Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, November 24, 2025 (part 4 of 10)

SIGN FACING MATERIAL
LEGEND

DESIGNATION
SIGN
SIZE
PANEL
SIGN

OVERLAY

PROTECTIVE
EA
(METALPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

SQFT LB EA
(0.063"-FRAMED)
(0.080"-FRAMED)
SQFT
48-2

PANELAREA
SQFT
Rt
BR = BROWN
SUBTOTAL (SQ-8)
EA

NO SCALE NO SCALE

HANGERMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(MAST-ARM

MOUNTED ONMASTARM

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

METAL(ROADSIDESIGN)

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
18:56
2-MAR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
USERNAME => s150586
DGN FILE => 0735420od0xx.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

46.9/62.9
ANHD. NGUYEN

AARONRUIZ
ANHD. NGUYEN

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1
2124 07180003231

PANEL ONEXISTINGPOST

INSTALLROADSIDESIGN
EA
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
60 X 18 7.50 W IX G XI *

5.00 4 x 4 12.0

7.50 24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI *12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI *

7.00 4 x 4 13.0 5.00
Y
B 44 X 18 5.50 W IX XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 5.50
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00

29.1 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 3.00
12 X 6 0.50 W IX G XI * 0.5024 X 30 5.00 W IX B * 10.00

7.00 2 x 2 11.1 54.5 2
18 X 18 2.25 Y XI B * 5.50
1 1 60

7.00 4 x 4 12.0 13.5 9 9 540
1 1 60
30 X 30 6.25 W IX BR XI * 7.00 4 x 4 13.0 6.25 1 1 60
12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 3.00 2 2 120
60 X 36 15.0 W IX G XI * 7.00 4 x 4 13.5 15.0 1 2 120
54 X 18 6.75 W IX B * 3.00 2 x 2 8.0 13.50 58.2 2

7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1
48 X 54 18.00 W IX B * 18.00 7.00 2 x 2 15.0 73.5 212 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 24 X 18 3.00 *
12 X 5 .42
W IX G XI 3.00
.42

7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1

6.75 R
B 18 X 18 2.25 W IX XI * 3 3
18 X 12 1.50 * RB W IX XI 4.50 3 3

58.8 2
24 X 18 3.00 *
8 X 5 0.28
W IX G XI 3.00

0.28 7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 3.00 29.1 1
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00 7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1

84.70 31.50 22.50 14 1 6 427.8 16 14 6 960
S-48 L-1(CA)
48-3
48-4
48-5
48-6
48-7
48-8
48-9
(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)(Lt)R26K(CA)(Mod)(Both)R26K(CA)(Mod)L-1(CA)R2-1R48-1R26K(CA) 48-10
48-11
48-12
48-13
48-14
48-15
48-16
48-17
S-49
G88-4(CA)R18A(CA)D3-1R1-1G7-1(CA)D11-1L-1(CA)(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)W11-1W16-1PW11-2W16-4P 49-1
49-2
R26K(CA)W11-2
485

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
Lt
C
LEGEND: B = BLACK G = GREEN
R = RED
W = WHITEY = YELLOW
P = PANTONE
FG = FLUORESCENT GREEN
FY = FLUORESCENT YELLOW
BL = BLUE
SIGN QUANTITIES SQ-43

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
CLt
SHEETNo.

No.

SIGN

BACKGROUND
COLOR

SHEETING

PREMIUM

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE
SIZE
EA
Lt Rt
SQFT

ONEPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
INCH
x
INCH
Lt

EA EA LB
(WOODPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

TREATEDWOODWASTE

SADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(STRAP AND

TWOPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
EA
(0.080"- UNFRAMED)

POST DATA

ALUMINUM SIGN

FURNISH SINGLE SHEET
(0.063"- UNFRAMED)
INFEET

CLEARANCE(C)
INFEET

TOTAL LENGTH
EA
PANEL

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN
EA

ANDSADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN(STRAP
SQFT
INCH
x
INCH
(L X D)

SHEETING COLOR

SIGN FACING MATERIAL
LEGEND

DESIGNATION
SIGN
SIZE
PANEL
SIGN

OVERLAY

PROTECTIVE
EA
(METALPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

SQFT LB EA
(0.063"-FRAMED)
(0.080"-FRAMED)
SQFT
49-3

PANELAREA
SQFT
Rt
BR = BROWN

SUBTOTAL (SQ-X)
EA

NO SCALE NO SCALE

HANGERMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(MAST-ARM

MOUNTED ONMASTARM

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

METAL(ROADSIDESIGN)

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
18:56
2-MAR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

46.9/62.9
ANHD. NGUYEN

AARONRUIZ
ANHD. NGUYEN

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1
2124 07180003231

PANEL ONEXISTINGPOST

INSTALLROADSIDESIGN
EA
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
60 X 18 7.50 W IX G XI *

5.00 4 x 4 12.0

7.50 24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI *12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI *

7.00 4 x 4 13.0 5.00
Y
B 44 X 18 5.50 W IX XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 5.50
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00

29.1 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 3.00
12 X 6 0.50 W IX G XI * 0.5024 X 30 5.00 W IX B * 10.00

7.00 2 x 2 11.1 54.5 2
18 X 18 2.25 Y XI B * 5.50
1 1 60

7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1
48 X 54 18.00 W IX B * 18.00 7.00 2 x 2 15.0 73.5 212 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 24 X 18 3.00 *
12 X 5 .42
W IX G XI 3.00
.42

7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1

6.75 R
B 18 X 18 2.25 W IX XI * 3 3
18 X 12 1.50 * RB W IX XI 4.50 3 3

58.8 2
24 X 18 3.00 *
8 X 5 0.28
W IX G XI 3.00

0.28 7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 3.00 29.1 1
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00 7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1

84.70 31.50 22.50 14 1 6 427.8 16 14 6 960
S-49 R26K(CA)
49-4
49-5
49-6
49-7,49-8
49-9
49-10
49-11
L-2(CA)
R26K(CA)D11-1
L-1(CA)
(Both)R26K(CA)(Mod)R26K(CA)R26K(CA)
49-12
SG32(CA)G72(CA)
49-13
49-14
49-15
49-16
G72(CA)D11-1SC3(CA)W22-2G1-7(CA)
S-50 50-1
50-2
50-3
50-4
50-5
50-6
L-2(CA)R2-1W9-7(Mod)L-1(CA)M3-1G28-2(CA)W16-4PW11-2
486

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
Lt
C
LEGEND: B = BLACK G = GREEN
R = RED
W = WHITEY = YELLOW
P = PANTONE
FG = FLUORESCENT GREEN
FY = FLUORESCENT YELLOW
BL = BLUE
SIGN QUANTITIES SQ-44

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
CLt
SHEETNo.

No.

SIGN

BACKGROUND
COLOR

SHEETING

PREMIUM

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE
SIZE
EA
Lt Rt
SQFT

ONEPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
INCH
x
INCH
Lt

EA EA LB
(WOODPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

TREATEDWOODWASTE

SADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(STRAP AND

TWOPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
EA
(0.080"- UNFRAMED)

POST DATA

ALUMINUM SIGN

FURNISH SINGLE SHEET
(0.063"- UNFRAMED)
INFEET

CLEARANCE(C)
INFEET

TOTAL LENGTH
EA
PANEL

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN
EA

ANDSADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN(STRAP
SQFT
INCH
x
INCH
(L X D)

SHEETING COLOR

SIGN FACING MATERIAL
LEGEND

DESIGNATION
SIGN
SIZE
PANEL
SIGN

OVERLAY

PROTECTIVE
EA
(METALPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

SQFT LB EA
(0.063"-FRAMED)
(0.080"-FRAMED)
SQFT
50-7

PANELAREA
SQFT
Rt
BR = BROWN

SUBTOTAL (SQ-X)
EA

NO SCALE NO SCALE

HANGERMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(MAST-ARM

MOUNTED ONMASTARM

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

METAL(ROADSIDESIGN)

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
18:56
2-MAR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

46.9/62.9
ANHD. NGUYEN

AARONRUIZ
ANHD. NGUYEN

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1
2124 07180003231

PANEL ONEXISTINGPOST

INSTALLROADSIDESIGN
EA
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
60 X 18 7.50 W IX G XI *

5.00 4 x 4 12.0

7.50 24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI *12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI *

7.00 4 x 4 13.0 5.00
Y
B 44 X 18 5.50 W IX XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 5.50
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00

29.1 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 3.00
12 X 6 0.50 W IX G XI * 0.5024 X 30 5.00 W IX B * 10.00

7.00 2 x 2 11.1 54.5 2
18 X 18 2.25 Y XI B * 5.50
1 1 60

7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1
48 X 54 18.00 W IX B * 18.00 7.00 2 x 2 15.0 73.5 212 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 24 X 18 3.00 *
12 X 5 .42
W IX G XI 3.00
.42

7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1

6.75 R
B 18 X 18 2.25 W IX XI * 3 3
18 X 12 1.50 * RB W IX XI 4.50 3 3

58.8 2
24 X 18 3.00 *
8 X 5 0.28
W IX G XI 3.00

0.28 7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 3.00 29.1 1
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00 7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1

84.70 31.50 22.50 14 1 6 427.8 16 14 6 960
S-50 W11-2
W16-4P
50-8
50-9
50-10
50-11
SR53(CA)(Mod2)W11-2W16-4PG78-4(CA)
W22-2SC3(CA)
50-12 L-1(CA)
S-51 51-1
51-2
51-3
51-4
51-5
D11-1D11-1R4-3R4-3
(Both)R26K(CA)(Mod)
S-52
52-1
52-2
52-3
(Both)R26K(CA)(Mod)(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
W11-1W16-1P
S-53
53-1
53-2
53-3
53-4
D11-1R4-11
(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)(Lt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
L-1(CA)
487

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
Lt
C
LEGEND: B = BLACK G = GREEN
R = RED
W = WHITEY = YELLOW
P = PANTONE
FG = FLUORESCENT GREEN
FY = FLUORESCENT YELLOW
BL = BLUE
SIGN QUANTITIES SQ-45

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
CLt
SHEETNo.

No.

SIGN

BACKGROUND
COLOR

SHEETING

PREMIUM

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE
SIZE
EA
Lt Rt
SQFT

ONEPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
INCH
x
INCH
Lt

EA EA LB
(WOODPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

TREATEDWOODWASTE

SADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(STRAP AND

TWOPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
EA
(0.080"- UNFRAMED)

POST DATA

ALUMINUM SIGN

FURNISH SINGLE SHEET
(0.063"- UNFRAMED)
INFEET

CLEARANCE(C)
INFEET

TOTAL LENGTH
EA
PANEL

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN
EA

ANDSADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN(STRAP
SQFT
INCH
x
INCH
(L X D)

SHEETING COLOR

SIGN FACING MATERIAL
LEGEND

DESIGNATION
SIGN
SIZE
PANEL
SIGN

OVERLAY

PROTECTIVE
EA
(METALPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

SQFT LB EA
(0.063"-FRAMED)
(0.080"-FRAMED)
SQFT
53-5

PANELAREA
SQFT
Rt
BR = BROWN

SUBTOTAL (SQ-X)
EA

NO SCALE NO SCALE

HANGERMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(MAST-ARM

MOUNTED ONMASTARM

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

METAL(ROADSIDESIGN)

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
18:56
2-MAR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

46.9/62.9
ANHD. NGUYEN

AARONRUIZ
ANHD. NGUYEN

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1
2124 07180003231

PANEL ONEXISTINGPOST

INSTALLROADSIDESIGN
EA
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
60 X 18 7.50 W IX G XI *

5.00 4 x 4 12.0

7.50 24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI *12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI *

7.00 4 x 4 13.0 5.00
Y
B 44 X 18 5.50 W IX XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 5.50
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00

29.1 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 3.00
12 X 6 0.50 W IX G XI * 0.5024 X 30 5.00 W IX B * 10.00

7.00 2 x 2 11.1 54.5 2
18 X 18 2.25 Y XI B * 5.50
1 1 60

7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1
48 X 54 18.00 W IX B * 18.00 7.00 2 x 2 15.0 73.5 212 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 24 X 18 3.00 *
12 X 5 .42
W IX G XI 3.00
.42

7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1

6.75 R
B 18 X 18 2.25 W IX XI * 3 3
18 X 12 1.50 * RB W IX XI 4.50 3 3

58.8 2
24 X 18 3.00 *
8 X 5 0.28
W IX G XI 3.00

0.28 7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 3.00 29.1 1
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00 7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1

84.70 31.50 22.50 14 1 6 427.8 16 14 6 960
S-53
(Lt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
53-6
53-7
S32(CA)S32-1(CA)
D11-1R4-11
S-54 54-1 G5(CA)
S-55
55-1
55-2
55-3
55-4
D11-1R4-11D11-1R4-11
(Lt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
W11-2W16-4P
S-56 56-1
56-2
56-3
56-4
56-5
56-6
D11-1R4-11D11-1R4-11G7-1(CA)
W16-1PW11-1
L-1(CA)G72(CA)
S-57 57-1 R7-203(CA)(Mod1)
488

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
Lt
C
LEGEND: B = BLACK G = GREEN
R = RED
W = WHITEY = YELLOW
P = PANTONE
FG = FLUORESCENT GREEN
FY = FLUORESCENT YELLOW
BL = BLUE
SIGN QUANTITIES SQ-46

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
CLt
SHEETNo.

No.

SIGN

BACKGROUND
COLOR

SHEETING

PREMIUM

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE
SIZE
EA
Lt Rt
SQFT

ONEPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
INCH
x
INCH
Lt

EA EA LB
(WOODPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

TREATEDWOODWASTE

SADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(STRAP AND

TWOPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
EA
(0.080"- UNFRAMED)

POST DATA

ALUMINUM SIGN

FURNISH SINGLE SHEET
(0.063"- UNFRAMED)
INFEET

CLEARANCE(C)
INFEET

TOTAL LENGTH
EA
PANEL

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN
EA

ANDSADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN(STRAP
SQFT
INCH
x
INCH
(L X D)

SHEETING COLOR

SIGN FACING MATERIAL
LEGEND

DESIGNATION
SIGN
SIZE
PANEL
SIGN

OVERLAY

PROTECTIVE
EA
(METALPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

SQFT LB EA
(0.063"-FRAMED)
(0.080"-FRAMED)
SQFT
57-2

PANELAREA
SQFT
Rt
BR = BROWN

SUBTOTAL (SQ-X)
EA

NO SCALE NO SCALE

HANGERMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(MAST-ARM

MOUNTED ONMASTARM

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

METAL(ROADSIDESIGN)

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
18:56
2-MAR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

46.9/62.9
ANHD. NGUYEN

AARONRUIZ
ANHD. NGUYEN

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1
2124 07180003231

PANEL ONEXISTINGPOST

INSTALLROADSIDESIGN
EA
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
60 X 18 7.50 W IX G XI *

5.00 4 x 4 12.0

7.50 24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI *12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI *

7.00 4 x 4 13.0 5.00
Y
B 44 X 18 5.50 W IX XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 5.50
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00

29.1 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 3.00
12 X 6 0.50 W IX G XI * 0.5024 X 30 5.00 W IX B * 10.00

7.00 2 x 2 11.1 54.5 2
18 X 18 2.25 Y XI B * 5.50
1 1 60

7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1
48 X 54 18.00 W IX B * 18.00 7.00 2 x 2 15.0 73.5 212 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 24 X 18 3.00 *
12 X 5 .42
W IX G XI 3.00
.42

7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1

6.75 R
B 18 X 18 2.25 W IX XI * 3 3
18 X 12 1.50 * RB W IX XI 4.50 3 3

58.8 2
24 X 18 3.00 *
8 X 5 0.28
W IX G XI 3.00

0.28 7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 3.00 29.1 1
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00 7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1

84.70 31.50 22.50 14 1 6 427.8 16 14 6 960
S-57 G9-5(CA)
57-3
R2-4(Mod1)G86-11(CA)
S-58 58-1
58-2
58-3
58-4
58-5
58-6
58-7
58-8,58-9
R30A(CA)
D11-1R4-11
R26K(CA)R28(CA)
(Lt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
D11-1R4-11
R26A(CA)R28(CA)
S-59 59-1 G8-4(CA)
59-2
59-3
59-4
59-5
59-6
59-7
59-8
59-9
59-10
R30A(CA)
(Both)R30E(CA)(Mod)
R30A(CA)
(Both)R30E(CA)(Mod)
G8-4(CA)
(Both)R30E(CA)(Mod)
(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
R28(CA)G86-11(CA)
489

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
Lt
C
LEGEND: B = BLACK G = GREEN
R = RED
W = WHITEY = YELLOW
P = PANTONE
FG = FLUORESCENT GREEN
FY = FLUORESCENT YELLOW
BL = BLUE
SIGN QUANTITIES SQ-47

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
CLt
SHEETNo.

