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. 757
MEMORANDUM
December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]
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) 758
MEMORANDUM
December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]
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.
759
MEMORANDUM
December 12, 2022 [Updated July 31, 2023]
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.
760
1 City Council
Subject: Wetlands meeting on the 14th
From: Beate
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:46 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetlands meeting on the 14th
I have written before about this, "regarding these stupidly disappearing worldwide precious wetlands, especially this one, which I overlooked from Colony View Circle my whole childhood!"
Saturday, June 7, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: what's the story on wetlands on Civic Center Way? but I wanted to focus on the size aspect.
The Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following:
Seasonal wetlands @ 3:1 ratio, and restored as ESHA (being the number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted).
In 2020, illegal disking of this entire property occurred destroying seven+ acres of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. You should PROTECT and restore the full 7.13 acres Wetland area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important ecosystem in our City. 2015: in order to reduce flooding, 54,000 acres of the Bay Area’s wetlands will need restoration within the next 15 years...
https://www.thesfnews.com/san-francisco-wetlands-restoration-has-become-crucial/23415 Long Beach, 2,400 acres, currently privately owned and used for oil operations: The wetlands in the Los Cerritos complex have been sought by public agencies and environmentalists for habitat conservation for over 20 years. Since this site is one of the few remaining opportunities in southern California for restoration of estuarine habitat, the acquisition of these properties is a top priority regionally. ~ California State Coastal Conservancy
More than half of wetlands in the lower 48 states are gone, and more than 90% of California wetlands have been destroyed.
According to our National Wetlands Inventory Program, losses averaged 80,000 acres per year between 2004 and 2009. “The reasons for these losses are multiple, but the results are clear – wetland loss leads to the reduced health, safety and prosperity of all Americans,” said Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and 761
2 Wildlife Service. “This report serves as a call to action to stop and reverse wetland loss and ensure we continue to provide future generations with clean water, protection against natural disasters, and resilience to climate change and sea level rise, as well as habitat for many plants and animals.” https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-03/continued-decline-wetlands-documented-new-us-fishand-wildlife-service-report Please make sure these violations of our own small wetlands system are corrected in toto, as per the LIC. The Lagoon portion was handled questionably (restoration design focused on visitor experience at the cost of ecological function; the benthic invertebrate and fish community steadily declined in the years after the initial restoration), since repaired, and surprisingly that was 12 acres, so adding 7.13 seems healthy, esp. as Topanga Lagoon is also being re-designed. The Topanga Lagoon Restoration Project Area has undergone unbelievable changes due to the Palisades Fire. Project partners are currently assessing the effects on the Project Area Hundreds of endangered tidewater gobies were returned to their home in Topanga Lagoon five months after being moved
https://www.popsci.com/environment/rescued-fish-malibu-wildfire/ Thank you!
--
All the Best, Beate Nilsen
762
1 City Council
Subject: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
From: B. Wadkins
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:17 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
763
Attention City Council: July 2025
To: [email protected]
c.c. [email protected]
RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Name
Barbara Wadkins
25 years in Malibu
764
1 City Council
Subject: Wetlands
From: Candace Dwan
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 2:41 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetlands
Save the full 7 acre wetland!
Candace Dwan
Sent from my iPhone
765
1 City Council
Subject: Please save the wetlands
-----Original Message-----
From: Carla Lejade
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 11:21 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Please save the wetlands
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address.
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any acƟons.
It's a rare commodity and is a treasure in the middle of our community. We won't ever get it back . I urge you to support complete restoraƟon.
Carla Lejade
766
1 City Council
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
From: Merrill Markoe
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 7:38 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
Dear City Council:
Please do the correct and ecologically important thing and pass whatever legislation is needed to restore and protect the Malibu wetlands. Please stop any development of this area. We have more than enough empty over-priced buildings in Malibu to house any additional businesses that can afford them. Have a look around. They are everywhere.
Protecting and preserving nature should be our first priority. --
Now for the part where I tell you my name:
Merrill Markoe
40 year resident of Pt. Dume
767
768
1 City Council
Subject: Wetlands
From: Candace Dwan
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 2:41 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetlands
Save the full 7 acre wetland!
Candace Dwan
Sent from my iPhone
769
1 City Council
Subject: Wetlands meeting on the 14th
From: Beate
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:46 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetlands meeting on the 14th
I have written before about this, "regarding these stupidly disappearing worldwide precious wetlands, especially this one, which I overlooked from Colony View Circle my whole childhood!"
Saturday, June 7, 2025 11:35 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Planning Commission <[email protected]>
Subject: what's the story on wetlands on Civic Center Way? but I wanted to focus on the size aspect.
The Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following:
Seasonal wetlands @ 3:1 ratio, and restored as ESHA (being the number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted).
In 2020, illegal disking of this entire property occurred destroying seven+ acres of Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area. You should PROTECT and restore the full 7.13 acres Wetland area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important ecosystem in our City. 2015: in order to reduce flooding, 54,000 acres of the Bay Area’s wetlands will need restoration within the next 15 years...
https://www.thesfnews.com/san-francisco-wetlands-restoration-has-become-crucial/23415 Long Beach, 2,400 acres, currently privately owned and used for oil operations: The wetlands in the Los Cerritos complex have been sought by public agencies and environmentalists for habitat conservation for over 20 years. Since this site is one of the few remaining opportunities in southern California for restoration of estuarine habitat, the acquisition of these properties is a top priority regionally. ~ California State Coastal Conservancy
More than half of wetlands in the lower 48 states are gone, and more than 90% of California wetlands have been destroyed.
According to our National Wetlands Inventory Program, losses averaged 80,000 acres per year between 2004 and 2009. “The reasons for these losses are multiple, but the results are clear – wetland loss leads to the reduced health, safety and prosperity of all Americans,” said Martha Williams, Director of the U.S. Fish and 770
2 Wildlife Service. “This report serves as a call to action to stop and reverse wetland loss and ensure we continue to provide future generations with clean water, protection against natural disasters, and resilience to climate change and sea level rise, as well as habitat for many plants and animals.” https://www.fws.gov/press-release/2024-03/continued-decline-wetlands-documented-new-us-fishand-wildlife-service-report Please make sure these violations of our own small wetlands system are corrected in toto, as per the LIC. The Lagoon portion was handled questionably (restoration design focused on visitor experience at the cost of ecological function; the benthic invertebrate and fish community steadily declined in the years after the initial restoration), since repaired, and surprisingly that was 12 acres, so adding 7.13 seems healthy, esp. as Topanga Lagoon is also being re-designed. The Topanga Lagoon Restoration Project Area has undergone unbelievable changes due to the Palisades Fire. Project partners are currently assessing the effects on the Project Area Hundreds of endangered tidewater gobies were returned to their home in Topanga Lagoon five months after being moved
https://www.popsci.com/environment/rescued-fish-malibu-wildfire/ Thank you!
--
All the Best, Beate Nilsen
771
1 City Council
Subject: Please save the wetlands
-----Original Message-----
From: Carla Lejade
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 11:21 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Please save the wetlands
Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address.
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any acƟons.
It's a rare commodity and is a treasure in the middle of our community. We won't ever get it back . I urge you to support complete restoraƟon.
Carla Lejade
772
1 City Council
Subject: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
From: B. Wadkins
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:17 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
773
Attention City Council: July 2025
To: [email protected]
c.c. [email protected]
RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Name
Barbara Wadkins
25 years in Malibu
774
1 City Council
Subject: Protect wildlife petition letter
From: Gosha's Organics
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 6:15 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Protect wildlife petition letter
To whom it may concern.
It is imperative to save this land for the wildlife, please don’t be calculative and short visioned while making decision. We owe it to our land and, our ancestors and our future generations.
Gosia Steele
775
Attention City Council: July 2025
To: [email protected]
c.c. [email protected]
RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Name
Years Lived in Malibu
776
1 City Council
Subject: ATTENTION CITY COUNCIL RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland From: Jane Fileff
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 10:57 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: ATTENTION CITY COUNCIL RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Jane Fileff
Owner and resident in Malibu for 26 years
Sent from my iPhone
777
1 City Council
Subject: Wetlands At 23855 Civic Center Way in Malibu
From: MAURA LUCUS
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 6:32 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetlands At 23855 Civic Center Way in Malibu
Please instruct the planni ng commi ssion to PROTECT and restor e the full 7 acre Wetl and area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important e cosystem i n our City. Regards, Maura Lucus Please instruct the planning commission to PROTECT and restore the full 7 acre Wetland area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important ecosystem in our City.
Regards,
Maura Lucus
778
1 City Council
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
From: Merrill Markoe
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 7:38 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
Dear City Council:
Please do the correct and ecologically important thing and pass whatever legislation is needed to restore and protect the Malibu wetlands. Please stop any development of this area. We have more than enough empty over-priced buildings in Malibu to house any additional businesses that can afford them. Have a look around. They are everywhere.
Protecting and preserving nature should be our first priority. --
Now for the part where I tell you my name:
Merrill Markoe
40 year resident of Pt. Dume
779
780
2 Thank you for your consideration.
Jo Drummond
On behalf of Malibu Township Council
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SzrHYe2zcXJnu1-om2jmXoClW0zys3hw/view?usp=sharing 781
782
783
3 The attached February 2023 photo below shows the wet areas to be even larger, consistent with the Psomos 2002 report indicating a total of 3.4 acres. Note that the area surrounding the palm trees is often wet or damp throughout the year, indicating the likelihood of hydric plants.
Additionally, during the Planning Commission hearing on February 5, 2024, Tony Bomkamp testified that the City recently enlarged a storm drain at Stuart Ranch Road and Civic Center Way, which drains the wetland when water levels are high, effectively draining an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and violating the Clean Water Act. This outflow must be addressed immediately by the City’s Public Works Department, as it negatively impacts biodiversity, wildlife, and climate regulation.
What is not addressed in the City’s restoration plan is the actual code regulating wetland restoration.
