources of
deep water with dense,
Does not occur. No
suitable streams or other
aquatic habitats on site.
392
17 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence shrubby, or emergent riparian
vegetation.

Western spadefoot
Spea hammondii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Seasonal pools in coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, and grassland
habitats.

Does not occur. No
seasonal pools or other
aquatic habitats on site.

Reptiles
Coast horned lizard
Phrynosoma blainvillii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Occurs in a variety of
vegetation types including
coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
annual grassland, oak
woodland, and riparian
woodlands.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

California legless lizard
Anniella sp.

Federal: None
State: SSC
Common in the Coast Ranges
from the vicinity of Antioch,
Contra Costa Co. south to the
Mexican border. Range
includes the floor of the San
Joaquin Valley from San
Joaquin Co. south, the west
slope of the southern Sierra,
the Tehachapi Mountains west
of the desert, and the
mountains of southern
California. Common in several
habitats but especially in
coastal dune, valley-foothill,
chaparral, and coastal scrub
types.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

California mountain
kingsnake (San Diego
population)
Lampropeltis zonata
(pulchra)
Federal: None
State: WL
A habitat generalist, found in
diverse habitats including
coniferous forest, oak-pine
woodlands, riparian woodland,
chaparral, manzanita, and
coastal sage scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Coastal whiptail
Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri
(multiscutatus)
Federal: None
State: SSC
Open, often rocky areas with
little vegetation, or sunny
microhabitats within shrub or
grassland associations.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Southern California legless
lizard
Anniella stebbinsi
Federal: None
State: SSC
Broadleaved upland forest,
chaparral, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub; found in a
broader range of habitats that
any of the other species in the
genus. Often locally abundant,
specimens are found in coastal
sand dunes and a variety of
interior habitats, including
sandy washes and alluvial fans
Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
393
18 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Two-striped garter snake
Thamnophis hammondii
Federal: None
State: SSC
Aquatic snake typically
associated with wetland
habitats such as streams,
creeks, and pools.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Western pond turtle
Emys marmorata
Federal: None
State: SSC
Slow-moving permanent or
intermittent streams, small
ponds and lakes, reservoirs,
abandoned gravel pits,
permanent and ephemeral
shallow wetlands, stock ponds,
and treatment lagoons.

Abundant basking sites and
cover necessary, including
logs, rocks, submerged
vegetation, and undercut
banks.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Birds
American peregrine falcon
(nesting)
Falco peregrinus anatum
Federal:

Delisted, BCC
State: Delisted,
FP
Breeding habitat consists of
high cliffs, tall buildings, and
bridges along the coast and
inland. Foraging habitat
primarily includes open areas
near wetlands, marshes, and
adjacent urban landscapes.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Bank swallow (nesting)
Riparia riparia
Federal: None
State: ST
Low areas along rivers,
streams, ocean coasts or
reservoirs. Often use humanmade sites.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Burrowing owl
Athene cunicularia
Federal: None
State: SSC
Shortgrass prairies, grasslands,
lowland scrub, agricultural
lands (particularly
rangelands), coastal dunes,
desert floors, and some
artificial, open areas as a yearlong resident. Occupies abandoned ground squirrel
burrows.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Coastal California
gnatcatcher
Polioptila californica
californica
Federal: FT
State: SSC
Low elevation coastal sage
scrub and coastal bluff scrub.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Golden eagle (nesting and
wintering)
Aquila chrysaetos
Federal: None
State: CFP
In southern California,
occupies grasslands,
brushlands, deserts, oak
savannas. Nests on rock
outcrops and ledges.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Least Bell’s vireo
Vireo bellii pusillus
Federal: FE
State: SE
Dense riparian habitats with a
stratified canopy, including
southern willow scrub, mule
fat scrub, and riparian forest.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.
394
19 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Swainson’s hawk (nesting)
Buteo swainsoni
Federal: None
State: ST
Occupies grasslands,
brushlands, deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous
forests, and montane valleys
for hunting and uses perches.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Tricolored blackbird (nesting
colony)
Agelaius tricolor
Federal: BCC
State: CE, SSC
Breeding colonies require
nearby water, a suitable
nesting substrate, and openrange foraging habitat of
natural grassland, woodland,
or agricultural cropland.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Mammals
American badger
Taxidea taxus
Federal: None
State: SSC
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most scrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

California leaf-nosed bat
Macrotus californicus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Roosts in caves, mines, and
buildings.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Hoary bat
Lasiurus cinereus
Federal: None
State: None
WBWG: M
Prefers trees at the edge of
clearings, but have been found
in trees in heavy forests, and
shade trees along urban streets
and in city parks.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Pallid bat
Antrozous pallidus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and
forests. Most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

San Diego desert woodrat
Neotoma lepida intermedia
Federal: None
State: SSC
Occurs in a variety of shrub
and desert habitats, primarily
associated with rock outcrops,
boulders, cacti, or areas of
dense undergrowth.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Spotted bat
Euderma maculatum
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Arid or ponderosa pine forests
and marshlands. Roost in
small cracks in cliffs and stony
outcrops.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Western mastiff bat
Eumops perotis californicus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Occurs in many open, semiarid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous
woodlands, coastal scrub,
grasslands, and chaparral.