No.

SIGN

BACKGROUND
COLOR

SHEETING

PREMIUM

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE
SIZE
EA
Lt Rt
SQFT

ONEPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
INCH
x
INCH
Lt

EA EA LB
(WOODPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

TREATEDWOODWASTE

SADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(STRAP AND

TWOPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
EA
(0.080"- UNFRAMED)

POST DATA

ALUMINUM SIGN

FURNISH SINGLE SHEET
(0.063"- UNFRAMED)
INFEET

CLEARANCE(C)
INFEET

TOTAL LENGTH
EA
PANEL

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN
EA

ANDSADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN(STRAP
SQFT
INCH
x
INCH
(L X D)

SHEETING COLOR

SIGN FACING MATERIAL
LEGEND

DESIGNATION
SIGN
SIZE
PANEL
SIGN

OVERLAY

PROTECTIVE
EA
(METALPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

SQFT LB EA
(0.063"-FRAMED)
(0.080"-FRAMED)
SQFT
59-11

PANELAREA
SQFT
Rt
BR = BROWN

SUBTOTAL (SQ-X)
EA

NO SCALE NO SCALE

HANGERMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(MAST-ARM

MOUNTED ONMASTARM

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

METAL(ROADSIDESIGN)

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
18:56
2-MAR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

46.9/62.9
ANHD. NGUYEN

AARONRUIZ
ANHD. NGUYEN

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1
2124 07180003231

PANEL ONEXISTINGPOST

INSTALLROADSIDESIGN
EA
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
60 X 18 7.50 W IX G XI *

5.00 4 x 4 12.0

7.50 24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI *12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI *

7.00 4 x 4 13.0 5.00
Y
B 44 X 18 5.50 W IX XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 5.50
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00

29.1 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 3.00
12 X 6 0.50 W IX G XI * 0.5024 X 30 5.00 W IX B * 10.00

7.00 2 x 2 11.1 54.5 2
18 X 18 2.25 Y XI B * 5.50
1 1 60

7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1
48 X 54 18.00 W IX B * 18.00 7.00 2 x 2 15.0 73.5 212 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 24 X 18 3.00 *
12 X 5 .42
W IX G XI 3.00
.42

7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1

6.75 R
B 18 X 18 2.25 W IX XI * 3 3
18 X 12 1.50 * RB W IX XI 4.50 3 3

58.8 2
24 X 18 3.00 *
8 X 5 0.28
W IX G XI 3.00

0.28 7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1
24 X 18 3.00 W IX G XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 3.00 29.1 1
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00 7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1

84.70 31.50 22.50 14 1 6 427.8 16 14 6 960
S-59 R6-1
59-12
59-13
59-14
R4-4D3-1R117(CA)R30A(CA)D3-1
S-60
59-15
60-1
60-2
60-3
60-4
60-5
R30A(CA)R30A(CA)R30A(CA)
D11-1R4-11D11-1R4-11
S-61 61-1
61-2
61-3
61-4
61-5
TO 61-11
61-6
S33(CA)S32(CA)S32-1(CA)
R28(CA)G11-7(CA)G10(CA)(Both)R30A(CA)(Mod)
61-12
61-13
(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
D11-1R4-11
490

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
Lt
C
LEGEND: B = BLACK G = GREEN
R = RED
W = WHITEY = YELLOW
P = PANTONE
FG = FLUORESCENT GREEN
FY = FLUORESCENT YELLOW
BL = BLUE
SIGN QUANTITIES SQ-48

TYPICAL POST HEIGHT DETAIL
CLt
SHEETNo.

No.

SIGN

BACKGROUND
COLOR

SHEETING

PREMIUM

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE

ASTMTYPE

RETROREFLECTIVE
SIZE
EA
Lt Rt
SQFT

ONEPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
INCH
x
INCH
Lt

EA EA LB
(WOODPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

TREATEDWOODWASTE

SADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(STRAP AND

TWOPOST

ROADSIDESIGN-
EA
(0.080"- UNFRAMED)

POST DATA

ALUMINUM SIGN

FURNISH SINGLE SHEET
(0.063"- UNFRAMED)
INFEET

CLEARANCE(C)
INFEET

TOTAL LENGTH
EA
PANEL

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN
EA

ANDSADDLE BRACKETMETHOD)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN(STRAP
SQFT
INCH
x
INCH
(L X D)

SHEETING COLOR

SIGN FACING MATERIAL
LEGEND

DESIGNATION
SIGN
SIZE
PANEL
SIGN

OVERLAY

PROTECTIVE
EA
(METALPOST)

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

SQFT LB EA
(0.063"-FRAMED)
(0.080"-FRAMED)
SQFT
61-14

PANELAREA
SQFT
Rt
BR = BROWN

SUBTOTAL (SQ-X)
EA

NO SCALE NO SCALE

HANGERMETHOD)

INSTALLSIGN(MAST-ARM

MOUNTED ONMASTARM

REMOVEROADSIDESIGN

METAL(ROADSIDESIGN)

ROADSIDE SIGN QUANTITIES
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
18:56
2-MAR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

46.9/62.9
ANHD. NGUYEN

AARONRUIZ
ANHD. NGUYEN

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1
2124 07180003231

PANEL ONEXISTINGPOST

INSTALLROADSIDESIGN
EA
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI *12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI *

7.00 4 x 4 13.0 5.00
Y
B 44 X 18 5.50 W IX XI * 7.00 4 x 4 12.0 5.50
24 X 30 5.00 W IX R XI * 5.00

29.1 1
1 1 60

7.00 2 x 2 13.0 31.9 1
48 X 54 18.00 W IX B * 18.00 7.00 2 x 2 15.0 73.5 212 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 24 X 18 3.00 *
12 X 5 .42
W IX G XI 3.00
.42

7.00 2 x 2 12.5
W IX G XI *

30.4 1

6.75 R
B 18 X 18 2.25 W IX XI * 3 3

84.70 31.50 22.50 14 1 6 427.8 16 14 6 960
S-61 R6-1
61-15
61-16
61-17
S32(CA)S32-1(CA)
L-1(CA)
61-18
61-19
61-20
61-21
R81(CA)(Mod)R81B(CA)R30A(CA)
R4-11
S32(CA)
R118(CA)
61-22
61-23
61-24
TO 61-28
61-25
61-29
(Lt)R26K(CA)(Mod)(Rt)R26K(CA)(Mod)
R81(CA)(Mod)
(Both)R26K(CA)(Mod)
D11-1
R4-11
12 X 18 1.50 W IX R XI * 7.00 2 x 2 12.0 1.50 29.1 1
24 X 18
12 X 5

3.00 .42 W
W IX G *
*
XI

IX G XI

7.00 2 x 2 12.5

3.00 .42

30.4 1
491
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATELICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT

LICENSED LANDS APE ARCHITECT
Signature
Renewal Date
Date
C

SENIORLANDSCAPEARCHITECT
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
11:02
15-APR-2025
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
USERNAME => s109815
DGN FILE => 0718000323sk001.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 9/8/2021 UNIT 1850 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 07180003231

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

LA NDSCAPEA RCHITECTURE
XUAN
W
U
SHAN
C
A
I
GEO
RGE
O
LGU
NI
G EORGE OLGUI 333 N .4 ON
08-31-25
00-00-00
00-00-00

LANDSCAPE DETAIL
NO SCALE LD-1
SHEET
CY

QUANTITY
L-1 WOOD MULCH 5

WOOD MULCH QUANTITIES

DESCRIPTION

WOOD MULCH

WOOD MULCHWOOD MULCH
12 15
5 WOOD MULCH 8
WOOD MULCH 5WOOD MULCH 17WOOD MULCH 30WOOD MULCH 9
L-4
L-10
L-11
L-12
L-19
L-24
L-27
L-31

PROPOSED VEGETATION CONTROL
MAX 3'
ROADSIDE CLEARING AND 3" DEPTH WOOD MULCH (WOOD CHIP MULCH) LEGEND:

PROPOSED MGS
Exist DIKE
Exist TRVD WAY
ROADSIDE CLEARING AND 3" DEPTH WOOD MULCH
SHEET
CY

QUANTITY
L-39 WOOD MULCH 21
TOTAL

DESCRIPTION

WOOD MULCHWOOD MULCHWOOD MULCHWOOD MULCH
29 20
17 5
WOOD MULCH 21WOOD MULCH 5WOOD MULCH 8WOOD MULCH 7
239
L-40
L-41
L-42
L-47
L-52
L-54
L-56
L-59
MULCH

1.PLACE WOOD MULCH BEHIND THE VEGETATION CONTROL MAT
(SEE MULCH QUANTITY CHART)
(SEE LAYOUT PLANS)
POINT IS LESS THAN 3',PLACE WOOD MULCH UP TO THE HINGE POINT.

2.IF DISTANCE FROM THE BACK OF VEGETATION CONTROL TO HINGE 492
INDEX OF ELECTRICAL PLANS:

SES-1 TO SES-3 RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEMS, SPECIAL ELECTRICAL STRUCTURESEQ-1 TO EQ-2 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS QUANTITIESED-1 TO ED-5 ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DETAILSE-38 TO E-39 RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEMSE-27 TO E-37 LIGHTING SYSTEME-2 TO E-26 MODIFYING SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

NOTES, LEGENDS, ABBREVIATIONS
E-1 INDEX OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS, PLANS, No. DESCRIPTIONSHEET STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR'S APPROVAL.MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS. WORK SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITHOUTNOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO ARRANGE

5. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, IF LOOP DETECTORS ARE TO BE DAMAGED, A 7-DAY TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP AND PIEZO CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

4. EACH LOOP AND PIEZO LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY 3. NEW STUB-OUT CONDUITS SHALL BE 2 INCHES. INSTALL TWO STUB-OUTS CONDUITS PER PB.

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

2. ALL NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOXES UNLESS 1. ALL NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.NOTES:

CSC CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLE STC SCREENED TRANSMISSION CABLESigiC SIGNAL INTERFACE CABLESCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISONPV PHOTOVOLTAICLADWP CITY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND POWERABBREVIATIONS:
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
13:44
11-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua001.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
06/30/26
E24025
MANAH

MUSTAFA
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX

TRA FFICDESIG N

MUSTAFAMANAH

GARYTOOR

CHUKWUEBUKAEMETAROM
08/23/(INDEX OF ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS,PLANS,NOTES,LEGENDS,ABBREVIATIONS)2024 1878 07180003231
E-1

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
1/23/25
493
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
Exist TYPE 332 LS CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.

SEE DETAIL 'A' THIS SHEET.

SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.

INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP.
4 5
ADDRESS: 3539½ CROSS CREEK Rd
CTID: 07-53-001-0-047.089-M
50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TRAFFIC SIGNAL CONTROLLER
100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAIN
ENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:

Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.

T
R
A FF
IC
D
E
S
IG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1& CROSS CREEK Pl
SCALE: 1" = 20'

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
E-2
07180003231
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX
3 2
1 Ø2
Ø2
Ø5
Ø2 + OLA
Ø2P
Ø2 + OLA
e
f
g
h
a
b
c
i
d
STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR'S APPROVAL.

MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS. WORK SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITHOUT

NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO ARRANGE

10. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, IF LOOP DETECTORS ARE TO BE DAMAGED, A 7-DAY

9. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS.

OF ALL UTILTIES BEFORE PRECEDDING WITH PLACEMENT.

OF ALL SIGNAL STANDARDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION

8. PRIOR TO FINAL PLACEMENT, OBTAIN ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR THE PRECISE LOCATIONS SCHEDULE.

7. SEE SHEET E-3 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.

TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

6. EACH LOOP AND LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY

4. ALL NEW STUB-OUT CONDUITS SHALL BE 2 INCHES.

3. USE BORING METHOD TO INSTALL CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT.

2. ALL NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
Ø1

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø2 Ø3 Ø4
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
*
6 7
8 1
2 3
4 5
Ø6 Ø5
Ø6P
Ø4 Ø4
Ø4 Ø6
Ø6
Ø6
Ø4
Ø3 Ø3
Ø3
Ø8P
(1I1U)
(4
I7
U
)
(4
I6
L
)
(4
I6
U
)
(5J1U)
(3I5U) (3I5L)
Ø8P
ROUTE 1
ROUTE 1
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS
L
A
S
T
R
E
V
IS
ION
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
-

DEPARTMENT
OF

TRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
T
IM
E
P
L
OTTE
D
=
>
DATE
P
L
OTTE
D
=
>
0 7
:
5 5
1 5
-
A
P
R
-
2 0
2 5
C
H
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
R
E
V
IS
E
D
B
Y
DATE
R
E
V
IS
E
D

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
FUN
C
T
IONA
L
S
U
P
E
RV
IS
O
R
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.

THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNED

OR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua002.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT 1878 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE D
E
S
IGN
E
D
B
Y
C
A
L
C
U
L
ATE
D
-
**
OLA

FROM LIMIT LINE
405 FT

FROM LIMIT LINE
244 FT
SC
BC
(6J2U)(6J2L)
(1I9U)
SC
(212U)
(212L)

FROM LIMIT LINE
405 FT

FROM LIMIT LINE
244 FT
BC
Ø6P
Ø2P
NTS
Y
R
G

DETAIL A
Y
G
(5J9U)
4 6 RC TWO (2) DLC.
6 4

TO MALIBU PIER PED XING
EXISTING 2"C, INTERCONNECT
#19 INTERCONNECT
EXISTING 2"C, 2-12 PAIR,

TO WEBB WAY

INTERCONNECT
EXISTING 2"C,
6 6
6 11 7
14 13 12
9 6 10 6
6 6
6 6
GA
RY
TOO
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
15 1
4/5/25
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
7 RC FOUR (4) DLC.