Malibu LIP Section 4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
As stewards for our natural environment and rural community, we ask our City Council members to restore the entire
7.13-acre property that has been illegally disked repeatedly, to bring back this beautiful treasure of Malibu. The wetland area, having burned in the Franklin Fire, should maintain a safe firebreak from future wildfires and should be easier to restore the native habitat than prior to the fire.
Thank you for your service to our community and for protecting this precious ecological and environmentally sensitive area that is home to many flora, fowl and fauna.
784
4 Sincerely,
Jo Drummond
On behalf of Malibu Township Council
May 2020 after last disking March 2025 recovering after the fires Note how wet it is far into the proposed buffer area in the video (attached) of this illegal drilling activity occurring on Jan 30/20
785
5 Established to promote, stimulate and further community spirit, to sponsor any project of merit that may benefit any district of Malibu Township, to foster and promote the cultural development of the Township; and in general, to do all things that tend to build and uphold the character of this residential area. — Malibu Township Council Articles of Incorporation, January 2, 1947 786
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
FROM: EDITH READ, PHD
SUBJECT: CDP NO. 22-040 HABITAT RESTORATION AT 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY (AKA
SMITH PARCEL)
DATE: JULY 9, 2025
At your request, I have prepared this memo to update and correct habitat information that has been reported as part of the permitting process for restoring an area where unpermitted disking occurred on this parcel.
In this case, I support my delineation reported in 2018, which identified 2.8 acres of wetland area, larger than the 1.74 acres stated by GLA in their July 2023 memo. Adding a buffer of 1.69 acres to be restored adjacent to the wetland, the total area of native habitat (wetland and upland buffer) would be 4.49 acres. Based on review of June 2023 data in the GLA report, the discrepancy between their wetland delineation and mine can be attributed to native plants mostly associated with seasonal (ephemeral) wetlands at locations that meet the one-parameter State definition of a wetland due to presence of hydrophytic plants. GLA’s data points from 2023 that are located in the area I delineated, but are outside of their northern 2023 boundary, show cover by saltgrass (Distichliss spicata) in the range of 20% to 75%. This includes sample point #8, which is stated to be in a wetland. At sample point 15, alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) was present at 20% cover, yet the data sheet states that hydrophytic vegetation was not present, even though this species is considered to be obligate to wetlands.
Ideally, the entire property should be restored and preserved as habitat (perennial wetland, seasonal wetland, transition, upland).
If there are any questions on this matter I can be reached at and .
787
1 City Council
Subject: Public Comment to Item 5B, July 15, 2025 City Council meeting agenda item From: Mari Stanley
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 2:30 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment to Item 5B, July 15, 2025 City Council meeting agenda item Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing this evening in full support of the appeal and request that you honor the request of the appellants who represent my views and have my eager support in this matter.
I appreciate every step of the work and stewardship put forth to resolve the unpermitted actions on the property and feel confidant that Malibu Township Council and Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth are representing my own interests competently, professionally and stand on the good merits that they have built as well as achieved throughout the long standing protections of both entities. They speak for this household, both of us as invested voters seek to continue our local focus on the foundation of this rural community that strongly imbues protections for the multitude of species of plant and animal life that we have here or visit via migratory patterns.
Thank you,
Mari & Mace Stanley
Pt Dume
788
1 City Council
Subject: Item 5B July 14, 2025 City Council meeting/From Leticia Aloi From: Leticia Aloi
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 3:10 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: LETICIA ALOI
Subject: Item 5B July 14, 2025 City Council meeting/From Leticia Aloi July
10,2024
Re: Item 5B - July 14,2025 Council
Meeting
Dear City Council
,
My name is Leticia Aloi, and I am a resident/owner in Malibu Canyon Village. My condo overlooks the Smith Wetland.
On May 29, 2020, I observed large bulldozers disking all of this ESHA parcel except for the wetland pond area behind my
home. They even disked the western portion of the wetland habitat abutting the wetland pond which was never touched in all the previous years of brush clearance in an attempt to gain access to this land locked property from Civic Center Way (see photo 1) These activities were carried out by Third Point, the company that owned the land at that time. What occurred in 2020 was far more extensive and destructive than the brush clearance performed in previous years.
The land in question is designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), which is subject to strict protections under California Coastal Act and the Malibu LIP.
The extent of the disking has resulted in the degradation of critical habitat and disruption of the ecological balance that the ESHA designation is meant to protect.
I respectfully urge you to:
789
2 1. Investigate the 2020 disking incident to determine the full scope of environmental damage and
regulatory violations which is far greater than what
the Lukos delineation determined.
2. Hold Third Point’s successor accountable for these
actions, including any penalties or mitigation measures required under state or local environmental law.
3. Ensure full restoration of the damaged property
including the wetlands to their original natural state, including reestablishment of upland native vegetation
and wildlife habitats.
4. Malibu’s wetlands are a vital ecological resource,
and their protection is not just a legal obligation, but a moral one. I trust that the Council shares this
commitment and will act decisively to restore and
safeguard this critical habitat.
Please see attached pictures for your review.
Sincerely,
Leticia Aloi
790
3 791
4 792
5 793
1 City Council
Subject: Wetland
From: Jane Warden
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 5:07 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetland
To Whom It May Concern:
It is vital to restore the enƟre 7 acres of remaining Malibu wetland next to the Civic Center. Piece by piece, Malibu is being destroyed and turned into a mall and parking lot like anything you could find in the valley. We must do beƩer.
Jane Warden
Sent from my iPad
794
1 City Council
Subject: Please Vote for True Healing
From: Kristine Szabo
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:23 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Vote for True Healing
Dear City Council Members,
I’m writing to respectfully urge you to fully protect and restore the 7.13-acre Civic Center Wetland at 23855 Civic Center Way—the last remaining unprotected wetland in the heart of Malibu.
This rare and critical habitat has withstood tremendous damage over the years—through illegal disking, development pressure, and repeated fire trauma. The Woolsey, Franklin, and Palisades fires devastated not just land, but hearts, homes, and entire ecosystems.
Residents and wildlife alike have been through too much. Now, more than ever, we all deserve to see Malibu supported in becoming the healing environment it was always meant to be.
As I prepare a TED Talk on trauma and recovery, one truth keeps surfacing: healing happens when we protect the vulnerable—whether that’s people, places, or species.
Nature reflects this truth back to us. When left undisturbed, the wetland begins to restore itself. We don’t need to pave over what’s already healing. We need to listen, learn, and protect it.
The Civic Center Wetland is not a vacant lot. It is a living, breathing sanctuary, home to migrating birds along the Pacific Flyway, to native wildlife, and to an irreplaceable ecosystem. According to the Malibu LIP, violations of wetlands must be restored at a 3:1 ratio and recognized as ESHA. Anything less would betray Malibu’s identity as a city grounded in environmental leadership.
I urge you to:
795
2 Reject partial restoration, and instead protect the full 7.13 acres as ESHA; Honor the legal and ecological mandate for full rehabilitation; And stand with your community in preserving Malibu’s sacred natural spaces.
Let this be the moment the City Council chooses restoration over regression—healing over harm. You have a chance to protect something deeply meaningful to all of us.
With sincerity and hope,
Kristine Szabo
Former Big Rock Resident
796
1 City Council
Subject: Item 5B July 14 2025 City Council Meeting, FULL RESTORATION From: Kian Schulman
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 4:19 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5B July 14 2025 City Council Meeting, FULL RESTORATION Dear Mayor Marianne Riggins and Malibu City Councilmembers, We, Poison Free Malibu, concur with the Malibu Township Council's support for restoring the entire wetlands at 23855 Civic Center Way. It was and should be a very significant and highly v Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Dear Mayor Marianne Riggins and Malibu City Councilmembers, We, Poison Free Malibu, concur with the Malibu Township Council's support for restoring the entire wetlands at 23855 Civic Center Way.
It was and should be a very significant and highly visible contribution to the wildlife of Malibu that we can all appreciate.
Here is the suggested letter from the MTC, which we agree with:
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path. 797
2 Kian Schulman RN, MSN
Director, Poison Free Malibu
Email:
Website: PoisonFreeMalibu.org
798
1 City Council
From: Paulette Claus
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 10:26 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject:
RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Paulette Claus
6 years in Malibu
799
1 City Council
Subject: FW: OUR BEAUTIFUL AND ESSENTIAL WETLAND NEAR CIVIC CENTER MUST BE PR From: Vivian Benlloch
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:51 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: OUR BEAUTIFUL AND ESSENTIAL WETLAND NEAR CIVIC CENTER MUST BE PR Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address.
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions. 800
1 City Council
Subject: Preserve the civic center wetland
From: Tom Molloy
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 6:50 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Preserve the civic center wetland
Dear city council, please PROTECT and restore the full 7 acre civic center Wetland area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important ecosystem in our City. Please honor the mission statement to prioritize the native environment and preserve our rural environment. Best. Tom molloy 29549 harvester rd malibu ca 90265
Sent from my iPhone
801
1 City Council
Subject: Wet lands
From: Sandra Cole
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:41 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wet lands
Warning: Unusual sender <[email protected]>
You don't usually receive emails from this address.
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any acƟons.
Restore and save stop developing senseless sanctuary for Wild life.
Sandra Cole
Sent from my iPhone
Sandy Namaste '
802
1 City Council
Subject: Wetland
From: Salvatore A Fish
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 9:58 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetland
Council members,
Please support saving ALL 7.1 acres of Wetland at Civic Center Way.
Thank you,
Barbara Fish
803
804
1 To: Members of the City Council
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth
Date: 7-14-25
Re: Item 5B Coastal Development Permit No. 22-040 – An appeal of application to restore wetland buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted grading Honorable Council Members,
Please deny the city staff recommended wetland buffer restoration plan and direct the applicant to prepare a wetland restoration and buffer plan based on the 3.4 acre Psomas delineation done in 1999 and set forth in the 2002 Psomas Report or insist on the mitigation required under LIP 4.8.2.B. Although tempting to use the city plan or the 2018 Edith Read plan as the baseline we don’t recommend it. There will certainly be many wet years in the future and if left alone the wetland will expand in size once again.