Roosts in crevices in cliff
faces, high buildings, trees,
and tunnels.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Western red bat
Lasiurus blossevillii
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Prefers riparian areas
dominated by walnuts, oaks,
willows, cottonwoods, and
sycamores where they roost in
broad-leafed trees.

Limited potential to occur
in willows but would not
be affected as no impacts
to willows would occur.
395
20 Species Name Status Habitat Requirements Potential for Occurrence Western yellow bat
Lasiurus xanthinus
Federal: None
State: SSC
WBWG: H
Found in valley foothill
riparian, desert riparian, desert
wash, and palm oasis habitats.

Roosts in trees, particularly in
dead fronds of palms. Forages
over water and among trees.

Potential roosting habitat
occurs onsite within
Mexican fan palms.

Western small-footed myotis
Myotis ciliolabrum
Federal: None
State: None
WBWG: M
Variety of habitats ranging
from rock outcrops on open
grasslands to canyons in the
foothills to lower mountains.

Roosts in cracks and crevices
in cliffs, beneath tree bark,
mines, caves, and abandoned
buildings.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Yuma myotis
Myotis yumanensis
Federal: None
State: None
WBWG: LM
Optimal habitats are open
forests and woodlands with
sources of water over which to
feed. Distribution is closely
tied to bodies of water.

Maternity colonies in caves,
mines, buildings or crevices.

Does not occur due to a
lack of suitable habitat.

Federal State
FE – Federally Endangered SE – State Endangered
FT – Federally Threatened ST – State Threatened
FPT – Federally Proposed Threatened SSC – California Species of Special Concern FSC – Federal Species of Concern CFP – California Fully-Protected Species Western Bat Working Group (WBWG)
H – High Priority
LM – Low-Medium Priority
M – Medium Priority
MH – Medium-High Priority
Occurrence
• Does not occur – The site does not contain habitat for the species and/or the site does not occur within the geographic range of the species.
• Confirmed absent – The site contains suitable habitat for the species, but the species has been confirmed absent through focused surveys.
• Not expected to occur – The species is not expected to occur onsite due to low habitat quality, however absence cannot be ruled out.
• Potential to occur – The species has a potential to occur based on suitable habitat, however its presence/absence has not been confirmed.
• Confirmed present – The species was detected onsite incidentally or through focused surveys CFP – California Fully-Protected Species

3.4 Jurisdictional Evaluation and Determination
The Study Area was evaluated for the potential presence of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; (2) Regional Board jurisdiction pursuant to Section 396
21 401 of the CWA, and Section 13260 of the State of California Water Code (CWC); and (3) wetlands as defined by the City of Malibu LCP and the California Coastal Act.

3.5 Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA) Determination As noted, the 7.19-acre site is designated by the City of Malibu as ESHA on the City of Malibu ESHA and Marine Resources Map 3: Dan Blocker to Malibu Pier map. 4 The site
includes a 1.84-acre wetland area at the southeast corner with the remaining approximately 5.35 acres consisting almost entirely of upland non-native vegetation alliances including many areas dominated by invasive species as described below in Section 4.1.1. Specifically, of the 5.35 acres of upland area, over 90-percent (4.82 acres) is composed of non-native species.

Exhibits 5a – 5g comprise a series of representative aerial photographs between August 2002 and August 2019. Important points must be considered when evaluating the ESHA determination for the site. At least between 19985
and July 2008, the northern
approximately one third of the site consisted of active nursery operations and contained no native habitat and as such, would not have met the LCP’s definition of ESHA. The area between the nursery and the wetland was subject to maintenance and supported no native vegetation and was mapped by Psomas as “Ruderal” which is a non-native vegetation association. The series of aerial photos also show that disking was generally limited to areas north of the wetland, which is overlain on the series of aerial photos.

With very slight exceptions as shown in the 2002, 2007, 2015 and 2016 aerial photos, a portion of the northeast corner of the wetland was disked. Assertions that the entire site was disked at any point during the period between 2002 and the present are not accurate.

The series of aerial photographs show a clear line north of the wetland where disking stopped and in the 2015 and 2016 aerial photographs only about six to eight feet of a small wetland protrusion was disked. Moreover, this area exhibited full recovery during the 2018 and 2019 GLA site visits. As noted, the wetland delineation is shown on each of the exhibits and disking barely encroached on the wetland in some years.

Exceptfor the 1.84-acre wetland area at the southeast corner of the site, the remainder of the site does not support native habitats defined in the City of Malibu LCP as ESHA, including: stream/riparian, woodland, coastal bluff, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or other ESHA. The wetland contains a mix of native and non-native vegetation alliances and includes Schoenoplectus (acutus, californicus) Herbaceous Alliance Hardstem, and California bulrush marshes which are ranked G4S3 in the California Rare Plant Rank and would be considered ESHA based on the S3 Ranking. Therefore, the wetland meets the threshold for ESHA.

4.0 RESULTS
4 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-maps-8mm2.pdf 5 The 2002 Psomas Jurisdictional Delineation Report was based on field work conducted on December 9th and 10th 1998. Figure 6 of that report is a vegetation map, which depicts the northern approximately onethird of the site as “Nursery”. It also shows much of the area between the Nursery and wetland as “Ruderal” which is a non-native category.
397
22 As noted in the methods section above, a detailed literature review was conducted prior to performing general surveys and habitat assessments. This section discusses the results of general reconnaissance, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments for special-status plants and wildlife, and focused surveys for special-status plants and wildlife.