SC
j
1 2
9 1865
7 1
2 1870
8 CR

OSS CREE
K
R
d
CROSS
CREEK
Rd
R/W

R/W R/W
R/W
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
494
STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
(N) APS
ARROW
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

SMA LMA O O O

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

TYPE POLE ARM MAST
26-4-100 40 12' 2-MAS SV-1-T
<---
15TS 15' --->
17-2-100 12' SV-1-T <---
15TS SV-2-T
20'
29-5-100 12' 3-MAS SV-1-T
15TS SV-1-T
17-2-100
15'
SV-1-T --->
x
g
f
e
d
c
b
a
T
R
A FF
IC
D
E
S
IG N
1878 07180003231
08/20/E-3
2024

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
(ROUTE 1& CROSS CREEK Rd
J
A
M
S
H
E
D
H
Y
D
E
R
G
A
RY
T
O
O
R
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS
L
A
S
T
R
E
V
IS
ION
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
-

DEPARTMENT
OF

TRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
T
IM
E
P
L
OTTE
D =>
DATE
P
L
OTTE
D =>
07 :57
15 -
A
P
R
-2025
C
H
E
C
K
E
D
B
Y
R
E
V
IS
E
D
B
Y
D
ATE
R
E
V
IS
E
D

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
F
UN
C
T
IO
N
A
L
S
U
P
E
RV
IS
O
R
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.

THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNED

OR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua003.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE D
E
S
IGN
E
D
B
Y
C
A
L
C
U
L
ATE
D
-
12/31/25
E15613
G.S. TOOR
07 LA 1 46.9/32.9 XX XX
1-A TV-1-T

PPB POST
12'
i - --->
h
15'
55'
15'
MAS
MAS - SV-1-T ---- -- ----- --------- --------- --------- SP-1-T - SP-1-T SP-1-T SP-1-T SP-1-T - SP-1-T - -66822-6 137W-137W 137W 137W-137W-- CROSS CREEK - PAC COAST HWY - CROSS CREEK - PAC COAST HWY -- J A
M
S
H
E
D
H
Y
D
E
R
#14 AWG

CONDUIT SIZE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION
2"
(N) NEW
3" 2" 2"
2-4"
ALL CONDUITS AND CONDUCTORS ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

SPARES

INTERCONNECT

PPB COMMON
DLC
#8 GROUND 1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
2" 2" 2" 2" 2" 2"
(N)
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
SigiC - SIGNAL INTERFACE CABLE

CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLE
ABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)

1. SEE SHEET E-2 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS.

TOTAL
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

SERVICE
TOTAL
3 3 3 3 3 3

LIMINAIRE

SIGNAL COMMON
12-PR,#19 1
#10 AWG
#8 2 2 2 2
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2
3 3
TOTAL
3 3
5 5 5 5 5
3 3 3 3
4 4 4
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2
4 2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1
1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
44 20 20 15 15 21 21 24
2 2 2 2
2 4
2 2
3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 2
13 6 4 4 3 3 9
2 4 4
1 (N) (N) (N)
(N) (N)
(N)
(N)
(N) (N) (N)
(N) 2(N)
2(N) 2(N)
4(N) 4(N)
1(N)
2 4 5 4 4 5
1-2"
3" 3" 3" 2"
4/5/25
j PPB POST - - - - - - - - 8 ---> - - <---
495
NTS

DETAIL A

NTSDETAIL B
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
4 NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
5 6
3 2
1 Exist TYPE 332 LS CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP.ADDRESS: 23700½ PACIFIC COAST HwyCTID: 07-53-001-0-047.044-M 50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TS No. XXXX100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
1878
213L
R/W
R/W
R/W
Y
RG Y
R
G
Ø5
Ø6Ø6
Ø6
Ø6P Ø3
Ø4
e
f
g
h
a
b
c
d
Ø3
Ø1
3 Ø5
Ø2
Ø2
Ø2+OLA
Ø2P
Ø4Ø8P
Ø3
17 10
7 6
5 Ø4
Ø4
Ø3
4 Ø2P
Ø2+OLA
Ø3
Ø8PØ3
1 2
8 1
1I9L
19IU

FROM LIMIT LINE
244 FT
R/W
6J2L6J3U

FROM LIMIT LINE
405 FT
6J2U
R/W
2I2U
6J9U
2I2L
2I2L
BC
213L
4I6U 4I6L
4I7U
GA
RY
T
O
O
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
4/5/24
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
07:59
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua004.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
07180003231
E-4
SCALE: 1" = 20'

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1 & WEBB WAY)
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX

TRA FFICDESIG N
5J1U
AB

FROM LIMIT LINE
405 FT
R/W

FROM LIMIT LINE
244 FT CB
AB ROUTE 1
WEBB
WAY
WEBB
WAY TO CROSS CREEK Rd EXISTING INTERCONNET
DETAIL "B"
DETAIL "A"
DETAIL "A"
RC THREE (3)DLC.

RC FOUR (4)DLC.

TO MALIBU CANYON Rd

EXISTING INTERCONNET
11 12 13
7 RC FIVE (5)DLC.
5 7 6
6 16
5 15
14 3 2
1880
4 1885
22 21
19 Ø1

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø2 Ø3 Ø4
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

2. ALL NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.3. USE BORING METHOD TO INSTALL CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT.4. ALL NEW STUB-OUT CONDUITS SHALL BE 2 INCHES.6. EACH LOOP AND LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.

7. SEE SHEET E-5 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE.

8. PRIOR TO FINAL PLACEMENT, OBTAIN ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR THE PRECISE LOCATIONS OF ALL SIGNAL STANDARDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL UTILTIES BEFORE PRECEEDING WITH PLACEMENT.

9. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS. 496
SigiC - SIGNAL INTERFACE CABLE
CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLEABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY) STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
APS
ARROW
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

SMA LMA O O O

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

TYPE POLE ARM MAST
29-5-100 <---
15TS --->
17-2-100 <---
15TS
61-5-100
15TS
19-2-100 --->
x
g
f
e
d
c
b
a

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

CABLE TYPE PHASE
Std
Veh-Ped
12CSC
PBA
3CSC
TOTAL CABLES 12/3 CONDUCTORS
#10
#6

INTERSECTION LIGHTING

CONTROLLER POWER
Ø1
Ø2
Ø3
Ø4
Ø5
Ø6
Ø7
Ø8
DLC
B
TYPE
TOTAL DLCs PER RUNSigiC
12 PAIR#18 INTERCONNECT CABLE

CONDUIT SIZE
#8 GROUND
4"
3 4 - 11 3 17 - 6
4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 3 3 3 - - 3 - - - - - - - 3 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 8 2
1 2
1 1
1 4
3 1
1 6
5 1
1 2
2 2
2 1
4 1
2 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1
1 4 - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - 1
1 - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - 11
2 - - - - - - 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1
1 6 1
1 1
1 - - 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - 1 - - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - - - 1 - - - - - - - 1 1 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1
6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 h
g
f
e
d
c
b
a
X
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(N) - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. 2-2--6
8 TRA FFICDESIG N
1878 07180003231
08/20/E-52024

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
(ROUTE 1 & WEBB WAY)
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:01
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua005.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2025 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07 LA 1 46.9/32.9 XX XX
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)1. SEE SHEET E-4 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS.

ALL STANDARDS AND EQUIPMENTS ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. h 15TS --->
55'60' -20' --25' - -------- 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 15' 12' 15' -------- 3-MAS 3-MAS -MAS --MAS - -------- SP-1-T SP-1-T - 8-22-668 137W 137W- 137W-- 137W 137W Webb Way - Pac Coast Hwy --- --->-- 4(N) SV-1-T SV-2-T SV-2-TA SV-2-T SV-1-T SV-2-T SV-1-T TV-3-T SP-1-T SP-1-T SP-1-T SP-1-T SP-1-T Webb Way Pac Coast Hwy G
A
RY
T
O
O
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D
H
Y
D
E
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D
H
Y
D
E
R
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
5 28
4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - - 2(N) 2(N) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2
8 7 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 - - - - - - 1 1 1
(N) (N) (N) (N)
3 (N) 6 (N) 6 (N)
1(N)
6 9
2(N)
4"
3----- 9 --- 3 (N) 3 6 (N) --6 2(N) 3(N) 3--- 1
11111
11111
2,
33 1,2(N)
6(N)
(N)
2 (N) - 9 (N) 9 (N) 2 (N)
4/5/25
497
ROUTE 1
405' FROM LIMIT LINE
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:02
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua006.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
Exist TYPE 332 LS CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.SEE DETAIL 'A' THIS SHEET.SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 4 NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
ADDRESS: 24251½ PACIFIC COAST HwyCTID: 07-53-001-0-048.017-M 50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TS No. XXXX100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1& MALIBU CANYON Rd)
1878
SCALE: 1" = 20'

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
E-6
07180003231
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX
NTS

DETAIL B
3 2
1 4
ROUTE 1
MALIBUCANYONRd
R/W
R/W
Y
RG Y
R
G
NTS

DETAIL A
5 SEE DETAIL 'B' THIS SHEET.
1I1U
6J3L
6J4U6J4L
5J1U
5J1L
2I4U
2I4L
4I8U
4I8L
4I7U
3I9U
3I5L
3I5U
1I9U
6J2U
6J2L
244' TO LIMIT LINE
Ø1
Ø6
Ø6+OLB
R3-4
F=15'
Ø6P
Ø4
Ø4P
OLAØ3+
b
d
a
F
c
e
g
Ø4
Ø4+OLC
Ø5
Ø6+OLB
Ø2
Ø2P
Ø5
Ø2
R73-6
F=20'
(2) R9-3a
R9-3bP(RT)R9-3bP(LT)
Ø6P
(2) R9-3a
R9-3bP(RT)R9-3bP(LT)
Ø4+OLC
Ø3
Ø1
Ø3+OLA Ø3
Ø4P Ø2
Ø2P
I h
j
6 }
} 6
6 }6
}6
4 4
4 5
4 5
11 12 13
6 5
5 7
10 10
1 4 3 3 2
RC
RC
AB
AB
AB AB
RC
RC
1 2
CB
9 8
3 SC
CB
7 8
8 7
8 7 8

PHASE DIAGRAM
TO BE IMPLEMENTED* - LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVAL (LPI)
OLC
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
Ø1 Ø2 Ø3 Ø4
*
*
*
R3-8a
R3-4,
6 AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
7 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.
8 RC Exist Ped Sig HEAD. INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD. 2I2L
2I2U
5J9L5J9U
244' TO LIMIT LINE
6 }
RC
AB
R/W
R/W
405' FROM LIMIT LINE
13 }
R/W
R/W
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
GA
RY
TOO
R
4/5/25
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
9 ADJUST PULL BOX TO NEW GRADE.
9 RC
CB
RC
9 2 3 4
1 20
1920
9 8
6 1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

7. SEE SHEET E-7 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE.

9. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS.

OLA OLB
OLA
OLA
498
SigiC - SIGNAL INTERFACE CABLE
CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLEABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY) STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg (N) Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
(N) APS
ARROW
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

SMA LMA O O O

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

TYPE POLE ARM MAST
26-4-129 40' 12' 1,6 2-MAS 6 SV-1-T 6 SP-1-T 3 137 W MALIBU CYN RD (BACK) WINTER MESA (FRONT) 1-A
24-4-100
1-A
26-4-129 40'
1-A
x
g
F
e
d
c
b
a

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

DESIGNATION

CONDUCTOR

CABLE TYPE
OR

AWG SIZE
28 CONDUCTOR CABLE
#6 SERVICE
Ø1
Ø2
Ø3
Ø4
Ø5
Ø6
DLC
B
TYPE
TOTAL DLCs PER RUN
12PR#19 SIC

CONDUIT SIZE
#8
#10
GROUND

LUMINAIRE
2-3" 2" - - - - - - - - - 2" 2" 3" 2" 3" 2" 2" 2 - - - - - - - - 7 7 4 2 - - - - - 4 - - - - - 4 - - 3 - - - 3 3 - - - 3,*3 - - - - - 3,*3 3,*3 3 6 - - - - - 6 - - 2 2 1 - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2 - - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 - - - - - - - - 2 - - - 2 - 2 - - 1 2 3 4 7 8 10
* - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

TRA FFICDESIG N
1878 07180003231
08/20/E-72024

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
(ROUTE 1& MALIBU CANYON Rd)
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:04
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua007.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07 LA 1 46.9/32.9 XX XX
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)1. SEE SHEET E-6 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS. (N) - NEWALL STANDARDS AND EQUIPMENTS ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. -35' --- - - - 3,4 TV-2-T 4 SP-1-T 6 - - 12' 6 MAS 4 SV-1-T - - 6 137 W PACIFIC COAST HWY - - - 5,6 TV-2-T 6 SP-1-T - - - - 12' 2,5 2-MAS 2 SV-1-T 2 SP-1-T - - 137 W - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - 3,4 TV-2-T - - - - - - h 17-2-100 20' 12' 3 MAS 3 SV-1-T - - - - 137 W PACIFIC COAST HWY j 1-A - - - - 1,2 TV-2-T 2,4 SP-2-T 3 - - I - - - - - - - - 2 - - WINTER MESA (BACK) MALIBU CYN RD (FRONT) -3"-----2 1-2
12 -2"--4--6--1-- 13 -2"--2--4--1-- -2"-----2--1-- ** * * *** **** * 6 * 4 9 ** * * * * * **** * * * * * * * 5 6 11 * TYPE 2 POST
(N)
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
GA
RY
TOO
R
TYPE 2 POST
(N)
4/5/25
499
f
1J1U
Ø6
Ø8P
ROUTE 1
JOHN
TYLER
Dr
ROUTE 1
(T)(TR)
c
b
d
e
f
}
R/W
3 Ø8P
2 3
Ø2P
Ø2
Ø2
Ø8
Ø2
Ø8P
Ø8P
Ø6
Ø4
Ø6
a
(T)(TR)
6J2U

FROM LIMIT LINE
244 FT
2I2L
(TR)(T)
LINEFROM LIMIT 405 FT
5 RC
AB
BC
8 2 2 1
Ø6
6J2L
AB
9 4
3 1
11 2
12 1
8 2I2U
RC
7 AB
AB RC
Ø2P
6 CB

R/W R/W R/W R/W
R/W
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
Exist TYPE 332 LS CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 4 ADDRESS: 15461½ JOHN TYLER Dr.CTID: 07-53-001-0-048.495-M 30 A, 1P, 120V, CB, LIGHTING 50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TRAFFIC SIGNAL100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT 5 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.