This parcel is a treasure, one of two known fresh water wetlands in the city and you are its stewards. Please protect it to the greatest extent possible. The Applicant will still have the right to build a commercial project on this property.
City Restoration Plan Illegal disking of the ESHA was reported in 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 photos were of the tractor disking in the wetland ponding area. Even though the violation covered almost the entire parcel these are the only photos the city considered and are the subject of this code enforcement and the restoration plan. It is only this small area that the city is requiring to be restored even though the almost entire parcel was disked without the required CDP as shown in the third photo submitted by Leticia Aloi and set forth on the next page. This third photo below shows what the entire parcel looked like in 2020 after the parcel was destroyed by illegal disking. The undisked portion in the photo is the area of the Glen Lucas Associates wetland delineation.
805
2 At the February 5,2024 Planning Commission hearing Tony Bomkamp, a senior biologist at Glen Lukos and Associates (Lukos), confirmed the fact that they were engaged to develop a buffer plan for the city at its current location. (1.40.37).
Based on the instructions of the city, the Lukos delineation was only 1.74 acres because their delineation was limited to the undisked area shown in the above picture.
Since the remaining illegally disked area wasn’t looked at, the Lukos Study can’t be considered when deciding the correct wetland delineations since it was limited in nature and based the city’s instructions.
Because of the extent of the illegal disking, the city can't claim, as the Planning Director did at the February 5 2024 Planning Commission meeting, that the Lukos wetland delineation is the new wetland ESHA Boundary.
What is a Wetland
It is important for the Council to know what is required for you to make a decision. We hope the following information is helpful.
The Smith wetland is a freshwater marsh which meets the definition of a wetland under the LIP.
It is most important to understand a Wetland is not only the wetland pond but under the LIP also includes specific land beyond the pond, referred to as the upland area. To be considered upland land under the LIP it can have any one of the following wetland indicators present:
806
3 1.hydrology( which is concerned with the properties of the earth's water, and especially its movement in relation to land.)
2. hydric soil ( is soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.) or
3. hydrophytes (aquatic plants that adapt to survive in water or wet soil.) A combination of both the pond area and the upland area constitutes a Wetland Buffer- In addition, the LIP requires no less than of 100 foot Buffer outside the upper limit of the wetland area. The buffer can be greater than 100 feet. It was in the purview of the Planning Commission to require a150 ft. buffer and we request you do the same.
The buffer is a transitional zone that protects the Wetland from the negative impacts of development. And we believe a 150 setback offers greater protect ion for this wetland Required Wetland Mitigation prior to the approval of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable: Seasonal wetlands and Freshwater Marsh 3 to 1. (LIP 4.8.2.B)
Wetland Size Fluctuates Overtime, the wetland fluctuates in size depending on weather conditions. It is smaller after a drought and larger when there is more rainfall.
The seeds of wetland plants in drought conditions are not destroyed but remain dormant until enough rain arrives allowing them to sprout and flourish. Because of the illegal disking, many of the wetland plants and seeds were destroyed shrinking the wetland boundaries.
Lukos Determination Insufficient Because the Lukos delineation was limited, not all the wetland plants beyond the1.74acre site were identified. Their delineation is incomplete and deficient and should be rejected when making your decision.
Consider Previous Delineations The current staff report and Richard Mollica during the Planning Commission hearing state the you can consider other delineations in reaching your decision. Staff report states that historical data can also be used.
Historical Wetland Delineations In the past there have been 2 previous delineations worth considering when making your decision.1. the Psomas 2002 report which describes a wetland delineation of 3.4 acres performed in 1999 by Edith Read for the Malibu Bay Company and 2. The Edith Read delineation of 2.8 acres done in March of 2019 for the city. Both delineations do not include the minimum 100 ft or 150ft Planning Commission Buffer.
The following is an illustration of the various wetland delineations done to date. The yellow line is the Psomas delineation, the Pink line is the 2018 Edith Read delineation 807
4 and the blue/ tan/ green is the Lukos delineation. The black stripes is the wetland pond.
Wetland Size Reduced It is very important to look at the white line on the right of the above illustration that is identified as outflow. Water is drained out of the wetland because of the city enlarged storm drain located at the corner of Stuart Ranch Rd. and Civic Center Way. The Lukos Biologist ,Tony Bonkamp, confirmed this fact during the Planning Commission deliberations He said the city recently enlarged its storm drain and after a large rain when the water reaches 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.( Planning Commission 2-5-24 meeting (1.37.02 )
The law prohibits the draining of a wetland. This storm drain is unallowably draining the wetland and this outlet needs be capped to prevent this unpermitted outflow.
The water table would have been higher and the various wetland delineations would have covered a larger area if water for many years was not allowed to drain into a city's storm drain.
Wetland Draining along with the damage done by the illegal disking of almost the entire parcel should be taken into consideration when considering the boundaries of the wetland. To make up for of these unpermitted activities it is imperative the wetland boundary be increased in size to the 3.4 acre historical boundary. 808
5 Psomas Delineation
The 2002 PSOMAS Report delineated the wetland at 3.4 acres. Because it was prepared pre-drought and prior to the 2019- 2020 disking and wetland draining , this is the most accurate of the three written wetland delineations.
The following photo below taken in February 2023 of the parcel flooded after a rain illustrates that in wet years the wetland on this property is far larger than the 1.74 acre Lukos delineation area.
If you compare this photo below to the above illustration, you will see that it mirrors the Psomas yellow line in the 2002 reported delineation. In fact, this recent February 2023 photo indicates the entire parcel is inundated with water. During the Planning Commission deliberation Tony Bonkamp stated the parcel was a lake in 2023 and this was not the only time it was a lake.
Drought effects Wetland Boundaries 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 809
6 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 during or immediately after the longest drought in recorded California history when the wetland area was the smallest.
According to the Los Angeles Almanac https://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.php The overall average total rainfall for Los Angeles for seasons 1877 through 2025 is
14.77 inches.
In 1999 when the Psomas delineation was done the 1998-1999 rainfall was 9.09 inches less than the average rainfall. Unfortunately, there is no information as to what the wetland would be during the years of average rainfall. But we can rest assured that it would be greater than both the Lukas and the 2018 Edith Read delineations which were done under severe drought conditions.
The PSOMAS delineation studied the wetland in 1999 in a non-drought year and delineated the wetland at 3.4 acres. As noted above in years of heavy rainfall the wetland boundary can easily expand to the 3.4 acres delineated by Psomas.
A second Edith Read report prepared at the bequest of the City of Malibu dated March 28,2018 (one year before the 6+year drought ended ) was also prepared at the height of the longest recorded drought. It delineated the wetland at 2.8 acres.
It is interesting to note that in the 19 years between the Psomas and Read delineations and 6+ years of extreme drought the wetland area was reduced in size by only 6/10th of an acre. This 6/10th of an acre can easily be restored it there are a few higher than normal rainy seasons.
In both instances Edith Read did not use the Coastal Commission Criteria for defining a wetland. The 2018 report never referred to or considered Malibu Local Coastal Program’s definition a wetland as required by the Malibu LCP. If prepared under the required LIP criteria, the wetland delineation may have been larger.
The Lukos Technical Memorandum dated 0ctober 19,2019 states that site visits in April, May and June of 2019 were conducted just after the drought ended on March 5th of that year But Lukos was unable to perform a thorough site investigation because the city limited them to the undisked area.
Why isn’t the city staff supporting the 2.8-acre Edith Read delineation commissioned at the city’s request in 2018 just a year earlier than Lukos’ indicating that the wetland is more than an acre larger? This is because city staff arbitrarily decided the mitigation for the illegal grading was to create a buffer at the southern boundary of the property where 810
7 the unpermitted activity first took place. Staff could have just as easily used this Read delineation and then placed the buffer outside the upland portion of this wetland. Staff chose to ignore the fact that the illegal disking took place over almost the entire property not just in the staff chosen100 foot buffer boundary.
Stronger Mitigation Measures Required Weeds were not the only thing destroyed with this illegal disking, upland plants and their seeds were also destroyed.
The city staff recommended mitigation is insufficient since the unpermitted disking went all the way to the northern property line.
The wetland mitigation requirement set forth in LIP section 4.8.2 B should be implemented because of the illegal disking of the disked area is where most certainly wetland plants and their seeds were destroyed. The ratio of restoration for this seasonal and marsh wetland is 3 to1. We suggest that this wetland mitigation restoration could begin at the proposed city buffer and continue northward.
Of course, the Applicant wants approval of the city restoration plan. If approved, the Applicant will immediately apply for development of its commercial project. Sadly, the Council will be locking in the smallest wetland delineation ever. This would be a tragic mistake especially since this delineation was not thorough but limited by the arbitrary perimeters set by city staff. The 1.69 delineation stopped at the start of the disked area when the delineation of the wetland boundary should much larger.
Disking Effects Wetland Boundaries Another factor which can’t be ignored is the effect Disking had on this parcel.
A major effect of disking is it destroys wetland plants and their seeds thereby allowing the invasive nonnatives to overtake the native plants. At the same time disking can destroy the roots of some wetland plants and disrupts and destroys the seeds below ground. This explains why so many invasive non-native plants exist on the Smith parcel.
Prior to the LCP’s certification in September 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 remain at 3.4 acres.
Please note that Letecia Aloi, who lives a condo unit closest to Civic Center Way and directly above the Lukos delineated wetland, witnessed the discing in 2020. She stated that the parcel was disked not just the proposed city buffer area. She took pictures of the tractor disking the wetland area directly below her residence. The disking took place over a large portion of the parcel, except for the small area delineated by Lucas Her photos were provided to the city but the photo showing the disking to the northern parcel boundary was not considered in this staff report remediation report. The photo on page 2 above is her photo showing the entire extent of this discing. 811
8 She also said the western portion of the wetland which is upland was the first time disced in 2020 in an attempt to give the owner an access to their landlocked property.