4.1 Botanical Resources
None of the CNDDB special-status habitats/vegetation alliances, listed for the Malibu Beach quadrangle and the five surrounding USGS 7.5 quadrangles listed in Section 3.2.2 above, occur within the Study Area. Therefore, the Project would not result in significant impacts to special-status vegetation alliances, as discussed below in Section 5.0.

4.1.1 Vegetation Mapping
During vegetation mapping of the Study Area, 14 different vegetation alliances/land use types were identified. Table 4-1 provides a summary of vegetation alliances/land use types for the Study Area and the corresponding acreage. A Vegetation Map which depicts the locations of the vegetation alliances/land use types described below, is attached as Exhibit 3. As noted in the methods section above, vegetation mapping was performed in accordance, where possible, with the MCVII; however, in some instances, areas of vegetation on the site did not correspond with the “membership rules” of MVCII alliances and more site-specific designations were employed (e.g., “Acacia redolens Ornamental Acacia Semi-Natural Thickets) as discussed below.

Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation Alliances/Land Use Types for the Study Area Vegetation Alliances/Land Use Type Area (Acres)
Acacia redolens Ornamental Acacia Semi-Natural Thickets 0.052 Ambrosia psilstachya– western ragweed stands 0.036
Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance – Coyote brush thicket 0.021 Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance Mulefat Thickets 0.140 Carpobrotus edulis -Ice Plant Mats 0.017
Cortedaria selloana Semi-Natural Stands - Pampas grass patches 0.227 Developed 0.004
Distichlis spicata – Saltgrass Meadow 0.724
Echium candicans, - Pride of Madeira stand 0.009
Eucalyptus globulus – blue gum eucalyptus individual 0.014 Euphorbia terracina Carnation Spurge Stands – spurge stands 0.458 Carnation Spurge/saltgrass – carnation spurge/saltgrass stands 0.062 Helminthotheca echioides patches – Bristly ox tongue patches 0.030 Malacothrix saxatalis – Cliff Aster Herbaceous Stands 0.082 Ornamental 0.314
398
23 Phoenix canariensis individuals, Canary Island date palms 0.081 Raphanus sativus Natural Stands – Wild Radish Fields 2.524 Ricinus communis thickets – Castor Bean thickets 0.698
Ricinus communis Castor Bean/carnation spurge thickets 0.039 Rumex crispus Curly Dock Herbaceous Stands 0.556
Salix lasiolepis shrubland Alliance – Arroyo willow thickets 0.390 Schinus terrebinthifolius – Brazilian Pepper individuals 0.075 Schoenoplectus californicus and acutus Marsh Alliance – bulrush marsh 0.438 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Semi-Natural Stands 0.139 Total Vegetation/Land Use Acreage 7.13
Acacia redolens Ornamental Acacia Semi-Natural Thickets – Occurs at the southwest corner of the site in a single patch dominated by non-native desert carpet (Acacia redolens), which is considered to be an invasive species. 6 Ambrosia psilstachya (Western ragweed Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands – western ragweed stands – occur in limited areas between the wetland and bromus-dominated grassland.

Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance Mulefat Thickets – Occurs in limited patches along the southern edge of the wetland area.

Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance – Coyote brush thicket – Occurs in a small patch near the southwest corner of the site adjacent to the arroyo willow thicket immediately to the west of the coyote brush patch.

Carpobrotus edulis -Ice Plant Mats – Occurs as a single mat along the southern boundary of the site.

Cortedaria selloana Semi-Natural Herbaceous Stands Pampas grass patches – occur just below the western edge of the wetland consisting of a large patch of pampas grass mixed with areas of carnation spurge. Pampas grass is listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (CalIPC) as an invasive species and is considered to be highly aggressive.7 Developed – occurs at a small strip at the southernmost portion of the property consisting of road shoulder associated with Civic Center Way.

Distichlis spicata – Saltgrass Meadow – occurs along the northern approximately onethird of the wetland area and is dominated by monocultural stands of saltgrass. 6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acacia_redolens
7 https://www.cal-ipc.org/resources/library/publications/ipcw/report35/ 399
24 Distichlis spicata/Ambrosia psilostachya – Saltgrass Ragweed Meadow – occurs immediately north of the wetland areas as an upland transition between the saltgrass meadow and the bromus grasslands.

Eucalyptus globulus – blue gum eucalyptus individual – is located immediately outside the wetland within the wetland buffer adjacent to a Peruvian pepper.

Euphorbia terracina Carnation Spurge Semi-Natural Stands – spurge stands – occurs in small stands immediately west and north of the wetland area. Carnation spurge is listed by CalIPC as an invasive species of limited concern.8 Nevertheless, it is also
noted on the CalIPC website that: “Although carnation spurge was recently introduced to California and is not yet widely distributed, it has the potential to spread rapidly.

Like many other members of the spurge family, it produces toxic sap, and has allelopathic properties that reduce germination of native plants.” Helminthotheca echioides patches – Bristly ox tongue patches occur in the western portion of the site partly within the wetland buffer.

Malacothrix saxatalis – Cliff Aster Herbaceous Stands – Occurs on the slope along the southern edge of the property and consists of stands of cliff aster, a tall herbaceous annual plant with an understory of non-native grasses and forbs.