RC Exist Ped Sig HEAD. INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD.
3 2
1 AB
LINEFROM LIMIT 244 FT
135' 70'
BC

R/W R/W
28' 280'
R/W
R/W

R/W R/W
AB
}AB
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5
4 5 CB
GA
RY
TOO
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:07
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua008.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1& JOHN TYLER Dr)
1878
SCALE: 1" = 20'
E-8
07180003231
08/20/2024

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL

TRA FFICDESIG N
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
} } AB
1 22
21 1945 3 1940
4/5/25

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

7. SEE SHEET E-9 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE.

9. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS. 4I7U 4I6L 4I6U
6 RC 2 DLC.
6 6
6 6
6 6
FROM LIMIT LINE1000 FT
8 (T)(TR)
FROM LIMIT LINE405 FT
BCSC
2"C, 3#12, 12G
SC
6J3U6J2L
6J4U
2I4U2I3L
2I3U
Ø6
Ø1
Ø2
Ø8 Ø8
8 J
6 L
8 J
6 U
8 J
5 U
LINEFROM LIMIT 405 FT
X
-
WALK
105
'
T
O
10 Ø1

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø3
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
Ø2
**
Ø4
Ø4
*
500
SigiC - SIGNAL INTERFACE CABLE
CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLEABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY) STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
APS
ARROW
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

SMA LMA

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

TYPE POLE ARM MAST
12'
3-MAS
SP-1-T 137 W

JOHN TYLER
15TS 2
1-A
26-4-10019-4-100 25' 2-MAS SV-3-TA PACIFIC COAST Hwy29-5-100 SV-1-T x
f
e
d
c
b
a

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

CABLE TYPE PHASE
Std
12CSC
3CSC
TOTAL CABLES 12/3 CONDUCTORS
#12
#8

INTERSECTION LIGHTING

CONTROLLER POWER
Ø1
Ø2
Ø6
Ø8
DLC
TOTAL DLCs PER RUNCONDUIT SIZE
#8

FLASHING BEACON
GROUND
3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 2-3"
f
e
d
c
b
a
X
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(N) - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

TRA FFICDESIG N
1878 07180003231
08/20/E-92024

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
(ROUTE 1& CARRAL CANYON Rd)
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:08
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s119023
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua009.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07 LA 1 46.9/32.9 XX XX
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)1. SEE SHEET E-8 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS. (N) - NEWALL STANDARDS AND EQUIPMENTS ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
GA
RY
TOO
R
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
4/5/25
1-A
40'40'
12'12'12' 2-MAS
TV-2-T
SV-2-TA
TV-1-T
SP-1-TSP-1-TSP-1-TSP-1-TSP-1-T 2
8 137 W
137 W137 W JOHN TYLER
888
(N)(N)(N)(N)(N)(N) (N)
(N)(N)(N)(N)(N)
3" 3"
11 12
#10
12 SMFO12 PR #19EVPCAT 6
CCTV

FIBER OPTIC CABLESIGNAL INTERCONNECT CABLEEVC CABLEBLUETOOTH/DSRC CABLECCTV CAMARA CABLE Ø8P
Ø2,Ø6,Ø2P
Ø1,Ø6,8,Ø8P
Ø2,Ø6,Ø8,Ø8P
Ø2,Ø8P
Ø8,Ø8P Ø2
Ø8Ø8Ø8Ø8
Ø2 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 2 2
1 11
1 1
1 1
1 2 1
2 2
3 4
3 2 6
6 3 (N) 3 3
2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2
1 1 1 1
1 1(N) 1 1 (N) 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 2
1 1 1 1 1
(N) (N)
1(N)
7(N) 7 (N) 7 (N) 2 (N) 4 (N) 7(N)
7 (N) 2(N) 5 (N) 7(N)
6 3 9
501
2 3
ROUTE 1
CORRAL
CANYON
Rd

FROM LIMIT LINE
405 FT
CB
CB
FROM LIMIT LINE 405 FT
6 5
4 2
1 3
1 3
a b
c
d
e
8 7
10 9
11 SC
CB
9 12
12 4
}
}5
5 }5 }5
6 7
7 6
R73 (Mod) & R53D(CA)
R73-2(CA)
6J2U6J2L
1I1U
6J4U6J4L
213L
214U214L
212U
212L
8J8 8J U 7L
Ø2Ø2
Ø1
Ø6
Ø8
Ø6
Ø8
Ø2
Ø8
Ø6 Ø8P
8 Ø2P
8J6U
Ø5
Ø8
Ø1 Ø2
8 Ø8P
Ø2P
2038
1 2
3 2044 2047

TEWODROSABRIE
GARYTOORLEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
Exist TYPE 332 CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.SEE DETAIL 'A' THIS SHEET.SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 4 STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR'S APPROVAL.MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS. WORK SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITHOUTNOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO ARRANGE

6. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, IF LOOP DETECTORS ARE TO BE DAMAGED, A 7-DAY OF ALL UTILTIES BEFORE PRECEDDING WITH PLACEMENT.OF ALL SIGNAL STANDARDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION

5. PRIOR TO FINAL PLACEMENT, OBTAIN ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR THE PRECISE LOCATIONS SCHEDULE.

4. SEE SHEET E-11 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

3. EACH LOOP AND LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY 2. ALL NEW STUB-OUT CONDUITS SHALL BE 2 INCHES.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) 5 ADDRESS: 26101½ PACIFIC COAST HwyCTID: 07-53-001-0-050.396-M 50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, SIGNAL100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
6 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.
7 RC Exist Ped Sig HEAD. INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD. 8 SEE DETAIL 'B' THIS SHEET.

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
SHEET 1OF 2)
(ROUTE 1& CORRAL CANYON Rd
1878
SCALE: 1" = 20'

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
E-10
07180003231
12-31-25
E15613
TOOR
G.S
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX

NTSDETAIL A
Y
R
G

NTSDETAIL B
3 2
1 JAMSHED HYDER
225'
222'

R/WR/W R/W
R/W
R/WR/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
ROUTE 1
R/W
(T)
(TR)
9 RC ALL CONDUCTORS.
9 9
Ø8APS
Ø2APS
10 10 Exist 3"C EMPTY. PROTECT IN PLACE.
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
RC
f
g
6 7
Ø1

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø2 Ø3 Ø4
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
*
Ø8APS
Ø2APS
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:40
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua010.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
Exist 2"C, 1DLC
SC
(TR)(T)
4/15/25
502
SigiC - SIGNAL INTERFACE CABLE
CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLEABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY) STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
(N) APS
ARROW
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

SMA LMA O O O

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

TYPE POLE ARM MAST
26-4-100 45' 15' 2 2-MAS 2 SV-1-T 2 (N) SP-1-T 8 <--- 130 W CORRAL CANON Rd 15TS 15' 8 (N) SP-1-T 2 --->15TS 15' 8 SV-1-T 2 <--- 130 W 1-A 1,2 TV-2-T 2
29-5-100 45' 15' 1,6 2-MAS 6,8 SV-2-T 130 W CORRAL CANON Rd 1-A 8 SV-1-T
15TS 15' 2,6,8 SV-3-T 8 (N) SP-1-T 8 --->

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION
CABLE TYPE Std PHASE
Veh-Ped
12CSC
APS
3CSC
TOTAL CABLES 12/3 CONDUCTORS
#8
#6

INTERSECTION LIGHTING

CONTROLLER POWER
Ø1
Ø2
Ø5
Ø6
Ø8 DLC
B
TYPE
TOTAL DLCs PER RUNSigiC

CONDUIT SIZE
#8 GROUND
2-3"(E)3"(E)
13 5 - 5 - - 5 5 - - 3"(E) 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 2"(E) 2" - 2 - - - - 1 - - - 3 - - - - - - - - - 4 4 - 4 - - - - 2 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 - - 4 - - - - - 4 4 - - 1 1 - 1 - - - - - - 1 1 1(E) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2(E) - 2 2(E) 2 2 2 - - - - 4
7 4
2 3
1 2 1 1 2
1 8 1
2,2P 1
1 1
1 8P
1 1
8 1
1 1,2,2P 1 1 1
1,6,8 1 1 1 1
8 1 1 1
2,6,8,8P 1
1 1
1 1
1 (E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. 2 8-2

TRA FFICDESIG N
1878 07180003231
E-11

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
SHEET 2 OF 2)
(ROUTE 1& CORRAL CANYON Rd

JAMSHED HYDER

TEWODROSABRIE

GARYTOOR
07 LA 1 46.9/32.9 XX XX
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)1. SEE SHEET E-10 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS. (N) - NEWALL STANDARDS AND EQUIPMENTS ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. (N) SP-1-T
g 130 W
f
e
d
c
b
a
x
X 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
2(E)
11 12
1 1 --2-- --2-- 11
2" 2"(E)
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:40
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua011.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
TOOR
G.S
E15613
12/31/25
4/15/25
503

RAMIREZ
CANYON
Rd

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
ROUTE 1
PARADI
SE
COVE
RD
.

R/W
Exist 1.5" TO FLASHER2#6
Exist 1.5" TO FLASHER
SB
NB
2 LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 Exist TYPE III-BF SERVICE CABINET WITH FOUNDATION.

Exist CONTROLLER CABINET AND FOUNDATION.

SEE SHEET ED-X FOR DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 3

9. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS.

THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.

8. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL POLE STANDARDS WILL BE BE DETERMINED BY SCHEDULE.

7. SEE SHEET E-X FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

6. EACH LOOP AND LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY 4. ALL NEW STUB-OUT CONDUITS SHALL BE 2 INCHES.3. USE BORING METHOD TO INSTALL CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT.2. ALL NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) Ø1

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø2 Ø3 Ø4
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
SCALE: 1" - 20'
E-12

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1& PARADISE COVE Rd)
5 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.
6 RC Exist Ped Sig HEAD. INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD. 4 AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
1 2
5 6
7 6
5 6
5 5
6 5 6
CB SC
A
b
c
d
e
f
}4
}4
1 , 7#16 (DLC)
6 6
2#16 (DLC)
6 7
INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD AND APS.INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND FOUNDATION IN SAME LOCATION.

RC Exist TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND FOUNDATION.

AB
RCRC
ADDRESS: XXXXCTID: 07-53-001-0-053.030-M50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TS No. XXXX30A, 2P, 240V, LIGHTING20A, 1P, 120V, FLASHING BEACON100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:INSTALL TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT CABINET ON NEW FOUNDATION.INSTALL DEPARTMENT-FURNISHED TYPE 332LS 1 2
2"C, 2#16 (DLC)
2"C, 2#16 (DLC)
3 4
AB
5 7
9 8
6 SEE DETAIL "A"
(THIS SHEET)
DETAIL "A"

NO SCALE
10 11 12
8 9
3 3
2"C, 2#16 (DLC)
8 9
, 4#16 (DLC)

R/W R/W
R/W
, 4#16 (DLC)
4P
Ø4
6P
Ø6
Ø6
4P
6P
Ø5
Ø6
Ø5
Ø2
4P
Ø6
Ø4
Ø2
Ø6
Ø4
Ø2
4P
BBS ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY INSIDE BBS CABINET.WITH (4) 200Ah BATTERIES. INSTALL DEPARTMENT-FURNISHED 10 INSTALL CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED BBS CABINET
11 ASSEMBLY FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
11 INSTALL DEPARTMENT-FURNISHED TRAFFIC CONTROLLER
10 405'TO

CROSSWALK
244'TO

CROSSWALK
405'TO

CROSSWALK
8 9
2180
1 2
3 x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:29
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua012.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
1330701EPP#
CB
}4
504

STANDARD VEH SIG MTG PED SIGNAL

MTG O ARROW

LUMINAIRE
LED

TYPE SMA LMA O O POLE O ARM MAST
APS

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
No.
15 26-4-100(N)
12'
(N) - NEW
SNS

REFLECTORIZED
45' 12' 2 MAS (N)
SV-3-TA
SV-1-T(N) SP-1-T(N)
SP-1-T(N)
44 PARADISE COVE - - - - - SV-2-TA(N) PARADISE COVE(N) 19-2-100 15 1A
15 25' --- -12' 12' 12' 1 MAS --- SV-1-T SV-1-T SV-2-TA - SP-1-T(N) 4466 --- MODIFYING SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

NO SCALE
E-13
c
b
d
e
f
A
DLC
SIGNAL
#6

2.5"
#18 APS

CONDUCTOR RUN

SERVICE
GROUND

CONDUIT SIZE
#16
#8
AWG
CABLE

RUN NUMBER AND SIZE
(N) - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CONDUIT ARE EXISTING, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 5CSC12CSC9CSC

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
2"(N)
5(N)
1(N)
3" 2" 3"(N) 1.5"
31 6
#6 FLASHERS
1(N) 1(N)
2 1(N) 1 1 1 1(N) 1
1 21
1(N)
1 1(N)
2 3 4
1(N)
3(N)
5 11
1 2"
7 1(N)
9 3(N)
1(N)
1(N)
3"(N)
8 21
1(N)
1 3"
10 11 12
8(N)
2(N)
1(N)
3"(N)
8(N)
2(N)
1(N)
2-3"(N) 3"(N)
1(N)
2(N)
6(N) 13(N) 13(N)
#6 LIGHTING 2(N) 2 2 2 2(N) 2 2 2 2(N) 2(N) 2(N) 2(N)
2(N)
SP-1-T(N)SP-1-T(N)SP-1-T(N)
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:23
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua013.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
505
ROUTE 1
ZUM
I
REZ
D
r
ROUTE 1
SB
NB
1 a
B
c
d
3 5
7 8
11 13
16 INSTALL 2"C, 2#16 (DLC)
2"C, 4#16 (DLC)
2"C, 4#16 (DLC)
INSTALL 2"C, 2#16 (DLC)
CB
CB
4 } 4 }
4 }
4 }
1 2 3
6 5
6 5 6
5 6
e
f
g
h

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø1 Ø2 Ø3 Ø4Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: XXXXCTID: 07-53-001-0-054.000-M 50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TS No. XXXX100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT 2 Exist TYPE 334 CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.

SEE SHEET ED-X FOR DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 3 4 AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
5 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.
6 RC Exist Ped Sig HEAD. INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD.

8. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS.

SCHEDULE.

7. SEE SHEET E-X FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1 & ZUMIREZ Dr)

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
SCALE: 1" - 20'
E-14
405'TO

CROSSWALK
244'TO

CROSSWALK
CR
405'TO OSSWALK
CR
244'TO OSSWALK
4 2
6 9
10 12
14 15
Ø8
6P
Ø6Ø6
Ø1
Ø1
Ø4
Ø4
Ø2
8P
Ø2
Ø5
Ø5
Ø8
8P
RC

FOUNDATIONPOLE AND
7 INSTALL APS. 7 CB
6P
1 2
3 4
2215
6 x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:27
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua014.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
506

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
E-15

MODIFYING SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS
SCALE: 1" = 50'
STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
APS
ARROW
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

TYPE O ARM O POLE O MAST
29-5-129 2-MAS SV-1-T SP-1-T 8(N) 135 W
1-A(N) TV-1-T(N) 2(N)
15 2(N) 135 W SANTA MONICA15 6(N) 135 W SERRANO Ave
29-5-129 SANTA MONICA
1-A 6(N) 135 W SANTA MONICA
15 8(N) 135 W SERRANO Ave
x
g
f
e
d
c
B
a

SMA LMA
45' 15'
15'15'15'15'
(N) - NEW
h 15
45'
15'
2-MAS
TV-1-TSV-1-TSV-1-TSV-1-TSV-1-TSV-1-T
SP-1-T(N)
SP-1-TSP-1-TSP-1-TSP-1-TSP-1-TSP-1-T
DLC
SIGNAL
#6
#18 APS

CONDUCTOR RUN

SERVICE
GROUND

CONDUIT SIZE
#16
#8
AWG
CABLE

RUN NUMBER AND SIZE
(N) - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CONDUIT ARE EXISTING, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 5CSC12CSC9CSC

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
8 #6 LIGHTING
2 5 6
2"
1 9 10
2"
2 3
1(N)
1(N)
1(N)
2"(N) 3"
2 1 1(N) 1
2"
7 1
2" 2"
1 1
2(N)
4 1
4 1
1 2
1(N)
3 3" 2"
1(N)
1 3
1 4
1 2
1(N)
1 5
3(N)
2 8(N),4
2 1
1 2
7(N)
11 12 13 14
1 2
1 2" 3"
1 2
1 7(N)
15 16
11 2"
1 2"
1 2
2 7(N),4
2"
1 2
1(N)
3 2"
12 2-3"
1 2
8 15(N),4
4(N)
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:28
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua015.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
507
ROUTE 1

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY
KANAN
DUME
Rd R/W
R/W

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
SCALE: 1" - 20'
E-16

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø1 Ø2 Ø3 Ø4Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8

9. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS.

THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.

8. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL POLE STANDARDS WILL BE BE DETERMINED BY SCHEDULE.

7. SEE SHEET E-X FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1& KANAN DUME Rd)
A
B
c
D
E
F
4 }
4 }
4 }
1 R/W
R/W
2 3
4 5
(THIS SHEET)
SEE DETAIL "A"
7 8
9 10
DETAIL "A"

NO SCALE
1 2
11 12
13 1
2 RC
RC Exist TYPE III-BF SERVICE CABINET WITH FOUNDATION.

Exist CONTROLLER CABINET AND FOUNDATION.
3 SEE SHEET ED-X FOR DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 4 AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
5 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.
5 6 RC
INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD AND APS.INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND FOUNDATION IN SAME LOCATION.Exist TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND FOUNDATION. 6 6
6 6
7 ADDRESS: XXXXCTID: 07-53-001-0-054.020-M50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TS No. XXXX30A, 2P, 240V, LIGHTING100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:INSTALL TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT 8 CABINET ON NEW FOUNDATION.INSTALL DEPARTMENT-FURNISHED TYPE 332LS 7 8
6 Ø4+Ø5
Ø6
4P
6P
Ø6
Ø6
Ø5
Ø5
Ø2
Ø2
Ø4
Ø6
Ø4+Ø5
Ø2
4P
2"C, 3#16 (DLC)
2"C, 6#16 (DLC)
2"C, 3#16 (DLC)
2"C, 2#16 (DLC)
2"C, 4#16 (DLC)
2"C, 3#18 (DLC)
BBS CABINET.

FURNISHED BBS ELECTRONIC ASSEMBLY INSIDEWITH (4) 200Ah BATTERIES. INSTALL DEPARTMENTINSTALL CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED BBS CABINET CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY FOR TRAFFIC SIGNALS.INSTALL DEPARTMENT-FURNISHED TRAFFIC 9 10
3 3 9
10 405
CR
'TO OSSWALK CR244'TO OSSWALK
CROSS244'TO WALK
RC

FOUNDATIONPOLE AND
RC

FOUNDATIONPOLE AND
Ø4
Y
RG

NO SCALE
DETAIL "B"
SEE DETAIL "B"
6 405 CROSS'TO WALK
6P
9 2230
1 2
3 4
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:38
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua016.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
2171991EPP#
508

STANDARD VEH SIG MTG PED SIGNAL

MTG O ARROW

LUMINAIRE
LED

TYPE SMA LMA O O POLE O ARM MAST
APS

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
No.
1A
17-2-100 - SNS

REFLECTORIZED
20' 12' 1 MAS
TV-1-T
SV-1-T SP-1-T
SP-1-T
4 6 - - - - - KANAN DUME RD
15(E)
1A
23-4-100 --35' 15' 12' - -- 2 MAS - TV-2-T SV-2-TA - SP-1-T - 6-- -- PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

MODIFYING SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS
SCALE: 1" = 50'
E-17
E
D
c
A
B
DLC
SIGNAL
#6
#18 APS

CONDUCTOR RUN

SERVICE
GROUND

CONDUIT SIZE
#16
#8
AWG
CABLE

RUN NUMBER AND SIZE
(N) - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CONDUIT ARE EXISTING, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 5CSC
12CSC
9CSC

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
6 #6 LIGHTING
2 3 4
2"
7 2"
8 (E) - EXISTINGALL EQUIPMENT IS NEW, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 1 2"
2(N)1(N)2(N)1(N)
1(N)1(N)1(N)
2"
3(N)
3"
2(N)
1(N)
1(N) 1(N) 1(N) 1
2"
2 1(N)
5 3(N)
2(N)
2(N)
1(N)
2" 2"
1(N)
5(N)1(N)1(N) 1(N)
1(N)
12(N)
2(N)
1(N)1(N)
12(N)
9 4(N)
10 2(N)1(N)
2"
11 7(N)
1(N)
12(N)
2(N)
1(N)
12 2(N)
1(N)
2" 2"
1(N)
13 2(N)
2"
1(N)
11(N)
2(N)
1(N)
19(N)
2(N)
1(N)
2-3"
F 26A-4-100 45' 15' 2 MAS TV-3-T SP-1-T 4
2(N) 2(N)
3(N) 3(N)
KANAN DUME RD ---- -- x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA- DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:44
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua017.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
509
1 ROUTE 1

1.5"C, 2#16 (DLC)

HEATHERCLIFF
Rd

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø1 Ø2 Ø3 Ø4Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: XXXXCTID: 07-53-001-0-054.310-M 50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TS No. XXXX100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINENCLOSURE WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V, 1Ø, 3 WIRE SERVICE EQUIPMENT 2 Exist TYPE 334 CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.

SEE SHEET ED-X FOR DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 3 4 AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
5 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.
6 RC Exist Ped Sig HEAD. INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD.

8. TRAFFIC SIGNAL SHALL REMAIN OPERATIONAL DURING CONSTRUCTIONS.

SCHEDULE.

7. SEE SHEET E-X FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
(ROUTE 1& HEATHERCLIFF Rd)

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
SCALE: 1" - 20'
E-18
a
b
C
d
E
1 2
3 5
6 5
6 4 } 4 }
4 }
1 4
8 1.5"C, 2#8 (SERVICE), 1#8 (G)
405'TO

CROSSWALK
244'TO

CROSSWALK

1.5"C, 2#16 (DLC)
405'TO
CROSSWALK 244'TO

CROSSWALK

1.5"C, 2#16 (DLC)
2 3
5 6
7 9
10 11

FOUNDATIONPOLE AND RC
7 INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD AND APS.INSTALL TRAFFIC SIGNAL POLE AND FOUNDATION. 7 RC

FOUNDATIONPOLE AND
7 2250
1 2
3 4
2255
7 8
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:49
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua018.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
R/WR/W
R/WR/W
510

STANDARD VEH SIG MTG PED SIGNAL

MTG O ARROW

LUMINAIRE
LED

TYPE SMA LMA O O POLE O ARM MAST
APS

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE
No.
24-4-100
1A
12'
(N) = NEW
SNS
REFLECTORIZED - - - SV-2-TA SP-1 - 6- - - 35' - MAS TV-1 (IISNS) HEATHERCLIFF 1A(N) 17-2-100
1A(N) -15' - --12' -MAS - TV-3-T(N) SV-1-T TV-1(N) SP-1(N) SP-1 SP-1(N) 464 - MAT SV-1-T -(IISNS) HEATHERCLIFF

MODIFYING SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

NO SCALE
E-19
a
b
C
d
E
DLC
SIGNAL
#6
#18 APS

CONDUCTOR RUN

SERVICE
GROUND

CONDUIT SIZE
#16
#8
AWG
CABLE

RUN NUMBER AND SIZE
(N) - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CONDUIT ARE EXISTING, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 5CSC12CSC9CSC

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
6 #6 LIGHTING
1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11
2" 2" 2"(N) 3" 2" 2"(N) 2" 3" 2" 2" 2-3"412
1 22
3(N)1(N)
1(N)
1(N)
1 2
1(N)
4 7(N)
2 1
1(N)
1 2
1(N)1(N)
1(N)
1(N)
11 1(N)
12 1(N)
1 1
11 22
1(N)
7(N)
5 2
3(N)
7(N),2
1 2
9 2
1 4(N)
14(N),2
2 x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:48
8-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s146958
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua019.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
XX XX
MANAH

MUSTAFA
24025
06/30/26
10/15/24
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231

OSWALD ELIZONDO

MUSTAFAMANAH

OSWALD ELIZONDO

TRA FFICDESIG N
511
B
U
S
C
H
D
r
ROUTE-1

LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL AND
SCALE: 1" = 20'
APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY E-20
RC
RC

PULL BOX AND INSTALL NEW PULL BOX
AT THE SAME LOCATION. MATCH TO FINISHED GRADE.

EXISTING PPB AND INSTALL APS

PED SIGNAL HEAD

EXISTING PED SIGNAL HEAD AND INSTALL COUNTDOWN
RC
2 3
AB
AB
AB
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
ROUTE-1
2P 2P
8P
8P
124.60'

SPLICE APS CABLE TO THE NEAREST PULLBOX
GARY
TOOR

TEWODRO
S
ABRIE
1878 07180003231
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
L. L.
1000' TO
L. L.
370' TO
L.L.
800'TO
L. L.
341' TO
4 5
12-31-25
E15613
G.S. TOOR
P.P.#1408642E
SC
4 Y
R
G

NOT TO SCALE

DETAIL A
GA
DETAIL "A"

JAMSHED HYDER
L. L.
405' TO
SC
2DLC
L. L.
405' TO
,RC-5DLC ,RC-3DLC
SC

BC SC BC
4 4 7
7 2
1 5
8 6
STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR'S APPROVAL.

MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS. WORK SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITHOUT

NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO ARRANGE

5. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, IF LOOP DETECTORS ARE TO BE DAMAGED, A 7-DAY THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.

4. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL POLE STANDARDS WILL BE BE DETERMINED BY SCHEDULE.

3. SEE SHEET E-21 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.

TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

2. EACH LOOP AND LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
3 Ø1

EXISTING PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø2 Ø3 Ø4
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
f
e
d
c
b
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 2 PACIFIC COAST Hwy 1 ADDRESS: 29576
CTID: 07-53-001-0-055.033-M
WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:

EXISTING TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE

MAIN BREAKER

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
100 240 2
40 120 1

AMPERE VOLTS POLES DESCRIPTION
30 120 2 LIGHTING
1 6
2 3
4 5
2 3
5 2 3
5 6
04-15-25
2 3
5 BC RC
(TR)(T)
R/W
(TR)(T)
(TR)(T)
(TR)(T)
(T)
6 6
7 8
21 22 1 83 2295
R/W
R/W
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:40
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua020.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
AB
R/W
R/W
2291
R/W
R/W
R/W
BEACON

TO FLASHING
9 RC
RC 2DLC
7 CABINET ON EXISTING FOUNDATION.REPLACE Exist TYPE 332 CABINET WITH DEPARTMENT FURNISHED 332LS CONTROLLER ASSEMBLY INSIDE BBS CABINET. BATTERIES. ADD DEPARTMENT-FURNISHED BBS ELECTRONIC INSTALL CONTRACTOR-FURNISHED BBS CABINET WITH (4) 200Ah 7 A
5 RC 2DLC
SERVICE 3#6

TRA FFICDESIG N
SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 8 8 4/15/25
512
(N) NEW
ALL STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED.

STANDARD

TYPE SMA LMA
MAST
ARM
POLE

PED SIGNAL

REMARKS

APS PBA(N)

MTG ARROW
Veh Sig Mtg
26-3-70 40' 2-MAS - 165W
SV-1-TSV-2-TB
(LED)

LUMINAIRE
332

CONTROLLER
BBS, 2070E
1-A
SV-1-T
15'
SP-1-T(N)
8(N)
TV-1 SP-1-T(N) - 2(N)
#14 AWG

CONDUIT SIZE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION
2" 2"
(N) NEW
2" 3" 2" 2" 2" 2-3"
ALL CONDUITS AND CONDUCTORS ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.

SPARES - - 3 - - - - 3 3 3 3 - - 3 - 6 - - - - - 3 - 6 - - - - - 3 - 6 2 2 2 - - - - 2 - 2 2 - - 2 - 4 1(N) - - - - 3 3 3 - - 3 - 6 - - - - TOTAL 10 13 16 - - 16 - 38 TOTAL
#10 AWG LIGHTING

SIGNAL COMMON

FLASHER
2 2 2 - - - - - 1 1 1
1(N)
1 2 - - 2 2 2 2 2 4
3 3 5 3 3 3 3 6
2#12
DLC
TOTAL - - - - - 1 - 1 - - 4(N) - - - 2(N) 4(N) - - - - 2(N) 4(N) - 4(N) - 2 2 - - - - 2 - 2 2,4(N) - 2(N) 1,4(N) 2(N) 3,8(N) 07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
GARY
TOOR

TEWODRO
S
ABRIE
JAM
S
H
ED HYD
ER
1878 07180003231

LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL AND
E-21
16-2-70 8(N) 15' - MAS SV-3-TB SP-1-T(N)
#8 GROUND 1(N) 1(N) - - - 26-3-70 35' 15' 2-MAS 165W - - - TP-1(N) - - 1-A - - -- 2(N) - - - - - - - --- 12/31/25 E15613
G.S. TOOR
1(N) 1(N) 1(N) 1(N) 2(N)
3CSC
1(N) 2(N)
1(N) 1(N) 1(N)
2(N)2(N)
f
e
d
c
b
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NOTE: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
SEE SHEET E-20 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS.

CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLE
ABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
x

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
SigiC CABLE

SIGNAL INTERFACE
2(N)
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:47
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua021.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
9-----------2(N) -2(N)
1(N)
2"(N) ------ A

TRA FFICDESIG N
4/15/25
513

MORNING
VI
EW
Dr
ZUMA BEACH ACCESS Rd
130' 100' 100' 115'
T
R
A FF
IC
D
E
S
IG N
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
TE
WOD
R
O
S
ABR
IE
GA
RY
TOO
R
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
E-22
1878 07180003231

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
R/WR/W
R/W

R/W R/W

R/W R/W
04/14/2025
Ø1
Ø4
Ø6
Ø1

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø2 Ø3 Ø4
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR'S APPROVAL.

MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS. WORK SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITHOUT

NOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO ARRANGE

5. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, IF LOOP DETECTORS ARE TO BE DAMAGED, A 7-DAY THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR.

4. THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL POLE STANDARDS WILL BE BE DETERMINED BY SCHEDULE.

3. SEE SHEET E-23 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.

TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

2. EACH LOOP AND LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
Ø2
Ø4
Ø4
Ø6
Ø6
Ø1 Ø2
Ø2
Ø2
Ø2
P.P.#936657E
AB AB
AB AB
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: 29990 1/2 Pacific Coast Hwy
CTID: 07-53-001-0-080.764-M
WITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:

INSTALL TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE ON A NEW FOUNDATION

MAIN BREAKER

TRAFFIC SIGNAL
100 240 2
50 120 1

AMPERE VOLTS POLES DESCRIPTION
1 a
c
d
e
ROUTE- 1
B
2 4
7 6 9
10 3 3 5
3 13 12 11
1 8
2 Exist TYPE 334 CABINET WITH 2070E CONTROLLER.
2 (TR)(T)
(TR)(T)
RC
3 RC Exist POLE AND FOUNDATION.
3 4 INSTALL TYPE 1A POLE AND FOUNDATION.
4 (TR)(T)
RC BC
CB
SC
(TR)(T)
2P
2P
4P
4P
5 RC PPB AND INSTALL APS.
5 5
5 L. L.
405' TO
9 1 2
21 7
L. L.
180' TO
L. L.
405' TO
L. L.
185' TO
2325
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:40
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua022.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
RC

PED SIGNAL HEAD
6 EXISTING PED SIGNAL HEAD AND INSTALL COUNTDOWN
6 6
6 4/15/25
SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 7 7 7
514
NOTE: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
SEE SHEET E-22 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS.

CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLE
ABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
APS

ARROW (W)
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

SMA LMA O O O

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

TYPE POLE ARM MAST
24-4-80 35' 12' 6,1 2-MAS 62,4,SV-3-TA - - - - 103 MORNING VIEW 1-A(N) - - - - 4(N)TV-1-T(N) - - - - - - 15 - 12' - - 4(N) SP-1-T(N) 4(N) 103 - 19-4-80 25' 12' 2 MAS 2 SV-1-T SP-2-T(N) 2(N) 4(N), 103 MORNING VIEW 15TS - 12' - - 1,2 SV-2-T 2(N) 2(N) 103 - xedca

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

CABLE TYPE PHASE
Std
Veh-Ped
12CSC
PBA
3CSC
TOTAL CABLES 12/3 CONDUCTORS
#8
#6

FLASHNG BEACON

CONTROLLER POWER
Ø1
Ø2
Ø3
Ø4
Ø5
Ø6
DLC
B
TYPE
TOTAL DLCs PER RUN

VIVDS CABLE

CONDUIT SIZE
#10
#8

LUMINAIRE
GROUND
2"(N) 11 - 3" 2"(N) 2" 3" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2(N) - - - - - - - - - - 2(N) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1(N) - - - - 2 - - - 2(N) 2(N) 2 - - - - - - - 2(N) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - 1,2,4,6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2,4,6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - 1,2 - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - edcba X
2 3 4 6 7 9 10
(N) - NEW
ALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. ---- TRA FFIC DESIG N 04-14-E-23
2024

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
GA
RY
TOO
R
12-31-25
E15613
G.S. TOOR
07 LA 1 XX XX
B
1 2
"11
1(N)
2(N) 2(N)
2 "11
3(N)
1(N) 1(N)
2(N) 2(N) 2(N) 3(N)
2(N)
2"(N) 11
2(N)
2 "11
3(N)
2 "11
2(N) 2(N) 3(N) 6(N)
2 "12-------3 - - - - - 2 - 1 - - -11 3"-------4 - - - 1 - 2 - 1 - - - 12 2"1 2-2------7 - 2 - 1 - 2 - 1 - 1 - 13 2(N) 1(N) 1(N) 1(N) 1(N) 1(N) 3(N) 3(N) 2(N) 1(N) 5(N) 1(N) 5(N) 6(N) 2(N) 2(N) 2(N) 2 2 1(N) 5(N) 2(N) 5(N) 13(N)

46.9/62.9
1878 07180003231
6 2,4,SV-3-TA
SP-1-T(N)
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
TE
WOD
R
O
S
ABR
IE
5 8
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:40
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua023.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
(N) NEW
ALL STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. 2(N)
4(N),
4/15/25
515
6 6
Ø1
PP #936518E
6'X10'
R/W
BROAD BEACH Rd
2 3 5
Ø6
Ø8
Ø6 Ø2
Ø6P
2 LEGEND: (SHEET E-26 TO E-27)
1 ADDRESS: 30766½ PACIFIC COAST HwyCTID: 07-53-001-0-056.850-M 2-15 A, 1P, 120V, CB, FLASHING BEACON 20 A, 1P, 120V, CB, LIGHTING 50 A, 1P, 120V, CB, TS 100 A, 2P, 240V, CB, MAINWITH THE FOLLOWING CIRCUIT BREAKERS:Exist TYPE III-BF 120/240 V SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE 3 4
STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR'S APPROVAL.MODIFICATIONS TO TRAFFIC SIGNAL OPERATIONS. WORK SHALL NOT COMMENCE WITHOUTNOTICE SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE STATE ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR TO ARRANGE

5. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK, IF LOOP DETECTORS ARE TO BE DAMAGED, A 7-DAY OF ALL UTILTIES BEFORE PRECEDDING WITH PLACEMENT.OF ALL SIGNAL STANDARDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION

4. PRIOR TO FINAL PLACEMENT, OBTAIN ENGINEER APPROVAL FOR THE PRECISE LOCATIONS SCHEDULE.

3. SEE SHEET E-28 FOR CONDUIT, CONDUCTOR, STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT TAG SHALL INDICATE LOOP CABLE NUMBER AND LANE WITH WATERPROOF INK.TAGGED IN CABINET AND IN PULL BOX. EACH LEAD-IN CABLE

2. EACH LOOP AND LEAD-IN SHALL BE IDENTIFIED AND PERMANENTLY RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (SHEET E-26 TO E-27) 7 RC Exist Ped Sig HEAD. INSTALL COUNTDOWN Ped Sig HEAD. 5 AB LOOPS WHERE NEW LOOPS ARE PROPOSED.
6 RC Exist PBA. INSTALL APS.

ROUTE 1

TRANSCAS
CANYON
Rd
244' FROM LIMIT LINE
6J3L6J3U
1I9U 1I1U
6J1U
6J1L
Ø5
Ø2
Ø4
Ø8P
5J1U 5J9U
2I1U2I1J
d
e
f
Ø4
Ø6
Ø5
Ø6P
Ø8 Ø8
Ø8P
R73-2
R73-2
Ø2
Ø2P
Ø8
Ø6(APS)
4I6U 4I6L
Ø2P
Ø4 Ø4 Ø1
Ø2
4 3265 6 7
2 3
h
g
c
b
a
MATCHLINE'B'ONSHEETE-27
MATCHLINE'A'ONSHEETE-27
CONTROLLER AND BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM IN THE CABINETExist 332 CONTROLLER CABINET AND FOUNDATION WITH 2070 4 1 3
10 5 12
6 7
2 8
Ø1

PHASE DIAGRAM
Ø2P Ø3 Ø4
Ø5 Ø6 Ø7 Ø8
Ø2
Ø6P
1 9
BC
BC 11
13 3
RC 2DLC
SC
5 5
7 6
7 6
7 6
7 6
4 4 4
4 4
4 4
4 7
8 INSTALL APS.
8 (TR)(T)
(TR)(T)
(TR)(T)
RC PULL BOX AND MATCH NEW PULL BOX WITH FINISHED GRADE.

R/W
1 R/W
R/W
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:40
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua024.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
1878 07180003231

TRA FFICDESIG N

JAMSHED HYDER

GARYTOOR

TEWODROSABRIE
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12-31-25
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
SCALE: 1" = 20'
E-24
5 5
04-14-25
SEE SHEET ED-5 FOR INSTALLATION DETAILS.INSTALL CABINET SECURITY HASP. 9 9 9
4/15/25
516
{
(TR)(T)
(TR)(T)
(TR)(T)

LIMIT LINE
405' FROM
6J2U6J2L
BC
YY
W2-2
RC
SC
BC
2I3U2I3J
2I2U2I2J
3275
2 8
3260 1 9

LIMIT LINE
550' FROM
NOTE: (THIS SHEET ONLY)SEE SHEET E-26 FOR CONTINUATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLANS.

MATCHLINE'A'ONSHEETE-26
MATCHLINE'B'ONSHEETE-26

LIMIT LINE
405' FROM

LIMIT LINE
244' FROM
BC
BC
AB
SC
2" C, 2#10, ADD 2DLC 1 1
2" C, 2#10, ADD 2DLC 1 1
2" C, 2#10, ADD 4DLC 1 1
2" C, 2#10 1 1
2" C, 2#10 1 1
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 INSTALL NEW FLASHING BEACON WITH 9B AND FOUNDATION.
2 RC EXISTING POLE AND FOUNDATION
1 2
1000

LIMIT LINE
'FROM
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/WR/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/WR/W
R/W
12-31-25
E15613
TOOR
G.S.
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX
1878 07180003231
04-15-SCALE: 1" = 20'25
E-25

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
SHEET 2 OF 3)
(ROUTE 1 &TRANCAS CANYON Rd

TRA FFICDESIG N

JAMSHED HYDER

GARYTOOR
TEWODROSABRIEx
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:40
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua025.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
4/15/25
517
SigiC - SIGNAL INTERFACE CABLE
CSC - CONDUCTOR SIGNAL CABLEABBREVIATIONS: (THIS SHEET ONLY) STANDARD Veh Sig Mtg Ped SIGNAL
Mtg O
(N) APS
ARROW
Lum
LED
SNS

RETROREFLECTIVE

SMA LMA O O O

STANDARD AND EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE

TYPE POLE ARM MAST
26-4-80 40' 12' 2-MAS 4,2 SV-2-T 2,8 (N) SP-1-T 2,8 <--- 137 W Trancas Cyn Rd Broad Bch Rd/19-4-80 12' 2 (N) SP-1-T 2 1-A 1,2 SV-2-T
<---
24-4-80 2,6 TV-2-T 6
1-A 4,8 SV-2-T
17-2-80 8 SV-1-T
15TS 12' 5,6 SV-2-T 6 (N) SP-1-T 8 --->
x
g
f
d
c
b
a

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE

RUN NUMBER

NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

CABLE TYPE PHASE
Std
Veh-Ped
12CSC
PBA
3CSC
TOTAL CABLES 12/3 CONDUCTORS
#8
#6

INTERSECTION LIGHTING

CONTROLLER POWER
Ø1
Ø2
Ø3
Ø4
Ø5
Ø6
Ø7
Ø8
DLC
B
TYPE
TOTAL DLCs PER RUNSigiCVIVDS CABLECONDUIT SIZE
#10
#8

FLASHING BEACON
GROUND
2-2" 2-3" - 3 - - - - - - - - 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" 3" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 8,20(N) - 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6(N) 4(N) - - - - - - - - 3 - - - - 3 3 3 - 6(N) - - - - - - 6(N) - 6(N) - - - - - 1,1(N) - - - - - - 1,1(N) 1(N) 2 2 2 2 2 - 2 2 2 - 4 4 - 2 2 2 - - 2 22 - - - - - - - - - 2 2 - 2 2 2 - 2 2 - 7 6 - - 3 1 2 - 1 - 1 1 2 2 3 3 - - 2,8 2,4,2P,8P 1
2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,2 1 1 - - 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - 4,2P 1 - - - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1,2,6,6P 1 - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - - - - - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - 4,8 1 - - - - - - - - - 1 - 1 - 1 - - - 8,8P 1 1 - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 - - 5,6,6P 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 - - h g
f
d
c
b
a
X
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
(N) - NEWALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. -2-6(N) -68

TRA FFICDESIG N
1878 07180003231
04-14-25 E-26

AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS

MODIFYING SIGNAL
SHEET 3 OF 3)
(ROUTE 1& TRANCAS CANYON Rd

JAMSHED HYDER

TEWODROSABRIE

GARYTOOR
12-31-25
E15613
G.S. TOOR
07 LA 1 46.9/32.9 XX XX
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
FOR THE INTENDED OPERATION.BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE THE CORRECT CONDUCTORS REQUIRED

2. THE CONDUCTOR SCHEDULE IS FURNISHED AS AN INSTALLATION GUIDELINE ONLY. IT SHALL1. SEE SHEET E-24 FOR SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEM PLANS. (N) - NEWALL STANDARDS AND EQUIPMENTS ARE EXISTING UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. (N) SP-1-T
25'35'20' 12'
12'
MAS
2-MAS
MAS
1,6
4 5,2
8 h -----2(N) ------2--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 11 -------- 1,1(N) 6(N) --2--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 12 -1½" -------1(N) 4(N) --2--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 1½" 1½" 1½" 6(N) 1,1(N)1,1(N) 6(N) 1,1(N) 7 6 1 2 1 1 1 - 1 - - 1 1 - 1 1 1 1 1,1(N) 6(N) 6(N) 3 1,1(N) 6(N) POST (N) TYPE 2 6 8 (N) SP-1-T 6 ---> ---> <--- Trancas Cyn Rd Broad Bch Rd/ 137 W 137 W 137 W 137 W 4 E E x x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:41
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua026.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
4/15/25
518
ROUTE 1

FISH MARKET & PATIO CAFEMALIBU SEAFOOD FRESH
1 1
2 R/W

R/WR/W R/W
(4992)
(4994) (4996) (4999)
1 1 1
1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
1878 0718000323
E-27
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM
07 LA XX XX

CHUKWUEBUKAEMETAROM

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#6 SERVICECONDUIT SIZE 2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: ROUTE 1, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-49.497-MINSTALL TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERLtg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

AMPERE VOLTS POLES DESCRIPTION
SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL OF THE LIGHTING FIXTURE. TO MINIMIZE LIGHT TRESPASS AND GLARE. SHIELDS USED SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE 6. ALL ROADWAY LIGHTING FIXTURES SHALL INCLUDE BACK SIDE SHIELDS (HOUSE SIDE SHIELDS) 5. PULL BOXES INSTALLED BEHIND K-RAIL SHALL MAINTAIN A 4 ft CLEARANCE.4. USE BORING METHOD TO INSTALL CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT.

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) ROUTE 1
1 (4992)
(4994) (4996) (4999)

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
2 9 3 4 2015 6 7 8 9 2020 1 2 3 4 1 5
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
1 2"
3 #8 GROUND 1 1 1
PP# 4327890
3 WIRING DIAGRAM SYMBOLS: (SHEETS E-27 TO E-37)

NEW LUMINAIRE
519
ROUTE 1
RAMIREZMESARd
SEESHEETE-29FORCONTINUATION
1 1
1 1
2 1
1 1
2 1
R/WR/W
R/W
R/W

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
1878 0718000323
E-28
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

CHUKWUEBUKAEMETAROM

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#8 GROUNDCONDUIT SIZE
1 1
2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL OF THE LIGHTING FIXTURE. TO MINIMIZE LIGHT TRESPASS AND GLARE. SHIELDS USED SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE 6. ALL ROADWAY LIGHTING FIXTURES SHALL INCLUDE BACK SIDE SHIELDS (HOUSE SIDE SHIELDS) 5. PULL BOXES INSTALLED BEHIND K-RAIL SHALL MAINTAIN A 4 ft CLEARANCE.4. USE BORING METHOD TO INSTALL CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT.

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) (5322)
(5325)
(5327)
(5330)
(5332)
(5335)
(5337)
(5340)
(5342)
(5345)
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
ROUTE 1

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
RAMIREZMESARd
(5322) (5327) (5332) (5337) (5342)
(5325) (5330) (5335) (5340) (5345)
1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1
1 2 3 4 2195 6 7 8 9 2200 1 2 3
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
1 1
SHEET E-29
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: 28641 ½ PACIFIC COAST HWY, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-53.680-MEXIST TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE

MAIN BREAKERSIGNAL BREAKER
100 240 2
50 240 2

AMPERE VOLTS POLES DESCRIPTION
30 240 2 Ltg BREAKER40 240 2 ADD Ltg Ckt 2 BREAKER
520
ROUTE 1

ZUMIREZ
Dr
SEESHEETE-28FORCONTINUATION
2 1
2 1
1 1
1 2
1 ZUMA
V
IEW
P
L
.