The Lukas report confirms that this disked area was upland vegetation saying The area immediately west of the potential wetland area is clearly upland and therefore must be restored with upland hydric vegetation.
ESHA The entire parcel is designated mapped ESHA , as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. which was adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 13,2002.
Malibu Bay Company (MBC) Respected Parcel’s ESHA Designation
1.Before the LCP was adopted there were numerous City Council meetings where the Coastal Commission draft of the LCP was challenged and requested changes to the draft LCP were made. Both the MBC and the City never questioned this parcel’s ESHA designation when it had the opportunity to do so.
2.The Malibu Bay Company ( MBC) intended this parcel to remain open space and gave up the development rights on this property.
This is evidenced by the fact that the MBC didn’t want to hook up to civic center treatment plant. The reason given is in the City Council 9-9-19 staff report :” the owner did not intend to develop the property and requested that the property be excluded from the Prohibition Area.“
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 as all the civic center commercial properties were required to do.
Since the MBC knew it was the one and only opportunity for this parcel to hookup the Bay Company voluntary gave up the development rights on this parcel. Thus protecting this parcel as open space.
CDP Findings This required Finding cannot be made:. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
There are other less damaging alternatives: The buffer restoration of only a small portion of the illegally disked parcel is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. This finding can be met. By finding the 3.4 acre delineation for Psomas in 2002 and on site Mitigation under LIP 4.8.2.B are both the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
812
9 ESHA Protected Designating the wetland at 3.40 acres will protect the wetland, the animals 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. Protecting this freshwater march wetland to the greatest extent possible is needed
Smith Property Valuble 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.
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.
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above please deny this wetland restoration plan and direct the applicant to prepare an updated wetland restoration plan based on the 3.4 acre Psomas delineation done in 2002
Thank you for considering Slow Growth’s comments.
813
1 City Council
Subject: Postponment requested for item 5B 7-14-25 council meeting Buffer Restoration of Smith wetland
From: patt healy
Sent: W esday, July 9, 2025 10:59:27 PM
To: Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Yolanda Bundy <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Candace Bond <[email protected]>
Cc: Jo Drummond Malibutownshipcouncil Info
Subject: Postponment requested for item 5B 7-14-25 council meeting Buffer Restoration of Smith wetland Both the Malibu Township Council and the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth as appellants respectfully ask for a postponement of the above referenced matter.
Because this wetland fate is important, the appeal should be heard as the only item at a specially scheduled meeting for these reasons. 1.There are 2
appeals under item 5B (that of the Applicant and MTC and MCSG. )and they will take hours to be heard.
2. It is not fair that the other items on the agenda that will have to be postponed due to lack of time to be heard..
3. There are multiple documents that we will be submitting which will take many hours of your time to review and digest and time should be devoted to carefully reviewing them . This will be difficult to do when you also have to review many other items for Monday’s meeting.
Thank you for considering this request. Please let us know asap if this item will be postponed as requested.
Patt Healy for the Malibu Township Council and the Malibu Coalition for Slow
814
1 City Council
Subject: Smith Wetland Item 5B 7-14-25 Council Meeting
From:
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 6:06 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Smith Wetland Item 5B 7-14-25 Council Meeting
July 11,2025 &
External sender
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
July
11,2025
Re 7-14 City Council Meeting Item 5B
Deny Applicant /Owner's Appeal
Honorable Members of the City Council,
The Malibu Township Council and the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth ask the Council to deny the property owners appeal and uphold the appeal of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth and the Malibu Township Council.
The property Owner is Civic Center Way LLP a corporation owned by Global Asset Capital. According to their website Global Asset Capital is a global private equity investment firm with interests in real estate, structured finance and venture capital. The Appellant is the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of this firm.
The Owner is an experienced investor in real property and in this instance failed to perform its Due Diligence by not checking with the city to see if there were any violations or other claims against this property prior to purchasing it.
Even though the violation was created by the previous owner Third Point Land Company LLC, the violation runs with the land and is now the current Owner’s responsibility.
While we commend the Owner for continuing to engaging Glen Lukos and Associates to perform a delineation and restoration plan based on the city staff’s recommendation to mitigate the violation if illegal disking it is not binding on the City Council. It is not the Council’s job to uphold the city staff’s recommendation but rather to uphold the LIP provisions on protecting this wetland parcel which was illegally disked by Third Point without a Coastal Development Permit resulting in the destruction of sensitive wetland habitat.
815
2 The Owner’s remedy is against Third Point which the Owner pursued through a lawsuit and the parties finally entered into a settlement agreement.
In conclusion, for the above reasons please deny this appeal.
Sincerely,
Jo Drummond for the Malibu Township
Council Patt Patt Healy for the
Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth
816
1 City Council
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
From: Merrill Markoe
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 7:38 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
Dear City Council:
Please do the correct and ecologically important thing and pass whatever legislation is needed to restore and protect the Malibu wetlands. Please stop any development of this area. We have more than enough empty over-priced buildings in Malibu to house any additional businesses that can afford them. Have a look around. They are everywhere.
Protecting and preserving nature should be our first priority. --
Now for the part where I tell you my name:
Merrill Markoe
40 year resident of Pt. Dume
817
818
1 City Council
Subject: Protect wildlife petition letter
From: Gosha's Organics
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 6:15 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Protect wildlife petition letter
To whom it may concern.
It is imperative to save this land for the wildlife, please don’t be calculative and short visioned while making decision. We owe it to our land and, our ancestors and our future generations.
Gosia Steele
819
Attention City Council: July 2025
To: [email protected]
c.c. [email protected]
RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Name
Years Lived in Malibu
820
821
2 Thank you for your consideration.
Jo Drummond
On behalf of Malibu Township Council
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SzrHYe2zcXJnu1-om2jmXoClW0zys3hw/view?usp=sharing 822
823
824
3 The attached February 2023 photo below shows the wet areas to be even larger, consistent with the Psomos 2002 report indicating a total of 3.4 acres. Note that the area surrounding the palm trees is often wet or damp throughout the year, indicating the likelihood of hydric plants.
Additionally, during the Planning Commission hearing on February 5, 2024, Tony Bomkamp testified that the City recently enlarged a storm drain at Stuart Ranch Road and Civic Center Way, which drains the wetland when water levels are high, effectively draining an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area and violating the Clean Water Act. This outflow must be addressed immediately by the City’s Public Works Department, as it negatively impacts biodiversity, wildlife, and climate regulation.
What is not addressed in the City’s restoration plan is the actual code regulating wetland restoration.
Malibu LIP Section 4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
As stewards for our natural environment and rural community, we ask our City Council members to restore the entire
7.13-acre property that has been illegally disked repeatedly, to bring back this beautiful treasure of Malibu. The wetland area, having burned in the Franklin Fire, should maintain a safe firebreak from future wildfires and should be easier to restore the native habitat than prior to the fire.
Thank you for your service to our community and for protecting this precious ecological and environmentally sensitive area that is home to many flora, fowl and fauna.
825
4 Sincerely,
Jo Drummond
On behalf of Malibu Township Council
May 2020 after last disking March 2025 recovering after the fires Note how wet it is far into the proposed buffer area in the video (attached) of this illegal drilling activity occurring on Jan 30/20
826
5 Established to promote, stimulate and further community spirit, to sponsor any project of merit that may benefit any district of Malibu Township, to foster and promote the cultural development of the Township; and in general, to do all things that tend to build and uphold the character of this residential area. — Malibu Township Council Articles of Incorporation, January 2, 1947 827
1 MEMORANDUM
TO: MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
FROM: EDITH READ, PHD
SUBJECT: CDP NO. 22-040 HABITAT RESTORATION AT 23855 CIVIC CENTER WAY (AKA
SMITH PARCEL)
DATE: JULY 9, 2025
At your request, I have prepared this memo to update and correct habitat information that has been reported as part of the permitting process for restoring an area where unpermitted disking occurred on this parcel.
In this case, I support my delineation reported in 2018, which identified 2.8 acres of wetland area, larger than the 1.74 acres stated by GLA in their July 2023 memo. Adding a buffer of 1.69 acres to be restored adjacent to the wetland, the total area of native habitat (wetland and upland buffer) would be 4.49 acres. Based on review of June 2023 data in the GLA report, the discrepancy between their wetland delineation and mine can be attributed to native plants mostly associated with seasonal (ephemeral) wetlands at locations that meet the one-parameter State definition of a wetland due to presence of hydrophytic plants. GLA’s data points from 2023 that are located in the area I delineated, but are outside of their northern 2023 boundary, show cover by saltgrass (Distichliss spicata) in the range of 20% to 75%. This includes sample point #8, which is stated to be in a wetland. At sample point 15, alkali bulrush (Bolboschoenus maritimus) was present at 20% cover, yet the data sheet states that hydrophytic vegetation was not present, even though this species is considered to be obligate to wetlands.
Ideally, the entire property should be restored and preserved as habitat (perennial wetland, seasonal wetland, transition, upland).
If there are any questions on this matter I can be reached at and .
828
1 City Council
Subject: ATTENTION CITY COUNCIL RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland From: Jane Fileff
Sent: Wednesday, July 9, 2025 10:57 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: ATTENTION CITY COUNCIL RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Jane Fileff
Owner and resident in Malibu for 26 years
Sent from my iPhone
829
1 City Council
Subject: Wetland
From: Jane Warden
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 5:07 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetland
To Whom It May Concern:
It is vital to restore the enƟre 7 acres of remaining Malibu wetland next to the Civic Center. Piece by piece, Malibu is being destroyed and turned into a mall and parking lot like anything you could find in the valley. We must do beƩer.
Jane Warden
Sent from my iPad
830
1 City Council
Subject: Item 5B July 14 2025 City Council Meeting, FULL RESTORATION From: Kian Schulman
Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2025 4:19 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 5B July 14 2025 City Council Meeting, FULL RESTORATION Dear Mayor Marianne Riggins and Malibu City Councilmembers, We, Poison Free Malibu, concur with the Malibu Township Council's support for restoring the entire wetlands at 23855 Civic Center Way. It was and should be a very significant and highly v Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address. Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Dear Mayor Marianne Riggins and Malibu City Councilmembers, We, Poison Free Malibu, concur with the Malibu Township Council's support for restoring the entire wetlands at 23855 Civic Center Way.