Phoenix canariensis individuals, Canary Island date palms – are scattered throughout the site.

Raphanus sativus Natural Stands – Wild Radish Fields – is the dominant vegetation alliance within the upland areas north and west of the wetland and includes a diversity of species including non-native grasses such as ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), garland chrysanthemum (Glebionis coronaria), and a variety of other non-native grasses and forbs.

Rumex crispus Curly Dock Herbaceous Stands – Occur within the wetland comprising approximately one-third of the cover between the areas of emergent bulrush and saltgrass. Curly dock is a non-native wetland plant and provides limited ecological function. Curly dock is listed by CalIPC as an invasive species of limited concern.9 Salix lasiolepis shrubland Alliance – Arroyo willow thickets – Occurs in a narrow stand at the southeast corner of the site, within or bordering the wetland. Area include non-native understory of carnation spurge and non-native upland grasses.

Schinus terrebinthifolius – Brazilian Pepper individuals – Occurs in a single patch near the northwest corner of the site. Brazilian pepper is list by CalIPC as a non-native invasive tree.10
8 https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profile/euphorbia-terracina-profile/ 9 https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profile/rumex-crispus-profile/ 10 https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profile/schinus-terebinthifolius-profile/ 400
25 Schoenoplectus californicus and acutus Marsh Alliance – bulrush marsh – Occurs within the southern one-third of the wetland area. California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus) is dominant near the eastern portion of the wetland with hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) dominant in the central and western portions of the wetland.

Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Semi-Natural Stands – occurs in the northwest portion of the site with an understory non-native grasses and forbs. Mexican fan palm is listed by CalIPC as an invasive species.11
Salix lasiolepis shrubland Alliance – Arroyo willow thickets – Occurs in a single thicket in the upper portions of the drainage and is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis).

4.1.2 Focused Botanical Surveys
The focused surveys for special-status plants identified no special-status species on the site as set forth in Appendix C. As noted, the areas outside of the wetlands are dominated by non-native grasses and forbs as well as a suite of invasive species such as the pampas grass, carnation spurge and others.

4.1.3 City of Malibu Protected Trees
The site contains no trees protected under the City of Malibu Protected Tree Ordinance.

4.2 Wildlife Resources
Birds observed during biological surveys include Red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), Allen’s hummingbird (Selasphorus sasin), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Ana’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), bushtit (Psaltriparus minimus), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), lesser goldfinch (Carduelis psaltria), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), and yellow-rumped warbler (Setophaga coronata).

No reptiles were observed during biological surveys; however, common species are expected to occur, including western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis) and sideblotched lizard (Uta stansburiana).

No mammals were observed during biological surveys; however, common small mammal species are expected to occur, including Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) and deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus). As noted in Table 3.3, the Property contains very limited potential habitat for two special-status bat species, including western red bat which utilizes willows and other trees typically associated with riparian areas, and western yellow bats which use dead palm fronds on Mexican fan palms and as such could 11 https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/profile/washingtonia-robusta-profile/ 401
26 occur on the property in limited numbers. While bat surveys were determined to be unnecessary due to the lack of potential impacts because no willow trees would be affected by the restoration project, the restoration would remove one Mexican fan palm from the 100-foot buffer area which has at least minimal potential for impacts to western yellow bat as addressed in more detail in the impact and project design feature sections below.

Appendix B provides a complete list of wildlife species detected and within the Study Area.

4.2.1 Special-Status Wildlife Habitat Assessments
Due to the high level of disturbance on the site, the site does not support habitat expected to support special-status animals except for the western red bat and western yellow bat discussed above and addressed in the impact sections below.

4.2.2 Wildlife Movement
The site is within a largely developed area that includes Pacific Coast Highway just beyond the southern edge of the site, existing residential development to the west with a mix of developed areas and undeveloped areas to the west and north. The site is not part of a regional or local wildlife movement corridor.

4.3 Special-Status Habitats
According to the CNDDB (2019), eight special-status habitats occur within the Burbank quadrangle and the five surrounding quadrangles (Triunfo Pass, Newbury Park, Thousand Oaks, Calabasas, and Malibu Beach) including southern California arroyo chub/Santa Ana sucker stream, Riversidian alluvial fan sage scrub, southern coast live oak riparian forest, southern cottonwood willow riparian forest, southern mixed riparian forest, southern sycamore alder riparian woodland, California walnut woodland, and walnut forest. None of the above-mentioned special-status habitats occur within the Study Area.

Additionally, none of the habitats occurring within the Study Area are considered specialstatus. 12 4.4 Jurisdictional Features
The site contains a wetland at the southeast corner of the site covering 1.84 acres. A detailed wetland delineation report is attached as Appendix D which includes a detailed 12 Habitats in California are generally considered special-status when they have either a state ranking of S3 or less or global ranking of S3 or less, meaning that there are 50,000 acres or less of such habitats. The native habitats present on site have rankings of either G4S4 or G5S5, indicating that they are either apparently secure or demonstrably secure in California. The natural communities list and state and global rankings can be found at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities#sensitive%20natural%20communities 402
27 description of the methods used to determine the wetland boundaries as well as a discussion of the wetland characteristics, including wetland vegetation, hydric soils and wetland hydrology.