R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
E-29
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

CHUKWUEBUKAEMETAROM

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 2#8 GROUNDCONDUIT SIZE
1 1
2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: 28641 ½ PACIFIC COAST HWY, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-53.680-MEXIST TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE

MAIN BREAKERSIGNAL BREAKER
100 240 2
50 240 2

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) 1 (5348)
(5350)
(5353)
(5356)
(5359)
(5362)
(5365)
(5369)
30 240 2 Ltg BREAKER40 240 2 ADD Ltg Ckt 2 BREAKER
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
ZUMAVIEWPl.

ZUMIREZDr.
(5348)
(5350)
(5353) (5359) (5365) (5369)
(5356) (5362)
ROUTE 1
1 1878 0718000323
4 2205
6 7
8 9
2210
1 2
3 4
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
TO SHEET E-28
521
2 2
1 1
1 2
1 1
ROUTE 1

CAVALLERI
Rd
KANAN DUMERd
R/WR/W
R/W
R/W

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
E-30
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 2#8 GROUNDCONDUIT SIZE
1 1
2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: 28911 ½ PACIFIC COAST HWY, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-54.000-MEXIST TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL OF THE LIGHTING FIXTURE. TO MINIMIZE LIGHT TRESPASS AND GLARE. SHIELDS USED SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE 6. ALL ROADWAY LIGHTING FIXTURES SHALL INCLUDE BACK SIDE SHIELDS (HOUSE SIDE SHIELDS) 5. PULL BOXES INSTALLED BEHIND K-RAIL SHALL MAINTAIN A 4 ft CLEARANCE.4. USE BORING METHOD TO INSTALL CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT.

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) MAIN BREAKERADD Ltg Ckt 2
100 240 2
40 240 2

AMPERE VOLTS POLES DESCRIPTION
SIGNALLtg
50 120 1
130 120 1
15 120 1 SIGN ILLUMINATION
(5410)
(5416)
(5412)
(5419)
1 07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
ROUTE 1
1 KANAN DUMERd

CAVALLE
R
I
R
d
(5410) (5416)
(5412) (5419)
1878 0718000323
2 3 4 2235 6 7 8 9 2240 1
2 3
4 x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
1 522

HEATHERCLIFF
Rd
ROUTE 1
2 1

R/WR/W R/W
R/W
(5432)
1 1

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
1878
E-31
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#8 GROUNDCONDUIT SIZE
1 1
2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: HEATHERCLIFF Rd/PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-54.350-MEXIST TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERLtg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

AMPERE VOLTS POLES DESCRIPTION
SPECIFIC MAKE AND MODEL OF THE LIGHTING FIXTURE. TO MINIMIZE LIGHT TRESPASS AND GLARE. SHIELDS USED SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE 6. ALL ROADWAY LIGHTING FIXTURESS SHALL INCLUDE BACK SIDE SHIELDS (HOUSE SIDE SHIELDS) 5. PULL BOXES INSTALLED BEHIND K-RAIL SHALL MAINTAIN A 4 ft CLEARANCE.4. USE BORING METHOD TO INSTALL CONDUITS UNDER THE ROADWAY PAVEMENT.

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) 07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25

NO SCALE
ROUTE 1
1 H
E
ATERC
L
IFF
R
d
.
(5432)

WIRING DIAGRAM
0718000323
8 9
2250
1 2 3 4
2255
6 x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
523
B
U
S
C
H
D
r
ROUTE 1
1 1
1 2
2 2
B
ON
SALL
Dr
R/WR/W
R/W
R/W

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
1878 0718000323
E-32
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: 29576 PACIFIC COAST Hwy, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-54.034-MEXIST TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERLtg
100 240 2
30 240 2

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) (5499)
(5495)
(5487)
(5489)
(5502)
1 2
40 240 2 ADD Ltg Ckt 140 120 1 SIGNALS
2 ADDRESS: PACIFIC COASR Hwy, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-54.090-MINSTALL TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERADD Ltg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

AMPERE VOLTS POLES DESCRIPTION
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
ROUTE 1

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
BONSALLDr.

BUSCHDr.
1 2
(5502)
(5499)
(5495)
(5489)
(5487)
9 2280
1 2
3 4
2285
9 8 7 6 2290
21 x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#6 SERVICECONDUIT SIZE 2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. 1 2"
3 #8 GROUND 1 1 1
3 PP# 914959M
524
1 1
ROUTE 1

TRANCAS
CANYON
Rd
R/WR/W
R/WR/W

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
1878 0718000323
E-33
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#8 GROUNDCONDUIT SIZE
1 2"
1 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: TANCAS CANYON/ROUTE 1, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-56.890-MINSTALL TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERLtg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) (5691)
1 07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
ROUTE 1
1 WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
(5691)

TRANCAS
CANYON
Rd
7 6 3265 4 3 2 3270 9 8
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
#6 SERVICE
1 2"
1 2
PP# 936917E
2 525
ROUTE 1

MULHOLLAND
Hwy
1 1
1 1
1 1
R/WR/W
R/W
R/W

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
E-34
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: MULHOLLAND/ROUTE 1, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-62.291-MINSTALL TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERLtg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) (6233)
(6237)
(6242)
(6240)
(6235)
1 1
1 1
2 07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
ROUTE 1

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
MULHOLLAND Hwy.
(6233) (6237) (6242)
(6235) (6240)
1 1878 0718000323
3550 1
2 3
4 3555
6 7
8 9
3560
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:46
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
1 1

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#6 SERVICECONDUIT SIZE 2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. 1 2"
3 #8 GROUND 1 1 1
3 PP# 1408752E
526
ROUTE 1
1 2
1 1
3 4 3545 6 7 8 9 3550 1
BEACH
ACCESS
Rd
BEACH ACCESS Rd
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
E-35
SCALE: 1" - 50'

LIGHTING SYSTEM

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: BEACH ACCESS Rd/ROUTE 1, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-62.149-MINSTALL TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERLtg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) (6222)
(6214) (6219) (6225)
1 1
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
ROUTE 1

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
BEACHACCESSRd.
1 (6214) (6219)
(6222)
(6225)
1878 0718000323
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:47
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
PP# 1090616E
3 CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#6 SERVICECONDUIT SIZE 2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. 1 2"
3 #8 GROUND 1 1 1
527
XX
/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
1878 0718000323
E-36
SCALE: 1" - 50'

MODYFING LIGHTING SYSTEM
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9 XX XX

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#8 GROUNDCONDUIT SIZE
1 1
2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: JOHN TYLER/ROUTE 1, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-48.498-MEXIST TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERLtg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) ROUTE 1
JOHN
TYLER
DRIVE
(4846)
(4854) (4859)
1 WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:47
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
JOHN
TYLER
Dr
R/W
50 MP
50H
MPH
50 05PMH
PMH6 7 8 9 2820 1 2 3 4 2825 6 7 8 9 6 7 8 9 2820 1 2 3 4 2825 6 7 8 9 ROUTE 1 2
2 1 1
1 1
(4846)
(4854)
1 1
(4859)
ROUTE 1
R/W
R/WR/W
528
2 1 1
ROUTE 1
KANAN DUMERd
ROUTE 1

R/WR/W R/W
R/W
(5404) (5400)

XX/XX/XXXX

TRA FFICDESIG N

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
E-37
SCALE: 1" - 50'

MODIFYING LIGHTING SYSTEM

JAMSHED HYDER

JOSEALCANTAR

GARYTOOR

CONDUCTOR AND CONDUIT SCHEDULE
AWG
CABLE

CONDUCTOR DESIGNATION

RUN NUMBER AND NUMBER OF CONDUCTORS
#8 Ltg Ckt 1#8 GROUNDCONDUIT SIZE
1 1
2" 3"
1 2
2 2
(E) - EXISTINGALL CONDUCTORS AND CABLES ARE NEW UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
1 ADDRESS: 28911 ½ PACIFIC COAST HWY, MALIBUCTID: 07-53-001-0-54.000-MEXIST TYPE III-BF SERVICE EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE MAIN BREAKERADD Ltg Ckt 1
100 240 2
40 240 2

OTHERWISE STATED. SEE SHEET ED-4 FOR INSTALLATION DETAIL.

3. NEW PULL BOX SHALL BE TAMPER-RESISTANT TRAFFIC PULL BOX UNLESS 2. NEW CONDUITS SHALL BE TYPE 1 UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACTNOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) SIGNALLtg
50 120 1
130 120 1
15 120 1 SIGN ILLUMINATION
1 07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25

WIRING DIAGRAM

NO SCALE
KANAN DUMERd.

ROUTE 1
1 (5404) (5400)
1878 0718000323
2235 4 3 2 1 2230 9 6
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:47
9-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
529
1 8
7 6
8 9
2315
2310
4 1
3 2
ROUTE 1
BEL
AIR
BAY
CLUB
Dr
4-15-25

RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEMS
E-38

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
SCALE: 1" = 50'
07 LA 1
J
A
M
S
H
E
D HYD
E
R
F
A
R
ID
R
EKA
B
I
GA
RY
TOO
R
T
R
A FF
IC
D
E
S
IG N
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
1878 07180003231

46.9/62.9
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)3. SOLAR MODULE SHALL BE MOUNTED FACING DUE SOUTH AT AN AZIMUTH ANGLE OF 180 DEGREES.

SEE SHEET ED-1, ED-2, AND ED-3 FOR PV SOLAR POWER SUPPLY WIRING DIAGRAM AND INSTALLATION DETAILS.

2. RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SHALL BE POWERED USING PV SOLAR POWER SUPPLY.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
2 1
1 2
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
FOR INSTALLATION OF RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEMS. SEE DETAIL SHEET ED-1 THRU ED-3 AND SES-1 THRU SES-3

RC EXISTING DAMAGED SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN AND INSTALL
BEL AIR BAY CLUB AT PM 38.89 AND 25' FROM ETW.NEW SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN POLE AT SB APPROACHING x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:13
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s126271
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua038.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
530
8 9
2870
1 2 3 4 2875 6 7 8 9 2880 1
SB
NB
SB
NB
R/W
R/W
SB
NB
SB
NB
4-15-25
NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)

3. SOLAR MODULE SHALL BE MOUNTED FACING DUE SOUTH AT AN AZIMUTH ANGLE OF 180 DEGREES.

SEE SHEET ED-1, ED-2, AND ED-3 FOR PV SOLAR POWER SUPPLY WIRING DIAGRAM AND INSTALLATION DETAILS.

2. RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SHALL BE POWERED USING PV SOLAR POWER SUPPLY.

RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.

1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT
LEGEND: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
AT PM 49.50 AND 25' FROM ETW.NEW SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN POLE AT NB SHALL BE LOCATED 2 1 1 2
R/W
R/W

RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEMS
E-41

APPROVED FOR ELECTRICAL WORK ONLY
SCALE: 1" = 50'
07 LA 1
O
S
W
A
L
D EL
IZONDO
F
A
R
ID
R
EKA
B
I
O
S
W
A
L
D EL
IZONDO
T
R
A FF
IC
D
E
S
IG N
1878 07180003231

46.9/62.9
ROUTE 1
FOR INSTALLATION OF RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEMS. SEE DETAIL SHEET ED-1 THRU ED-3 AND SES-1 THRU SES-3 (PM 49.50)
G.S. TOOR
E15613
12/31/25
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
08:16
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s126271
DGN FILE => 0718000323ua039.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 1/4/2023 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
531
SPD

PV (MOUNTED ON POLE)

PV MODULE
400W
30A Min.

SWITCH
DC
PV

CHARGE CONTROLLER
BATT.

BATT.

SOLAR
300Ah
12V
FUSE)
(IN-LINE
50A DC
FUSE)(IN-LINE 50A DC
(MOUNTED ON POLE)

JUNCTION BOX
NEMA 3R

INVERTER
SOLAR
15A Min.

SWITCH
DC
SPD
AC
(MOUNTED ON POLE)
NEMA 3R CABINET
120V, 5A

AC SWITCH
#10
TYP.
#8 (G)
NOTE 5&6)
(SEE
#6
#6
#10
#10
GEC#8

7. EQUIPMENTS SHALL BE INSTALLED PER MANUFACUTERERS GUIDE AND SPECIFICATIONS.6. TERMINAL BLOCKS SHALL BE RATED FOR CONDITION OF USE.5. BATTERY CONDUCTORS SHALL BE OF THE SAME MATERIAL AND HAVE EQUAL RUN LENGTH.4. USE FLEXIBLE MULTI-STRANDED COPPER CABLES FOR BATTERY CONNECTIONS.3. ALL CONDUCTORS SHALL BE COPPER WITH TEMPERATURE RATING OF 90^C (194^F). 2. PROVIDE A MEANS FOR CABLE STRAIN RELIEF TO PREVENT THE TRANSMISSION OF STRESS TO THE CONNECTORS.1. BOND ALL EXPOSED METAL PARTS TO GROUNDING ELECTRODE.NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DETAILS

NO SCALE
EGC EQUIPMENT GROUNDING CONDUCTORGEC GROUNDING ELECTRODE CONDUCTORAC ALTERNATIVE CURRENTDC DIRECT CURRENTSPD SURGE PROTECTIVE DEVICEBATT. BATTERYTYP. TYPICALTB TERMINAL BLOCKPV PHOTOVOLTAICABBREVIATIONS:

WIRE
#10 PV
5&6)
(SEE NOTE
#6
GROUND
TB
ED-1
#8 (G)
+- BATT. SOLAR 300Ah 12V -+
#10
12V DC
TB
TB

LOADTO UTILIZATION

PV SOLAR POWER SUPPLY WIRING DIAGRAM
FAN
DC
FUSE

THERMOSTAT T
#10
#14

MANUFACTURER
BY

SUPPLIED
TYP.

BOND

EQUIPMENT

FAN PANEL
#10
TB
RATING Voc (STC) Isc (STC)

PV MODULE
400 W 45V - 55V 10A - 15A
RATING

SOLAR INVERTER
300 W Min.

RATING PV Voc CHARGE CURRENT

CHARGE CONTROLLER
300 W Min. 100 V Min. 30 A Min.