It was and should be a very significant and highly visible contribution to the wildlife of Malibu that we can all appreciate.
Here is the suggested letter from the MTC, which we agree with:
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path. 831
2 Kian Schulman RN, MSN
Director, Poison Free Malibu
Email:
Website: PoisonFreeMalibu.org
832
1 City Council
Subject: Please Vote for True Healing
From: Kristine Szabo
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:23 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Vote for True Healing
Dear City Council Members,
I’m writing to respectfully urge you to fully protect and restore the 7.13-acre Civic Center Wetland at 23855 Civic Center Way—the last remaining unprotected wetland in the heart of Malibu.
This rare and critical habitat has withstood tremendous damage over the years—through illegal disking, development pressure, and repeated fire trauma. The Woolsey, Franklin, and Palisades fires devastated not just land, but hearts, homes, and entire ecosystems.
Residents and wildlife alike have been through too much. Now, more than ever, we all deserve to see Malibu supported in becoming the healing environment it was always meant to be.
As I prepare a TED Talk on trauma and recovery, one truth keeps surfacing: healing happens when we protect the vulnerable—whether that’s people, places, or species.
Nature reflects this truth back to us. When left undisturbed, the wetland begins to restore itself. We don’t need to pave over what’s already healing. We need to listen, learn, and protect it.
The Civic Center Wetland is not a vacant lot. It is a living, breathing sanctuary, home to migrating birds along the Pacific Flyway, to native wildlife, and to an irreplaceable ecosystem. According to the Malibu LIP, violations of wetlands must be restored at a 3:1 ratio and recognized as ESHA. Anything less would betray Malibu’s identity as a city grounded in environmental leadership.
I urge you to:
833
2 Reject partial restoration, and instead protect the full 7.13 acres as ESHA; Honor the legal and ecological mandate for full rehabilitation; And stand with your community in preserving Malibu’s sacred natural spaces.
Let this be the moment the City Council chooses restoration over regression—healing over harm. You have a chance to protect something deeply meaningful to all of us.
With sincerity and hope,
Kristine Szabo
Former Big Rock Resident
834
1 City Council
Subject: Item 5B July 14, 2025 City Council meeting/From Leticia Aloi From: Leticia Aloi
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 3:10 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: LETICIA ALOI
Subject: Item 5B July 14, 2025 City Council meeting/From Leticia Aloi July
10,2024
Re: Item 5B - July 14,2025 Council
Meeting
Dear City Council
,
My name is Leticia Aloi, and I am a resident/owner in Malibu Canyon Village. My condo overlooks the Smith Wetland.
On May 29, 2020, I observed large bulldozers disking all of this ESHA parcel except for the wetland pond area behind my
home. They even disked the western portion of the wetland habitat abutting the wetland pond which was never touched in all the previous years of brush clearance in an attempt to gain access to this land locked property from Civic Center Way (see photo 1) These activities were carried out by Third Point, the company that owned the land at that time. What occurred in 2020 was far more extensive and destructive than the brush clearance performed in previous years.
The land in question is designated as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA), which is subject to strict protections under California Coastal Act and the Malibu LIP.
The extent of the disking has resulted in the degradation of critical habitat and disruption of the ecological balance that the ESHA designation is meant to protect.
I respectfully urge you to:
835
2 1. Investigate the 2020 disking incident to determine the full scope of environmental damage and
regulatory violations which is far greater than what
the Lukos delineation determined.
2. Hold Third Point’s successor accountable for these
actions, including any penalties or mitigation measures required under state or local environmental law.
3. Ensure full restoration of the damaged property
including the wetlands to their original natural state, including reestablishment of upland native vegetation
and wildlife habitats.
4. Malibu’s wetlands are a vital ecological resource,
and their protection is not just a legal obligation, but a moral one. I trust that the Council shares this
commitment and will act decisively to restore and
safeguard this critical habitat.
Please see attached pictures for your review.
Sincerely,
Leticia Aloi
836
3 837
4 838
5 839
1 City Council
Subject: Wetlands At 23855 Civic Center Way in Malibu
From: MAURA LUCUS
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 6:32 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetlands At 23855 Civic Center Way in Malibu
Please instruct the planni ng commi ssion to PROTECT and restor e the full 7 acre Wetl and area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important e cosystem i n our City. Regards, Maura Lucus Please instruct the planning commission to PROTECT and restore the full 7 acre Wetland area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important ecosystem in our City.
Regards,
Maura Lucus
840
1 City Council
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
From: Merrill Markoe
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 7:38 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Restore and protect the wetlands
Dear City Council:
Please do the correct and ecologically important thing and pass whatever legislation is needed to restore and protect the Malibu wetlands. Please stop any development of this area. We have more than enough empty over-priced buildings in Malibu to house any additional businesses that can afford them. Have a look around. They are everywhere.
Protecting and preserving nature should be our first priority. --
Now for the part where I tell you my name:
Merrill Markoe
40 year resident of Pt. Dume
841
1 City Council
Subject: Public Comment to Item 5B, July 15, 2025 City Council meeting agenda item From: Mari Stanley
Sent: Monday, July 14, 2025 2:30 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment to Item 5B, July 15, 2025 City Council meeting agenda item Dear Councilmembers,
I am writing this evening in full support of the appeal and request that you honor the request of the appellants who represent my views and have my eager support in this matter.
I appreciate every step of the work and stewardship put forth to resolve the unpermitted actions on the property and feel confidant that Malibu Township Council and Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth are representing my own interests competently, professionally and stand on the good merits that they have built as well as achieved throughout the long standing protections of both entities. They speak for this household, both of us as invested voters seek to continue our local focus on the foundation of this rural community that strongly imbues protections for the multitude of species of plant and animal life that we have here or visit via migratory patterns.
Thank you,
Mari & Mace Stanley
Pt Dume
842
1 City Council
From: Paulette Claus
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 10:26 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject:
RE: 23855 Civic Center Way Wetland
Restoring this wetland to its greatest extent will achieve everything Malibu stands for.
All of the 7.13-acre property needs to be protected. With over 90% of California’s wetlands already destroyed we need to preserve every inch of those that remain. This is the last unprotected wetland in Malibu right in the middle of the Pacific Flyway where birds migrate and animals flourish. The entire property is environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and we residents need it recognized as such by our City Council. Please uphold the appeal and deny the project.
This Section of the Malibu LIP states:
4.8.2. Wetlands
B. Prior to issuance of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable:
Seasonal wetlands 3 to 1
Please uphold our Vision and Mission statement protecting Malibu’s natural environment and wildlife and uphold the Malibu Township Council appeal. Thank you for helping to preserve this entire Wetland that is admired by everyone who crosses its path.
Paulette Claus
6 years in Malibu
843
1 City Council
Subject: Postponment requested for item 5B 7-14-25 council meeting Buffer Restoration of Smith wetland
From: patt healy
Sent: W esday, July 9, 2025 10:59:27 PM
To: Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Yolanda Bundy <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Candace Bond <[email protected]>
Cc: Jo Drummond Malibutownshipcouncil Info
Subject: Postponment requested for item 5B 7-14-25 council meeting Buffer Restoration of Smith wetland Both the Malibu Township Council and the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth as appellants respectfully ask for a postponement of the above referenced matter.
Because this wetland fate is important, the appeal should be heard as the only item at a specially scheduled meeting for these reasons. 1.There are 2
appeals under item 5B (that of the Applicant and MTC and MCSG. )and they will take hours to be heard.
2. It is not fair that the other items on the agenda that will have to be postponed due to lack of time to be heard..
3. There are multiple documents that we will be submitting which will take many hours of your time to review and digest and time should be devoted to carefully reviewing them . This will be difficult to do when you also have to review many other items for Monday’s meeting.
Thank you for considering this request. Please let us know asap if this item will be postponed as requested.
Patt Healy for the Malibu Township Council and the Malibu Coalition for Slow
844
1 City Council
Subject: Smith Wetland Item 5B 7-14-25 Council Meeting
From:
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2025 6:06 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Smith Wetland Item 5B 7-14-25 Council Meeting
July 11,2025 &
External sender
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
July
11,2025
Re 7-14 City Council Meeting Item 5B
Deny Applicant /Owner's Appeal
Honorable Members of the City Council,
The Malibu Township Council and the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth ask the Council to deny the property owners appeal and uphold the appeal of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth and the Malibu Township Council.
The property Owner is Civic Center Way LLP a corporation owned by Global Asset Capital. According to their website Global Asset Capital is a global private equity investment firm with interests in real estate, structured finance and venture capital. The Appellant is the Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of this firm.
The Owner is an experienced investor in real property and in this instance failed to perform its Due Diligence by not checking with the city to see if there were any violations or other claims against this property prior to purchasing it.
Even though the violation was created by the previous owner Third Point Land Company LLC, the violation runs with the land and is now the current Owner’s responsibility.
While we commend the Owner for continuing to engaging Glen Lukos and Associates to perform a delineation and restoration plan based on the city staff’s recommendation to mitigate the violation if illegal disking it is not binding on the City Council. It is not the Council’s job to uphold the city staff’s recommendation but rather to uphold the LIP provisions on protecting this wetland parcel which was illegally disked by Third Point without a Coastal Development Permit resulting in the destruction of sensitive wetland habitat.
845
2 The Owner’s remedy is against Third Point which the Owner pursued through a lawsuit and the parties finally entered into a settlement agreement.
In conclusion, for the above reasons please deny this appeal.