The wetland supports a mosaic of native and non-native vegetation including the Schoenoplectus californicus and acutus Marsh Alliance – bulrush marsh, which occurs within the southern one-third of the wetland area; California bulrush (Schoenoplectus californicus), which is dominant near the eastern portion of the wetland; hardstem bulrush (Schoenoplectus acutus) dominant in the central and western portions of the wetland; and Rumex crispus Curly Dock Herbaceous Stands, which occur within approximately one-third of the wetland between the areas of emergent bulrush and saltgrass. Curly dock is a non-native wetland plant and provides limited ecological function. As noted above, curly dock is listed by CalIPC as an invasive species of limited concern. The northern approximately one-third of the wetland consists of Distichlis spicata – Saltgrass Meadow.

4.4.1 Wetland and ESHA Pursuant to Malibu LCP
As noted above, the entirety of the 7.19-acre site is designated as ESHA on the City of Malibu ESHA and Marine Resources Map 3: Dan Blocker to Malibu Pier map [Exhibit 4].13 However, as discussed below, most of the site supports non-native vegetation alliances including areas with non-native invasive species. Of the remaining 5.35 acres outside the wetland 4.82 acres consist of non-native vegetation alliances, which equates to 90-percent. The 1.84-acre wetland area at the southeast corner of the site meets the City’s wetland criteria, but the remainder of the site does not support native habitats defined in the City of Malibu LCP as ESHA, including: stream/riparian, woodland, coastal bluff, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, or other ESHA.

4.4.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Section 1602 Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife.

CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow 13 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-maps-8mm2.pdf 403
28 that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” CDFW's definition of “lake” includes “natural lakes or man-made reservoirs.” CDFW also defines a stream as “a body of water that flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.”
It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines wildlife to include “all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities, including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability” (FGC Division 0.5, Chapter 1, section 89.5). Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities.

The 1.84-acre wetland does not meet CDFW’s definition of a stream or lake and would not be subject to the notification requirements of Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. As discussed in the impacts section below, the project would not impact the wetland and no additional analysis of the feature under Section 1602 is required.

4.4.3 Corps Jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The 1.84-acre wetland exhibits a predominance of wetland vegetation and thus meets the definition of a wetland pursuant to the City of Malibu LCP definition as well as the wetland definition in the Coastal Act. The wetland area does not exhibit wetland hydrology as defined by the Corps’ Arid West Supplement, which defines wetland hydrology as inundation or saturation in 50/100 years. The wetland also lacks indicators for the presence of hydric soils; thus, the area is not a wetland regulated as a WOTUS pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. As noted, the wetland is fully avoided by the project with a 100-foot setback.

5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following discussion examines the potential impacts to plant and wildlife resources that may occur as a result of implementation of the Proposed Restoration Project.

Project-related impacts can occur in two forms, direct and indirect. Direct impacts are those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of plant communities, which in turn, directly affect the flora and fauna of those habitats. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability.

The potential for significant adverse effects, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any special-status plant, animal, or habitat that could occur because of the wetland buffer restoration project is discussed below. 404
29 5.1 CEQA Thresholds of Significance
Environmental impacts relative to biological resources are assessed using impact significance threshold criteria, which reflect the policy statement contained in CEQA, Section 21001(c) of the California Public Resources Code. Accordingly, the State Legislature has established it to be the policy of the State of California:
“Prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, ensure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below selfperpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities...”
In accordance with Appendix G (Environmental Checklist Form) to the State CEQA Guidelines, the Project would have a significant biota impact if it would:
(a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
(b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
(d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
(e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
(f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

5.2 (a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
405
30 5.2.1 Special-Status Plants
No special-status plants were detected during focused botanical surveys and no specialstatus plant species are expected to occur on the site, including within the wetland buffer that will be subject to restoration efforts, due to a lack of suitable habitat.

5.2.2 Special-Status Wildlife
No special-status wildlife was detected during general wildlife surveys and no specialstatus species are expected to occur on the site, including within the wetland buffer that will be subject to restoration efforts, due to a lack of suitable habitat.

5.3 (b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
The subject site does not contain any streams or lakes and there is no riparian habitat subject to Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. The proposed project would result in weeding and maintenance impacts to 12 vegetation alliances/land use types that are dominated by non-native species listed in Table 5-1 below. The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any vegetation types identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations of the CDFG or USFWS. Furthermore, native vegetation alliances that occur within the 1.69-acre buffer such as coyote brush thicket, arroyo willow thicket, and saltgrass meadow would not be impacted other than removal of non-native species from these alliances. Thus, there would be no impact to native vegetation alliances associated with the restoration project.