Sincerely,
Jo Drummond for the Malibu Township
Council Patt Patt Healy for the
Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth
846
847
1 To: Members of the City Council
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth
Date: 7-14-25
Re: Item 5B Coastal Development Permit No. 22-040 – An appeal of application to restore wetland buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted grading Honorable Council Members,
Please deny the city staff recommended wetland buffer restoration plan and direct the applicant to prepare a wetland restoration and buffer plan based on the 3.4 acre Psomas delineation done in 1999 and set forth in the 2002 Psomas Report or insist on the mitigation required under LIP 4.8.2.B. Although tempting to use the city plan or the 2018 Edith Read plan as the baseline we don’t recommend it. There will certainly be many wet years in the future and if left alone the wetland will expand in size once again.
This parcel is a treasure, one of two known fresh water wetlands in the city and you are its stewards. Please protect it to the greatest extent possible. The Applicant will still have the right to build a commercial project on this property.
City Restoration Plan Illegal disking of the ESHA was reported in 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 photos were of the tractor disking in the wetland ponding area. Even though the violation covered almost the entire parcel these are the only photos the city considered and are the subject of this code enforcement and the restoration plan. It is only this small area that the city is requiring to be restored even though the almost entire parcel was disked without the required CDP as shown in the third photo submitted by Leticia Aloi and set forth on the next page. This third photo below shows what the entire parcel looked like in 2020 after the parcel was destroyed by illegal disking. The undisked portion in the photo is the area of the Glen Lucas Associates wetland delineation.
848
2 At the February 5,2024 Planning Commission hearing Tony Bomkamp, a senior biologist at Glen Lukos and Associates (Lukos), confirmed the fact that they were engaged to develop a buffer plan for the city at its current location. (1.40.37).
Based on the instructions of the city, the Lukos delineation was only 1.74 acres because their delineation was limited to the undisked area shown in the above picture.
Since the remaining illegally disked area wasn’t looked at, the Lukos Study can’t be considered when deciding the correct wetland delineations since it was limited in nature and based the city’s instructions.
Because of the extent of the illegal disking, the city can't claim, as the Planning Director did at the February 5 2024 Planning Commission meeting, that the Lukos wetland delineation is the new wetland ESHA Boundary.
What is a Wetland
It is important for the Council to know what is required for you to make a decision. We hope the following information is helpful.
The Smith wetland is a freshwater marsh which meets the definition of a wetland under the LIP.
It is most important to understand a Wetland is not only the wetland pond but under the LIP also includes specific land beyond the pond, referred to as the upland area. To be considered upland land under the LIP it can have any one of the following wetland indicators present:
849
3 1.hydrology( which is concerned with the properties of the earth's water, and especially its movement in relation to land.)
2. hydric soil ( is soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part.) or
3. hydrophytes (aquatic plants that adapt to survive in water or wet soil.) A combination of both the pond area and the upland area constitutes a Wetland Buffer- In addition, the LIP requires no less than of 100 foot Buffer outside the upper limit of the wetland area. The buffer can be greater than 100 feet. It was in the purview of the Planning Commission to require a150 ft. buffer and we request you do the same.
The buffer is a transitional zone that protects the Wetland from the negative impacts of development. And we believe a 150 setback offers greater protect ion for this wetland Required Wetland Mitigation prior to the approval of the coastal development permit, the applicant shall identify an area of disturbed or degraded wetland habitat of equivalent type and acreage sufficient to provide mitigation of the wetland impacts according to the following ratios (number of acres of created or restored habitat required for each acre of wetland habitat impacted), as applicable: Seasonal wetlands and Freshwater Marsh 3 to 1. (LIP 4.8.2.B)
Wetland Size Fluctuates Overtime, the wetland fluctuates in size depending on weather conditions. It is smaller after a drought and larger when there is more rainfall.
The seeds of wetland plants in drought conditions are not destroyed but remain dormant until enough rain arrives allowing them to sprout and flourish. Because of the illegal disking, many of the wetland plants and seeds were destroyed shrinking the wetland boundaries.
Lukos Determination Insufficient Because the Lukos delineation was limited, not all the wetland plants beyond the1.74acre site were identified. Their delineation is incomplete and deficient and should be rejected when making your decision.
Consider Previous Delineations The current staff report and Richard Mollica during the Planning Commission hearing state the you can consider other delineations in reaching your decision. Staff report states that historical data can also be used.
Historical Wetland Delineations In the past there have been 2 previous delineations worth considering when making your decision.1. the Psomas 2002 report which describes a wetland delineation of 3.4 acres performed in 1999 by Edith Read for the Malibu Bay Company and 2. The Edith Read delineation of 2.8 acres done in March of 2019 for the city. Both delineations do not include the minimum 100 ft or 150ft Planning Commission Buffer.
The following is an illustration of the various wetland delineations done to date. The yellow line is the Psomas delineation, the Pink line is the 2018 Edith Read delineation 850
4 and the blue/ tan/ green is the Lukos delineation. The black stripes is the wetland pond.
Wetland Size Reduced It is very important to look at the white line on the right of the above illustration that is identified as outflow. Water is drained out of the wetland because of the city enlarged storm drain located at the corner of Stuart Ranch Rd. and Civic Center Way. The Lukos Biologist ,Tony Bonkamp, confirmed this fact during the Planning Commission deliberations He said the city recently enlarged its storm drain and after a large rain when the water reaches 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.( Planning Commission 2-5-24 meeting (1.37.02 )
The law prohibits the draining of a wetland. This storm drain is unallowably draining the wetland and this outlet needs be capped to prevent this unpermitted outflow.
The water table would have been higher and the various wetland delineations would have covered a larger area if water for many years was not allowed to drain into a city's storm drain.
Wetland Draining along with the damage done by the illegal disking of almost the entire parcel should be taken into consideration when considering the boundaries of the wetland. To make up for of these unpermitted activities it is imperative the wetland boundary be increased in size to the 3.4 acre historical boundary. 851
5 Psomas Delineation
The 2002 PSOMAS Report delineated the wetland at 3.4 acres. Because it was prepared pre-drought and prior to the 2019- 2020 disking and wetland draining , this is the most accurate of the three written wetland delineations.
The following photo below taken in February 2023 of the parcel flooded after a rain illustrates that in wet years the wetland on this property is far larger than the 1.74 acre Lukos delineation area.
If you compare this photo below to the above illustration, you will see that it mirrors the Psomas yellow line in the 2002 reported delineation. In fact, this recent February 2023 photo indicates the entire parcel is inundated with water. During the Planning Commission deliberation Tony Bonkamp stated the parcel was a lake in 2023 and this was not the only time it was a lake.
Drought effects Wetland Boundaries 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 852
6 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 during or immediately after the longest drought in recorded California history when the wetland area was the smallest.
According to the Los Angeles Almanac https://www.laalmanac.com/weather/we13.php The overall average total rainfall for Los Angeles for seasons 1877 through 2025 is
14.77 inches.
In 1999 when the Psomas delineation was done the 1998-1999 rainfall was 9.09 inches less than the average rainfall. Unfortunately, there is no information as to what the wetland would be during the years of average rainfall. But we can rest assured that it would be greater than both the Lukas and the 2018 Edith Read delineations which were done under severe drought conditions.
The PSOMAS delineation studied the wetland in 1999 in a non-drought year and delineated the wetland at 3.4 acres. As noted above in years of heavy rainfall the wetland boundary can easily expand to the 3.4 acres delineated by Psomas.
A second Edith Read report prepared at the bequest of the City of Malibu dated March 28,2018 (one year before the 6+year drought ended ) was also prepared at the height of the longest recorded drought. It delineated the wetland at 2.8 acres.
It is interesting to note that in the 19 years between the Psomas and Read delineations and 6+ years of extreme drought the wetland area was reduced in size by only 6/10th of an acre. This 6/10th of an acre can easily be restored it there are a few higher than normal rainy seasons.
In both instances Edith Read did not use the Coastal Commission Criteria for defining a wetland. The 2018 report never referred to or considered Malibu Local Coastal Program’s definition a wetland as required by the Malibu LCP. If prepared under the required LIP criteria, the wetland delineation may have been larger.
The Lukos Technical Memorandum dated 0ctober 19,2019 states that site visits in April, May and June of 2019 were conducted just after the drought ended on March 5th of that year But Lukos was unable to perform a thorough site investigation because the city limited them to the undisked area.
Why isn’t the city staff supporting the 2.8-acre Edith Read delineation commissioned at the city’s request in 2018 just a year earlier than Lukos’ indicating that the wetland is more than an acre larger? This is because city staff arbitrarily decided the mitigation for the illegal grading was to create a buffer at the southern boundary of the property where 853
7 the unpermitted activity first took place. Staff could have just as easily used this Read delineation and then placed the buffer outside the upland portion of this wetland. Staff chose to ignore the fact that the illegal disking took place over almost the entire property not just in the staff chosen100 foot buffer boundary.
Stronger Mitigation Measures Required Weeds were not the only thing destroyed with this illegal disking, upland plants and their seeds were also destroyed.
The city staff recommended mitigation is insufficient since the unpermitted disking went all the way to the northern property line.
The wetland mitigation requirement set forth in LIP section 4.8.2 B should be implemented because of the illegal disking of the disked area is where most certainly wetland plants and their seeds were destroyed. The ratio of restoration for this seasonal and marsh wetland is 3 to1. We suggest that this wetland mitigation restoration could begin at the proposed city buffer and continue northward.
Of course, the Applicant wants approval of the city restoration plan. If approved, the Applicant will immediately apply for development of its commercial project. Sadly, the Council will be locking in the smallest wetland delineation ever. This would be a tragic mistake especially since this delineation was not thorough but limited by the arbitrary perimeters set by city staff. The 1.69 delineation stopped at the start of the disked area when the delineation of the wetland boundary should much larger.
Disking Effects Wetland Boundaries Another factor which can’t be ignored is the effect Disking had on this parcel.
A major effect of disking is it destroys wetland plants and their seeds thereby allowing the invasive nonnatives to overtake the native plants. At the same time disking can destroy the roots of some wetland plants and disrupts and destroys the seeds below ground. This explains why so many invasive non-native plants exist on the Smith parcel.
Prior to the LCP’s certification in September 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 remain at 3.4 acres.
Please note that Letecia Aloi, who lives a condo unit closest to Civic Center Way and directly above the Lukos delineated wetland, witnessed the discing in 2020. She stated that the parcel was disked not just the proposed city buffer area. She took pictures of the tractor disking the wetland area directly below her residence. The disking took place over a large portion of the parcel, except for the small area delineated by Lucas Her photos were provided to the city but the photo showing the disking to the northern parcel boundary was not considered in this staff report remediation report. The photo on page 2 above is her photo showing the entire extent of this discing. 854
8 She also said the western portion of the wetland which is upland was the first time disced in 2020 in an attempt to give the owner an access to their landlocked property.
The Lukas report confirms that this disked area was upland vegetation saying The area immediately west of the potential wetland area is clearly upland and therefore must be restored with upland hydric vegetation.
ESHA The entire parcel is designated mapped ESHA , as shown on the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. which was adopted by the Coastal Commission on September 13,2002.
Malibu Bay Company (MBC) Respected Parcel’s ESHA Designation
1.Before the LCP was adopted there were numerous City Council meetings where the Coastal Commission draft of the LCP was challenged and requested changes to the draft LCP were made. Both the MBC and the City never questioned this parcel’s ESHA designation when it had the opportunity to do so.
2.The Malibu Bay Company ( MBC) intended this parcel to remain open space and gave up the development rights on this property.
This is evidenced by the fact that the MBC didn’t want to hook up to civic center treatment plant. The reason given is in the City Council 9-9-19 staff report :” the owner did not intend to develop the property and requested that the property be excluded from the Prohibition Area.“
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 as all the civic center commercial properties were required to do.
Since the MBC knew it was the one and only opportunity for this parcel to hookup the Bay Company voluntary gave up the development rights on this parcel. Thus protecting this parcel as open space.
CDP Findings This required Finding cannot be made:. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.
There are other less damaging alternatives: The buffer restoration of only a small portion of the illegally disked parcel is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. This finding can be met. By finding the 3.4 acre delineation for Psomas in 2002 and on site Mitigation under LIP 4.8.2.B are both the least environmentally damaging alternatives.
855
9 ESHA Protected Designating the wetland at 3.40 acres will protect the wetland, the animals 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. Protecting this freshwater march wetland to the greatest extent possible is needed
Smith Property Valuble 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.
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.
Conclusion
For all the reasons stated above please deny this wetland restoration plan and direct the applicant to prepare an updated wetland restoration plan based on the 3.4 acre Psomas delineation done in 2002
Thank you for considering Slow Growth’s comments.
856
1 City Council
Subject: Wet lands
From: Sandra Cole
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 12:41 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wet lands
Warning: Unusual sender <[email protected]>
You don't usually receive emails from this address.
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any acƟons.
Restore and save stop developing senseless sanctuary for Wild life.
Sandra Cole
Sent from my iPhone
Sandy Namaste '
857
1 City Council
Subject: Wetland
From: Salvatore A Fish
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 9:58 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Wetland
Council members,
Please support saving ALL 7.1 acres of Wetland at Civic Center Way.
Thank you,
Barbara Fish
858
1 City Council
Subject: Preserve the civic center wetland
From: Tom Molloy
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 6:50 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Preserve the civic center wetland
Dear city council, please PROTECT and restore the full 7 acre civic center Wetland area in its entirety and help preserve this incredibly rare and important ecosystem in our City. Please honor the mission statement to prioritize the native environment and preserve our rural environment. Best. Tom molloy 29549 harvester rd malibu ca 90265
Sent from my iPhone
859
1 City Council
Subject: FW: OUR BEAUTIFUL AND ESSENTIAL WETLAND NEAR CIVIC CENTER MUST BE PR From: Vivian Benlloch
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2025 8:51 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: OUR BEAUTIFUL AND ESSENTIAL WETLAND NEAR CIVIC CENTER MUST BE PR Warning: Unusual sender
You don't usually receive emails from this address.
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions. 860
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Thursday, September 25, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA, for the project identified below. Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.
APPEAL NOS. 24-002 AND 24-003 - Appeals of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-13 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmentally Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 22-040 to restore a wetland environmentally sensitive habitat area buffer that was disturbed due to unpermitted weed abatement LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 23855 Civic Center Way / 4458-021-007 / Community Commercial (CC) APPLICANT / OWNER: Cornerstone Real Estate Consulting / Civic Center Way LLC APPELLANTS: Zahid Rahimtoola on behalf of Civic Center Way LLC Jo Drummond on behalf of the Malibu Township Council and Patt Healy on behalf of the Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth jointly
APPLICATION FILED: July 8, 2022
APPEALS FILED: February 15, 2024
APPEALABLE TO: California Coastal Commission
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301(h) and 15304(b) CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the City Council’s approval directly to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. More information may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling 805-585-1800.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE
ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOLANDA BUNDY, Community Development Director Date: September 4, 2025 EXHIBIT 7
861
Agenda Item # 2.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Approved by: Candace Bond, Interim City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: September 24, 2025 Meeting date: September 25, 2025 Subject: Rebuild Policies to Facilitate the Rebuilding of Structures Damaged or Destroyed by Natural Disasters
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Rebuild Policies; LCP and Zoning Code Interpretation (LCP Interpretation Number 24 and Zoning Code Interpretation Number 15) to facilitate the rebuild of structures destroyed by natural disasters.
DISCUSSION: The City Council discussed all of the policies enumerated within the attached draft policy document and directed staff to come back with the final draft for approval. The language that has been changed per the Council’s direction has been included in red text for ease of review.
On September 9, 2025, staff met with coastal engineering professionals and discussed Policy Issue No. 10 regarding wave action reports and sea level rise as well as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for beachfront rebuilds. Staff will be bringing back an item to the Council regarding this matter. A note has been left in the policy document denoting this fact.
ATTACHMENT:
1. Final Draft of Council Rebuild Policy
City Council Meeting
09-25-25
Item
2.A.
LCP and Zoning Code Interpretation
(Interpretation of the provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program and local Zoning Ordinance as approved by the City Council)
LCP Number: _ 24_ Dated: _September 25, 2025____
Zoning Code Number: 15 Amended: _______________
Community Development Director: Yolanda Bundy
Planning Manager: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
Interpreting Body: City Council
MMC and LCP Sections: Various Sections within Title 17 of the MMC and the LCP Title: Rebuild Policies
The City of Malibu has historically been subject to wildfires and other natural disasters that have destroyed property. The City has established a series of ordinances to guide the rebuild process following those disasters. In March of 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 524, the “Disaster Rebuild Ordinance”, which provided relief to those impacted by the 2025 Palisades Fire, 2024 Franklin Fire, and 2024 Broad Fire, but also set new regulations for the rebuilding of structures lost in past and future disasters. Generally, property owners are allowed to replace structures destroyed by a natural disaster with an additional 10 percent height, bulk, or floor area per the Malibu Local Coastal Program’s (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.4.6. Additionally, Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.60.020(C) allows for structures destroyed in a natural disaster to be replaced with an additional 10 percent height, bulk, or square footage. In implementing the regulations set forth in Ordinance No. 524 that provide relief from the regular development standards, questions have arisen regarding issues related to the ordinance and rebuilding after disasters. To provide additional clarity, the following interpretations are hereby adopted to provide consistent guidance and application of these provisions:
Issue No. 1: What is “like-for-like”? Property owners are allowed to replace their previous structures that were destroyed “like-for-like” plus 10 percent additional square footage, height, or bulk.
Current Policy: “Like-for-like” means a replacement structure that is compliant with LIP Section
13.4.6 (if applicable) and MMC Section 17.60.020(C) in that it is sited in substantially the same location and is within 110 percent the same height, bulk, or square footage of the previous structure.
Bulk (volume) is the constraining factor. A replacement structure cannot exceed 110 percent the volume of the previous structure. The extra 10 percent bulk (volume) can be allocated to extra height or extra square footage so long as it does not exceed 110 percent the bulk (volume), square footage, or height of the previous structure. For example, adding 10 percent extra square footage may result in not being able to add extra height because the extra bulk was already expended on the extra square footage. Or vice versa, if the extra 10 percent bulk has already been expended on extra height, then the applicant may not get extra square footage. Previously existing bulk can be shifted around so long as the replacement structure is sited within substantially the same location as the previous structure, and the shifting of bulk does not exceed 110 percent the height or square footage of the previous structure. For non-beachfront properties, if bulk is shifted to other parts of the structure and the bulk exceeds 18 feet in height and is outside the original building envelope, the shifted bulk will require a site plan review pursuant to MMC Section 17.62.040. The design of the structure may change. For example, a craftsman style design can be rebuilt as a modern design as long as the structure is within 110 percent the same height, bulk, and square footage of the previous structure.
Issue No. 2: What qualifies as a replacement structure being located in the same “general location” (MMC Section 17.60.020(C)) or “sited in substantially the same location” (LIP Section 13.4.6(A)).
Both the MMC and LCP require that replacement structures be sited in the same general location as the previous structures.
Current Policy: Replacement structures must be sited within 50 percent of the previous structure’s footprint and envelope to be considered “substantially” in the same location. Relocations beyond 50 percent of the original footprint require a De Minimis Waiver pursuant to LIP Section 13.4.11 or a Coastal Development Permit (if the findings for a De Minimis Waiver are not met).
Issue No. 3: Calculating bulk. Bulk is defined in the LIP as “the total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.” The term is not defined in the MMC.
Current Policy: Property owners may rebuild their structures in line with the LIP definition of bulk; meaning the cubic volume (bulk) shall not exceed 110 percent the previous structure’s volume.
Issue No. 4: What is considered a “lawfully erected” structure under MMC Section 17.60.020? MMC Section 17.60.020(C) allows for lawfully erected structures that do not conform to the current design and development standards (or lot development criteria) in the City to be reconstructed if they were destroyed or damaged in a natural disaster.