Table 5-1. Summary of Vegetation Alliances/Land Use Types Within Buffer Vegetation Alliances/Land Use Type Area (Acres)
Acacia redolens Ornamental Acacia Semi-Natural Thickets 0.000 Ambrosia psilstachya– western ragweed stands 0.026
Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance – Coyote brush thicket 0.012 Baccharis salicifolia Shrubland Alliance Mulefat Thickets 0.000 Carpobrotus edulis -Ice Plant Mats 0.000
Cortedaria selloana Semi-Natural Stands - Pampas grass patches 0.156 Developed 0.000
Distichlis spicata – Saltgrass Meadow 0.046
Echium candicans, - Pride of Madeira stand 0.009
Eucalyptus globulus – blue gum eucalyptus individual 0.010 Euphorbia terracina Carnation Spurge Stands – spurge stands 0.176 406
31 Carnation Spurge/saltgrass – carnation spurge/saltgrass stands 0.062 Helminthotheca echioides patches – Bristly ox tongue patches 0.011 Malacothrix saxatalis – Cliff Aster Herbaceous Stands 0.007 Ornamental 0.001
Phoenix canariensis individuals, Canary Island date palms 0.056 Raphanus sativus Natural Stands – Wild Radish Fields 0.695 Ricinus communis thickets – Castor Bean thickets 0.399
Ricinus communis Castor Bean/carnation spurge thickets 0.00 Rumex crispus Curly Dock Herbaceous Stands 0.00
Salix lasiolepis shrubland Alliance – Arroyo willow thickets 0.009 Schinus terrebinthifolius – Brazilian Pepper individuals 0.012 Schoenoplectus californicus and acutus Marsh Alliance – bulrush marsh 0.000 Washingtonia robusta Mexican Fan Palm Semi-Natural Stands 0.004 Total Vegetation/Land Use Acreage 1.69

5.4 (c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? As noted, the southeast corner of the site contains a wetland as defined under the Coastal Act. The site does not contain wetlands as defined under the Clean Water Act. The restoration project has been designed to fully avoid the wetland apart from hand removal of non-native plants such as curly dock. The restoration project would provide a benefit for the 100-foot buffer as set forth in the City of Malibu project conditions and thus would have no adverse impacts on wetlands as defined under the Coastal Act.

5.5 (d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

5.5.1 Wildlife Movement
The site is located within a largely developed area that includes Pacific Coast Highway just beyond the southern edge of the site, existing residential development to the west, with a mix of developed areas and undeveloped areas to the west and north. The site is not part of a regional or local wildlife movement corridor. The site also does not support wildlife nursery sites. The proposed wetland buffer restoration project would not result in impacts to wildlife movement or nursery sites.
407
32 5.5.2 Nesting Birds and Migratory Bird Treaty Act Considerations The site proposed for wetland buffer restoration currently contains mostly non-native groundcover and a mix of native and non-native shrubs and trees that have the potential to support nesting birds and the site supports a small number of large ornamental nonnative trees that exhibit potential for supporting raptor nests.

The proposed Project would have no impact on the nests of migratory birds. If any trees are removed during the nesting season (February 1 to August 31), project-specific design measures assure there would be no impacts to nests.

No raptor nests were detected in any of the onsite ornamental trees located within the Project site. Therefore, based on current conditions, the proposed Project would not affect any special-status raptors and the Project's impact on special-status raptors would be clearly insignificant and unlikely to occur. Furthermore, no impacts to common raptors species are expected based on current conditions; however, should special-status or common species of raptors establish nests in the future in any of the onsite ornamental trees prior to their removal, or within existing adjacent offsite trees, the project design features would ensure there are no impacts to special-status or common raptor species during nesting.

5.5.3 Roosting Bats
The wetland buffer includes a single Mexican fan palm that exhibits potential to support roosting bats. To ensure that a maternity roost is not impacted by removal of the Mexican fan palm, removal will be conducted outside the maternity roost season (April 1 to August 31).

5.6 (e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

5.6.1 City of Malibu ESHA Designation
As noted, a wetland covering 1.84-acres occupies the southeast corner of the Property and will be avoided, except for removal of non-native plants within the wetland. The remainder of the 7.19-acre site is largely dominated by upland non-native forbs and grasses of Mediterranean origin, including forbs such as wild radish, black mustard, and garland-chrysanthemum. Other areas adjacent to the wetland extending across the property support non-native invasive species as listed on the CalIPC website, including pampas grass, carnation spurge, Brazilian pepper, Mexican fan palm, and desert carpet.

These areas do not meet any of the categories of ESHA listed in the LCP (i.e., Woodland ESHA, Coastal Bluff ESHA, Coastal Sage ESHA, or Chaparral ESHA).

Furthermore, the area outside of the wetland does not support any other special-status habitats or habitats capable of supporting special-status plants or animals as documented 408
33 during focused plant surveys and general wildlife surveys. Specifically, except for the

1.84-acre wetland, the site does not contain any of the following areas set forth in the LCP as potential ESHA:

1. Any habitat area that is rare or especially valuable from a local, regional, or statewide basis.

2. Any habitat area that contributes to the viability of plant or animal species that are designated or are candidates for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal law.

3. Any habitat area that contributes to the viability of species that are designated “fully protected” or “species of special concern” under State law or regulations.

Rather, the area outside of the wetland, including the 100-foot wetland buffer to be restored, should be removed from the City’s ESHA and Marine Resources Map 3: Dan Blocker to Malibu Pier map14 because it exhibits no biological functions consistent with the current ESHA designation in accordance with the City of Malibu LCP provisions:

The project has been designed to avoid impacts to the 1.84-acre wetland and associated 100-foot wetland buffer other than the beneficial effects associated with restoration of the 100-foot buffer. Therefore, restoration of the buffer would not result in impacts to ESHA as defined by the City of Malibu LCP.
14 https://www.coastal.ca.gov/ventura/malibu-maps-8mm2.pdf 409
34 5.7 (f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The Project site does not fall within a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area or within a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) area and as such would not conflict with provisions of a habitat or natural community conservation plan. Thus, impacts would not be significant.
410
35 6.0 REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game. 2019 (February). Special Animals. State of California Resources Agency, Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2019 (February). State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. February 2019. California Natural Diversity Database: RareFind 2. Records of occurrence for U.S.G.S. 7.5- minute Quadrangle maps: Point Dume, Triunfo Pass, Newbury Park, Thousand Oaks, Calabasas, and Malibu Beach. California Department of Fish and Game, State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.

California Native Plant Society. 2019. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. (Seventh Edition). http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgibin/inv/inventory.cgi Collins, J. T. 1990. Standard common and scientific names for North American amphibians and reptiles. Herpetological Circular (25), 4th ed. Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles, Lawrence, Kansas.

Hanes, T.L. 1977. California chaparral. Pp. 417-470. In M.G. Barbour and J. Major (eds.), Terrestrial Vegetation of California. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program, California Department of Fish and Game.

Jones, J. K., R. S. Hoffman, D. W. Rice, C. Jones, R. S. Baker, and M. D. Engstrom. 1992. Revised checklist of North American mammals North of Mexico, 1991.

Occasional Papers The Museum Texas Tech University (146):1-23.

Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp.

Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. J. Smith and R. York (eds.). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society.

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native Plant Society.
p:1373-3_Smith Biotech-102124(2).docx
411
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
412
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 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY Exhibit 2 PROJECT LOCATION 413
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\VegetationGIS\1373-04_Vegetation.mxd ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Vegetation Map
Exhibit 3
Aerial Source: Nearmap (January 2024)
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD83
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: September 23, 2024
Civic Center Way
Pacific Coast Highway
Parcel Boundary
Wetland & ESHA Boundary 2023
Restoration Area
within 100' Buffer (1.69 ac.)
Arroyo Willow Thicket
Acacia
Bristly Oxtongue
Bulrush
Canary Palm
Carnation Spurge
Carnation Spurge / Salt Grass
Castor Bean
Castor Bean / Carnation Spurge
Coyote Brush
Curly Dock
Eucalyptus
Iceplant
Mexican Fan Palm
Mulefat Thicket
Ornamental
Pampas Grass
Peruvian Pepper
Pine
Pride of Madiera
Upland Radish Fields
Saltgrass
Shortpod Mustard / Cliff Aster
Western Ragweed
Developed
0 35 70 140
Feet
1 inch = 70 feet
414
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-03MALB\1373-3_GIS\1373-3Smith\ESHA_GIS\1373-03_Smith_MalibuESHA_MarineResources.mxd 0 700 1,400 2,800
Feet
±
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY LLC
Malibu ESHA and Marine Resources Map
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: August 20, 2024
1 inch = 1,400 feet
Project Site
Environmentally Sensitive
Habitat Area (ESHA)
415
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (August 2002)
Exhibit 5A
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
416
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (October 2007)
Exhibit 5B
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
417
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (December 2013)
Exhibit 5C
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
418
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (May 2015)
Exhibit 5D
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
419
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (October 2016)
Exhibit 5E
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
420
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (November 2018)
Exhibit 5F
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
421
X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1373-04CIVI\GIS\HistoricAerialsGIS\1373-04_HistoricWetlandLandUse.mxd 0 30 60 120 Feet ±

PROPERTY AT
23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY
Historic Wetland and Land Use (August 2019)
Exhibit 5G
Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83
Projection: Lambert Conformal Conic
Datum: NAD 1983 2011
Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLA
Date Prepared: November 20, 2024
1 inch = 60 feet
Civic Center Way
Approximate
Project Site
Wetland Boundary
Outflow
422

APPENDIX A

FLORAL COMPENDIUM
423
APPENDIX A: FLORAL COMPENDIUM
The floral compendium lists species identified on the project site. Taxonomy follows the Jepson Manual (Baldwin et al 2012) and, for sensitive species, the California Native Plant Society's Rare Plant Inventory (Tibor 2001). Common plant names are taken from Hickman (1993), Munz (1974), and Roberts et al (2004). An asterisk (*) denotes a non-native species.