Current Policy: Unless evidence demonstrates the contrary, a structure will be considered to be “lawfully erected” if: (1) it has a building permit or the required approvals from a government agency who had jurisdiction over the subject location when the structure was erected, or (2) the evidence demonstrates the structure existed prior to the date of the City’s incorporation-- except structures located on a beach, coastal bluff, within an environmentally sensitive habitat area, or other sensitive coastal resource area must be shown to have existed prior to the California Coastal Act. Evidence that may be used to demonstrate the above includes, but is not limited to, aerial and GIS imagery, photography, city records, Los Angeles County Assessor data, and California Coastal Commission records. For properties affected by the 2025 Palisades Fire only, “lawfully erected” shall also mean that any structure that existed prior to the 2025 Palisades Fire can be built back as long as the structure was not part of an open code enforcement violation by the City and not illegal. If the parcel was identified by the Los Angeles County Assessor to be a vacant parcel before the fire, any structure located on the parcel shall be considered illegal.
Issue No. 5: Basements. MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(13)(c) discounts the first 1,000 square feet of basements towards a property’s total development square footage (TDSF). Based on this language, some property owners are requesting that new basements do not count towards the 110 percent square footage allowed in a like-for-like rebuild.
Current Policy: The square footage for new basements shall be included in the 110 percent square footage calculation. A replacement structure cannot exceed a 10 percent increase in size/square footage, which would occur if the square footage of new basements was not included in the calculation.
Issue No. 6: Water tanks and pools. Water tanks and pools that have a draft hydrant and which can be connected to by the Los Angeles County Fire Department may be necessary for rebuild structures to have adequate fire flow to fight fires. MMC Section 17.62.080(A)(4) allows for water tanks, pools and other water storage devices to be permitted as long as they are required or recommended by a government agency.
Current Policy: If water tanks and pools are required or recommended by a government agency, the development standards for new structures within the subject zoning district shall be required except that the square footage needed for water tanks shall not be counted towards a property’s TDSF.
Issue No. 7: Combining square footage between multiple structures. Some property owners are seeking to combine square footage from multiple structures into one structure. For example, a property owner may have had a home with a detached gym but is now proposing to combine the detached gym’s square footage with the home. LIP Section 13.4.6 states that a replacement structure is exempt from a CDP if the replacement structure (1) is for the same use, (2) does not exceed the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and (3) is sited in substantially the same location. This section implies that each structure shall be placed in the same general location and rebuilt to the same general size.
Current Policy: MMC Section 17.40.050(B) sets the zoning standards for required distance between buildings. Main buildings shall be at least 10 feet apart. Main building and accessory building shall be at least six feet apart. If structures that are proposed to be replaced are 10 feet or less in distance apart, they may be combined. However, as stated in LIP Section 13.4.6, the structures must maintain the same use. If an uninhabitable structure (such as a garage) is combined with a habitable structure, the square footage of the uninhabitable area must be maintained. This policy avoids unintended consequences that could be caused through the consolidation of dispersed structures into a larger home that could have impacts on views or other sensitive resources.
Issue No. 8: No net loss. California’s “No Net Loss” law (SB 166) “prohibits a city, county, or city and county from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element, and that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. The city, county, or city and county may reduce the residential density for a parcel if it identifies sufficient sites, as prescribed, so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity.” Some property owners, during the rebuild process, are seeking to convert multifamily structures into single-family structures if allowed by the subject zoning district.
Current Policy: In order to maintain compliance with State Law, the City is requiring that property owners who are seeking to convert their multifamily structures to single-family structures replace those lost units in the form of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). For example, a triplex (three units) that is proposed to be replaced by a single-family residence shall also include two ADUs to ensure there is no net loss. However, where State law allows flexibility, staff may allow less density on a lot than previously existing.
Issue No. 9: 10 percent increases must comply with current zoning regulations. MMC Section
17.60.020(C) allows nonconforming structures to be replaced (up to 110 percent height, bulk, and square footage) and maintain their nonconforming aspects in relation to the applicable zoning regulations.
Current Policy: The 10 percent increases must comply with current zoning regulations. As stated in MMC Section 17.60.020(C), increases to height or bulk above 18 feet shall require a site plan review (SPR) on non-beachfront properties. Similarly, 10 percent increases into required yard setbacks shall only be allowed with a SPR as listed in MMC Section 17.62.040. However, de minimis encroachments into required setbacks may be allowed at the discretion of the Community Development Director / Planning Manager. This policy allows legally established structures that do not conform to the current codes to be rebuilt but prevents their nonconformities from expanding.
No. 10: Is a wave action report required for a beachfront rebuild of a residence for a Planning Verification? MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(5)(b) states that new construction on beachfront lots must have their lowest finished floors elevations be determined by a comprehensive wave action report. In contrast, additions to an existing structure measure height based on an existing finished floor elevation.
Current Policy: The LIP definition of “New Development” explicitly excludes replacement structures (destroyed in a natural disaster) from being defined as new development and thus not subject to the rigorous review of new development requirements within the LCP. Because the LCP does not include replacement structures as “New Development”, the structures shall also not be considered “new construction” for planning (zoning) purposes. The lowest finished floor shall be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) flood plain regulations as stated in MMC Section
17.60.020(C)(1). A wave action report is necessary for newly required structures such as onsite wastewater treatment systems (existing and new) and new seawalls that would be processed under a Rebuild Development Permit per MMC Section 15.40.110(A). (This issue will be brought back before the Council at a separate hearing and will not be in effect until then. This serves as a placeholder until finalized by the Council)
Issue No. 11: Rooftop decks. Rooftop decks are referenced in LIP Section 3.6(E) as allowed, specifically for beachfront properties, and have been allowed historically in the City for non-beachfront properties. Rooftop decks are becoming more common and have been permitted on both beachfront and non-beachfront structures throughout the City’s history.
Current Policy: Rooftop decks are allowed for both beachfront and non-beachfront rebuilds.
Structures that include rooftop decks shall be conditioned to prohibit furniture that exceeds the railing height and to ensure that any lighting on the deck complies with the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance.
Rooftop deck railing height shall be included in the maximum height allowance for the replacement structure.
Issue No. 12: Survey requirement. Residents have expressed concerns about providing surveys in their Planning Verification applications. Staff have been able to accept other forms of evidence to verify compliance with LIP Section 13.4.6 (if applicable) and MMC Section 17.60.020(C) such as historical surveys, City approved plans, and Los Angeles County and California Coastal Commission records. However, there have been discrepancies in the available information. An example of a discrepancy is when the Los Angeles County Assessor information regarding lot area differs from what has been represented on historical plans.
Current Policy: Staff will require a survey in the Planning Verification phase to demonstrate compliance with the LIP Section 13.4.6 and MMC Section 17.60.020(C). The submitted survey in the Planning Verification phase can be used in Building Plan Check. 2025 PALISADES FIRE ONLY
The following issues are addressed only for structures destroyed in the 2025 Palisades Fire and do not apply to other structures that were destroyed in any other natural disaster as these projects are subject to special orders from the Governor.
Issue No. PF1: Projects that were deemed complete prior to the fire but never approved or permitted.
There are some property owners who had projects in the system before the fire for additions and other improvements to their previously existing structures.
Current Policy: If a project was approved or the application was deemed complete before the 2025 Palisades Fire, and the structure was destroyed in the fire, the property owner is allowed to construct both the replacement structure and the deemed complete application as long as all required permits are obtained and as long as the deemed complete application does not require a variance. The owner may have to submit additional documentation for a project that has not yet received approval from the City. If the deemed complete application requires a site plan review, minor modification, or stringline modification, it may be denied if the City cannot make the required findings listed in the MMC. In these instances, the replacement structure and the deemed complete application will be considered the “like-for-like”. However, If the deemed complete application is for new square footage for the structure that was destroyed in the fire, and the new square footage in the deemed complete application exceeds 10 percent of the square footage of the previous structure, the applicant/owner shall not be allowed to obtain more square footage than what is authorized in the deemed complete application. In other words, the applicant/owner shall not get an additional 10 percent square footage on top of the square footage allowed under the deemed complete application if the deemed complete application was for more than 10 percent the square footage of the previous structure. The applicant in such case may only build the structure proposed in the deemed complete plans.
Issue No. PF2: Seaward projections. Governor Gavin Newsome’s Executive Order (N-20-25), states that replacement structures may not “expand farther seaward on the beach than the structure or facility” that existed immediately before the 2025 Palisades Fire.
Current Policy: A replacement structure is not allowed to expand farther seaward than the structure that existed before the fire but it may shift previously existing square footage more seaward so long as the area being shifted does not go farther seaward than the structure’s “predominate seaward projection”. MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(7)(c)(1)(b) defines a beachfront structure’s “predominate seaward projection” as “that portion of a structure closest to the ocean, which has a width (i.e., the dimension which is on a plane parallel to the ocean front) at least 30% of the maximum width of the structure.” If one floor is further seaward than another, and the floor that is further seaward meets the definition of “predominate seaward projection”, then the floor that is further landward may extend out to a point no further seaward than the “predominant seaward projection” of the structure but shall still be limited by the stringline rule as required in MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(7)(c). Both the deck and the dwelling are viewed as separate structures.
Issue No. PF3: Are building code required interior accesses on beachfront lots counted towards the 10 percent increase in square footage allowed? With the new FEMA regulations shifting beachfront properties to higher elevations, some property owners may have homes that extend significantly above PCH than before and thus require new interior access staircases to access the home from ground level (Pacific Coast Highway).
Current Policy: An interior access that is required by the building code and is necessitated by the new finished floor requirements based on the FEMA flood elevations will not be counted towards the 10 percent additional square footage allowed for rebuilds.
Issue No. PF4: Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order (N-32-25) states that local jurisdictions within the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades Fire may prohibit or restrict the acceptance and processing of applications under Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 for projects located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
Current Policy: The City of Malibu will not accept or process applications under Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 for any project within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the boundaries of the Palisades areas.
Legislative Record: On September 25, 2025, the City Council reviewed every issue and adopted the corresponding policies.