Scientific Name Common Name

MAGNOLIOPHYTA FLOWERING PLANTS

DICOTYLEDONS DICOTS
ADOXACEAE Elderberry Family
Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea blue elderberry
AIZOACEAE Fig-Marigold Family
*Carpobrotus edulis ice plant
ANACARDIACEAE Sumac Family
Rhus intrifolia lemonade berry
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper
APIACEAE Carrot Family
*Conium maculatum poison hemlock
*Foeniculum vulgare sweet fennel
ASTERACEAE Sunflower Family
Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed
Artemisia douglasiana California mugwort
Baccharis pilularis Coyote bush
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
Encelia californica California bush sunflower
Glebionis coronaria garland chrysanthemum
*Helminthotheca echioides bristly ox-tongue
*Hedypnois cretica crete weed
Malacothrix saxatilis cliff aster
*Sonchus asper spiny sowthistle
BORAGINACEAE Borage Family
Echium candicans Pride of Madeira
BRASSICACEAE Mustard Family
*Brassica nigra black mustard
424
*Brassica rapa field mustard
Hirschfeldia incana summer mustard
*Raphanus sativus wild radish
CARYOPHYLLIACEAE Pink Family
*Silene gallica windmill pink
CHENOPODIACEAE Goosefoot Family
*Chenopodium album lamb’s quarters
*Chenopodium murale nettle leaf goosefoot
*Salsola tragus Russian thistle
CONVOLVULACEAE Morning Glory Family
Calystegia macrostegia island morning glory
CUCURBITACEAE Cucumber Family
Marah macrocarpa wild cucumber
EUPHORBIACEAE Spurge Family
Euphorbia albomarginata rattlesnake sandmat
*Euphorbia terracina Geraldton carnation weed
*Ricinus communis castor bean
FABACEAE Pea Family
Acacia redolens golden wattle
Acmispon glaber deerweed
*Medicago polymorpha bur clover
*Melilotus albus white sweetclover
*Melilotus indicus annual yellow sweetclover
GERANIACEAE Geranium Family
*Erodium botrys long-billed filaree
*Erodium cicutarium red stemmed filaree
MALVACEAE Mallow Family
*Malva parviflora cheeseweed
*Malva sylvestris high mallow
MYRSINACEAE Primrose Family
*Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel
MYRTACEAE Myrtle Family
*Eucalyptus sp. eucalyptus
425
OXALIDACEAE Wood Sorrel Family
*Oxalis pes-caprae sourgrass
POLYGONACEAE Buckwheat Family
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Persicaria lapathifolia common knotweed
*Rumex crispus curly dock
SALICACEAE Willow Family
Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow
SOLANACEAE Nightshade Family
Solanum nigrum black nightshade
Solanum sp. nightshade species
VERBENACEAE Vervain Family
Verbena lasiostachys common verbena

MONOCOTYLEDONES MONOCOTS

ARECACEAE
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm

CYPERACEAE
Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge
Schoenoplectus acutus hardstem bulrush
Schoenoplectus americanus American bulrush
Schoenoplectus californicus California bulrush
IRIDACEAE Iris Family
Sisyrinchium bellum blue eyed grass
POACEAE Grass Family
*Avena barbata slender oat
*Bromus hordeaceus soft brome
*Bromus diandrus ripgut brome
*Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens red brome
*Cortedaria selloana pampas grass
Distichlis spicata saltgrass
Leymus condensatus giant wild rye
Leymus triticoides alkali wild rye
*Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
*Polypogon monspeliensis rabbitsfoot grass
426

APPENDIX B

FAUNAL COMPENDIUM
427

APPENDIX B

FAUNAL COMPENDIUM
The faunal compendium lists species identified on the Project site. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow Collins (2009) for amphibians and reptiles, Bradley, et al. (2014) for mammals, and AOU Checklist (1998) for birds. An (*) denotes non-native species.

REPTILIA REPTILES
ANGUIDAE Alligator Lizards And Relatives
Elgaria multicarinata southern alligator lizard

AVES BIRDS
COLUMBIDAE Pigeons And doves
* Columba livia rock pigeon
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
TROCHILIDAE Hummingbirds
Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird
Selasphorus sasin Allen’s hummingbird
PICIDAE Woodpeckers And Allies
Colaptes auratus northern flicker
Picoides pubescens downey woodpecker

TYRANNIDAE Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe
CORVIDAE Crows And Jays
Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Corvus corax common raven
AEGITHALIDAE Long-Tailed Tits And Bushtits
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit
TROGLODYTIDAE Wrens
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren
MIMIDAE Mockingbirds And Thrashers
Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird
428
Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher
PARULIDAE Wood Warblers And Relatives
Dendroica coronata yellow-rumped warbler

EMBERIZIDAE Emberizids
Pipilo crissalis California towhee
Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee
Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow
FRINGILLIDAE Fringilline And Cardueline Finches and
Allies
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch
429

APPENDIX C

RARE PLANT MEMORANDUM
430

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
1940 E Deere Avenue, Suite 250 ● Santa Ana, California 92705 ● 949.837.0404 PROJECT NUMBER: 1373-3MALB
TO: Robert Savosh
FROM: Tony Bomkamp
DATE: September 14, 2021
SUBJECT: Rare Plant Surveys for 7.19-Acre Smith Parcel, City of Malibu, California Glenn Lukos Associates (GLA) focused rare plant surveys on June 25, 2018 as well as April 4, and May 21, 2019 for the above-referenced site. Surveys were conducted by GLA Senior Biologist following meandering transects within target areas of suitable habitat.

Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region surrounding the Study Area was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included the following:
• California Native Plant Society Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/; and • California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB 2019) for the USGS 7.5’ Malibu Beach quadrangle which contains the Study Area, and the eight surrounding quadrangles including Point Dume, Topanga, Thousand Oaks, Calabasas, and Canoga Park.

Table 1 below is a list of special-status plants evaluated for their potential presence on the property. Species were evaluated based on several factors, including (1) species identified by the CNDDB as occurring (either currently or historically) on or near the subject site using the abovereferenced USGS quadrangles and (2) any other special-status plants that are known to occur within the vicinity of the subject site, or for which potentially suitable habitat occurs within the Study Area.

RESULTS
The subject site is currently undeveloped. The northern approximately half of the parcel consists of non-native 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). A 431

MEMORANDUM
September 14, 2021

Page 2 ends

Malibu City CouncilSeptember 25, 2025

Malibu City Council
September 25, 2025