NOMINAL VOLTAGE CAPACITY

BATTERY

12.0 V 300 Ah

EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
17:14
24-MAY-2023

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s143978
DGN FILE => 0718000323ub001.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
1880 07180003231
9/30/23E23605
AHMED
AMR
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9

TRA FFICDESIG N

OSWALD ELIZONDO

AMR AHMED

OSWALD ELIZONDO

GROUNDING ELECTRODE
5/24/23
XX XX
532

4. EIA RAIL MOUNTING AND ANGLE BRACKET, TOP VIEW AND FRONT VIEW DETAIL, REFER TO 2020 TEES, APPENDIX B4-2.

3. EIA RAIL DETAIL, REFER TO 2020 TEES, APPENDIX B4-3.2. DOOR HANDLE DETAIL, REFER TO 2020 TRANSPORTATION ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (TEES), APPENDIX A6-42.1. ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE IN INCHES.NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY) NEMA 3R CABINET
(DOOR OPEN)

FRONT VIEW RIGHT SIDE SECTION A-A

DETAIL B DETAIL C

NO SCALE

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DETAILS
ED-2
ShelfBottomRemovable

12.01 Detail B
Exhaust Vents
with SiliconeSeal Both Ends
Detail CFan PanelControlThermostat

0.75 24.13

12.00 12.00

3.00 5"

12.00 0.8

8.25 1.25

FRONT VIEW

DETAIL A

SIDE VIEW FRONT VIEW
See note 4.
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LAST REVISION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

REG ISTERED
PROFES
SIONAL

ENG INEER
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
TIME PLOTTED =>
DATE PLOTTED =>
17:12
24-MAY-2023

CHECKED BY

REVISED BY

DATE REVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONAL SUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s143978
DGN FILE => 0718000323ub002.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2
3 BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

TRA FFIC DESIG N OSWALD ELIZONDO

AMR AHMED
OSWALD ELIZONDO (or equivalent) p/n FHA-032-10 PEM Studs 10-32 Threaded (3 places) Bracket bolt locations Fan Panel/EIA Rail Mounting
See note 2.

Side of DoorHandle on Rt.

56.00 AA

26.00 0.250 diameter
Holes (typ. 10 pcs)Pre-Drilled mounting
Silicone
Brac
k
et with
Seal Bottom
See note 3.

DETAIL A
Fatigue BarGasket
(OPTIONAL)CORBIN #2 KEYLOCK

51.25 10.00 10.00

17.75 min.

18.312
lip turned down0.625 Shelf,

1.00 Opening

49.63 53.00

1.50 Opening

23.50 1.63

12.00 2.06

16.00 Wide Filter

0.63 Typ.

Filter
High

5.00 26.00
94 ° Slope

55.68 12.00
fuseandControl Thermostat
panel
Fan
Terminal Block
Fan

0.5 1.0
Around Door OpeningCabinet Housing Flange
5"
5/24/23
XX XX
533

3. EQUIPMENT IN BBS CABINET MAY BE REARRANGED FOR EASIER ACCESSIBLITY OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.

2. PROVIDE A MEANS FOR CABLE STRAIN RELIEF TO PREVENT THE TRANSMISSION OF STRESS TO THE CONNECTORS.1. ENSURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE AROUND EQUIPMENTS FOR VENTILATIONS.NOTES: (THIS SHEET ONLY)

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS DETAILS
NO SCALE ED-3
IN
NEMA
3R

CABINET

EQUIPMENTS
BATT.

SOLAR
TB
Power
attached to EIA railexpanded metal sheetFlattened galvanized (SEE SHEET SES-1 TO SES-5)
POLE
fuse
In-line
conductors
for electrical
chased edge
2" Ø hole
ControllerCharge
InverterSolar
TYP.
mounted on din rail
DC Isolator Switch
BusGround
electrodeto grounding#8 GEC
To Fan
#14
BATT.

SOLAR
+
-
+
- TYP.

ScrewWasher
mounted on din railAC Disconnect
mounted on din railAC Surge protection device
NEMA 3R CABINET
NEMA
3R

JUNCTION
BOX
protective deviceDC Surge
LUGGrounding
conductors
for electrical
chased edge
1" Ø hole
Sealing washer
Junction Box
NEMA 3R
(SEE SHEET SES-1 TO SES-5)
POLE
#8 Bare (G) TYP
Terminal bus
PV
SOLAR
POW
ER
SUPPLY

CONSTRUCTION
lugGrounding
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LAST REVISION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

REG ISTERED
PROFES
SIONAL

ENG INEER
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
TIME PLOTTED =>
DATE PLOTTED =>
17:11
24-MAY-2023

CHECKED BY

REVISED BY

DATE REVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONAL SUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
USERNAME => s143978
DGN FILE => 0718000323ub003.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2
3 BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

TRA FFIC DESIG N OSWALD ELIZONDO

AMR AHMED

OSWALD ELIZONDO
5/24/23
XX XX
534
.

TEWODROSABRIE

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS QUANTITIES
07 .
.
.

OSWALD ELIZONDO

GARYTOOR
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:41
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
04-14-25
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323uc001.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 UNIT 1878 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 07180003231 LA 46.9/62.9
NOTE: (THIS SHEET ONLY)
TO DETERMINE ALL MATERIALS NEEDED FOR EACH SYSTEM.COMPONENTS. SEE ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONSELECTRICAL SYSTEMS QUANTITIY TABLES SUMMARIZE SIGNIFICANT 1 No.

SHEET

CONDUIT
2"C

MODIFYING SIGNAL AND LIGHTING SYSTEMS
(N)
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
LOOP
TYPE E
E-2

LF LF LF LF EA EA EA EA EA
12CSC
EA
E-4
(TR)(T)
PB-5

PULL BOX
1-A
TYPE
HEAD
SIGNAL
PED
APS POST DLC 3CSC TYPE 2
EA
E-6
E-8
E-12
E-14
E-16
E15613
12-31-25
TOOR
G.S.

ASSEMBLY

CABINET &
332 LS
LF
GROUND
#8
E-18

CONDUIT
2"C 1 1
LF
E-20
E-22
E-24
E-25
4000 1000 2400 1 4 4 5 19
23 CABINET

BF SERVICE

TYPE III
EA
1 1

SERVICE
#6
LF
150 200 100 300 4
SigiC
LF
5800 1000 200
SIGN
TYPE 9B

FB WITH
EA
1 23
900 4 6
6000 1 3
1300 1400 24
LOOP
TYPE D
EA
6 2200 2500 46 102100 2200 53 142300 2200 23 6
1000 2 2
6 6
5CSC
No.

SHEET
(N)

LF LF LF EA EA
E-12
E-14
E-16
E-18

LF LF EA EA
100
9CSC CONDUIT
3"C
40 FLASHERS
#6

LIGHTING
#6
650
400 400
SIGNAL
26-4-100
TYPE
1 2500 1000 60
200 200
1 1 6 6 5
(TR)(T)
PB-6

PULL BOX
1 19 5
60 300 2300 60 50 1 4 4 2 24 7
540
175
3500 2000 140
1000
700
SIGNAL
23-4-100
TYPE
SIGNAL
17-2-100
TYPE
1 1 1 1
300 1 1 2 4 4 2 23 6
130
60 800 4500 120 2 4 4 4 21 6
77 600

CONDUIT
4"C
LF
500

CONDUIT
3"C
600
E-10 200 3500 350
800
150 1200
1800

ASSEMBLY
BBS
EA
1 1800 4 4 2 24 8
100
4 4
200 12
650800650600
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
200
EQ-1

TRA FFICDESIG N
535
.

TEWODROSABRIE

ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS QUANTITIES
EQ-2
07 .
.
.

JAMSHED HYDER

GARYTOOR
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
15:41
15-APR-2025

CHECKEDBY

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS ELECTRICAL

REGISTERED ELECTRICAL ENGINEER
R
04-14-25
USERNAME => s155406
DGN FILE => 0718000323uc002.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

SHEET
TYPE VDS 40(Mod)STANDARDPOLE ANDFOUNDATION
400WPVMODULE

PVMODULEPOLEMOUNTINGSYSTEM
NEMA3RJUNCTIONBOX

SURGEPROTECTIONDEVICE

CHARGECONTROLLER

SOLARINVERTER
300Ah 12VSOLARBATTERY
NEMA3RCABINET
#10AWGPVWIRE
#10AWG
#8(G)
#6AWG

RADAR SPEEDFEED-BACKSIGN

EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA EA LF LF LF LF EA
1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 1
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
E-38 10 100 100 5
50ADCIN-LINEFUSE
EA
2 1
EA
DCFAN, FUSE, #14(10'CONDUCTOR), ANDTHERMOSTAT
EA
1 GROUNDING ELECTRODE
5 LF
#8AWG

DCISOLATORSWITCH
EA
2 E-39 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 10 100 100 5 5 1 2 1 1 2

LIGHTING SYSTEM RADAR SPEED FEEDBACK SIGN SYSTEMS
No.

SHEET

REFERENCE
TYPE 15STANDARD ANDFOUNDATION
(TR)(T)PULLBOX
2"C(TYPE1)
3"C(TYPE1)

TYPE IIIBFSERVICECABINET
#8
#8(G)
(N)

EA EA LF LF EA LF LF
E-27 4 6 410 85 1 990 495E-28 10 19 2145 185 4660 2330E-29 8 10 1630 90 3440 1720E-30 4 9 1225 485 3420 1710E-31 1 4 102 190 584 292E-32 5 9 280 510 1 1580 790E-33 1 2 114 1 228E-34 5 13 1190 140 1 2660 1330E-35 4 5 390 92 564 482 114
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
TOOR
G.S.

E15613
12-31-25

MODIFYING LIGHTING SYSTEMS
No.

SHEET

REFERENCE
TYPE 15STANDARD ANDFOUNDATION
(TR)(T)PULLBOX
2"C(TYPE1)
3"C(TYPE1)

SERVICECABINET
#8
#8(G)
(N)

EA EA LF LF EA LF LF
E-36 3 7 510 225 1470 735E-37 2 3 250 85 670 335
(N) - NOT A SEPARATE BID ITEM
#6
LF
40402020
1 30

TRA FFICDESIG N
536
3 07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
R
E
FUG
IO DO
M
INGUEZ
D
E
S
IG N

MOHAMMAD
MOH
S
E
N
ZAD
E
H
-
F
A
R
D
AN

THONY HUGH
E
S
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:11
2-JUL-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07180003231
07-27-23

RETAINING WALL
RWHUGHES

ANTHONY
57339
12-31-23
X/XX/2X

SCALE AS SHOWN
6' WIDE Conc SW
TCE
FL
202
.64
41 .1
'+00
R/W
Exist DRAINAGE SYSTEM
END RETAINING WALL47.78' Rt 3+54.31
Beg RETAINING WALL47.78' Rt 3+04.31
RW-1
ELEV
203
.
44 Elev=190
DATUM
LENGTH MEASURED ALONG RW LOL=50', H=4'
+20

ELEVATION
SCALE: Horiz 1" = 20'
Vert 1" = 5'
OG
B
E
G
IN
RET
A
IN
ING
W
ALL
3 +04
.31

RETAINING WALL MASONRY BLOCK
TYPE 6A, CASE 1
RETAINING WALL No. 1923
+40
+20
+40
END
RET
A
IN
ING
W
ALL
3 +54
.31
ELE
V 207
.93
ELE
V 207
.90
ELEV
203
.
38 APPROVED FOR RETAINING WALL WORK ONLY
PLAN
SCALE: Horiz 1" = 20'
195200205
FL

BOTTOM OF FOOTING

TOP OF FOOTING

TOP OF WALL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.

SEE NOTE 1 .POST DETAIL,USE SLEEVE

CONCRETE
3'-0" Min5'-0" Max
8" Ø
WHEEL GUIDE RAIL3" CLEAR TO

SIDEWALKTOP OF
Var

PEDESTRIAN HANDRAIL
PLAN)SPECIFIED ON OTHERWISE (6" WIDE UNLESS RETAINING CURB Typ?" Min
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
3"
6"
HOLES EACH END PIPE WITH GALVANIZING DRAIN 1½" NPS, GALVANIZED STANDARD 16" 16"

NO SCALE

TYPICAL SECTION
"RW 1923" 3+04.31 TO "RW 1923" 3+54.31
PG
OG

FLATTER
2:1 OR

1.9'
TYPE 6A

SEE DETAILS

HANDRAIL

PEDESTRAIN
3'-6"

1.0'
ROUTE 1 CL
"PCH" LINE

47.8'
Conc SW
RW LOL
R/W
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
~
1½"
SLEEVE
3"
1'-3"
SEE NOTE 1
?" Ø Galv BOLT WITH NUT AND WASHER.

DEFORM THE THREAD

SLEEVE POST DETAIL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
4"
SEEPLAN, 9"Max

OR RETAINING CURBTOP OF SIDEWALK
6" Ø
SEE NOTE 2

USE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED OR

SHOWN ON PLANS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
1½" Dia (NPS)MID RAIL Std PIPE

CONCRETE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
2 NPS OR 1½ NPS Std PIPE POST, GALVANIZED
NOTES:

1. 2.

WIDTH OF THE REAINING CURB.

DIAMETER OF THE CONCRETE BASE SHALL MATCH THE
FOR THE RETAINING CURB WIDER THAN 6", THE
SAME AS POST OR LARGER.

DIAMETER. WALL THICKNESS OF SLEEVE SHALL BE THE
10" LARGER THAN THE POST'S OUTSIDE 1 DIAMETER

STEEL SLEEVE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED WITH AN INSIDE
AND WALL EXPANSION JOINTS DETAILS.

SEE STANDARD PLAN B0-3 FOR WEEP HOLE
SEE NOTE 3

3. 0.50' HMA-A

0.55' LCB-RS

1.00' AB (CLASS 3)
537
1 2

50.5-56"LINE PCH_ "
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
R
E
FUG
IO DO
M
INGUEZ
D
E
S
IG N

MOHAMMAD
MOH
S
E
N
ZAD
E
H
-
F
A
R
D
AN

THONY HUGH
E
S
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:15
2-JUL-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07180003231
07-27-23

RETAINING WALL
RWHUGHES

ANTHONY
57339
12-31-23
X/XX/2X

SCALE AS SHOWN
ST
ST
R/W
JOIN ExistEND RETAINING WALL40.96' Rt 1+92.51
Beg RETAINING WALL42.47' Rt 1+10.51
RW-2

NO SCALE

TYPICAL SECTION
"RW 2251" 1+10.51 TO "RW 2251" 1+92.51
Elev
200.
65 FL
+20
Elev=190
DATUM
LENGTH MEASURED ALONG RW LOL=xx', H=5'

ELEVATION
SCALE: Horiz 1" = 20'
Vert 1" = 5'
OG
B
E
G
IN
RET
A
IN
ING
W
ALL
1 +10
.51

RETAINING WALL MASONRY BLOCK
TYPE 6A, CASE 1
JOIN Exist RWBeg RETAINING WALL41.51' Rt 1+82.2
JOIN Exist RWEND RETAINING WALL41.62' Rt 1+75.53
6' WIDE Conc SW
SEE C-XXLOCATION #ADA CURB RAMP
RETAINING WALL No. 2251
199
200
201
202
198
ROUTE 1 CL
"PCH" LINE
41' TO 42.5'
Var
RW LOL
PG
TYPE 6A
OG

7.3' TO 9'
Var
R/W
END
RET
A
IN
ING
W
ALL
1 +
9 2
.
5 1
+20 +40 +60 +80
E
le
v XX
.XX
E
le
v XX
.XX
Elev
200.
50 FL
+40
Elev
199.
40 FL
+60
Elev
199.
07 FL
+80
PLAN
SCALE: Horiz 1" = 20'

APPROVED FOR RETAINING WALL WORK ONLY
195
200
205
TOC
FL

TOP OF WALL
OG

BOTTOM OF FOOTING

TOP OF FOOTING
OG

TOP OF CURVE

TOP OF WALL

BOTTOM OF FOOTING
AND WALL EXPANSION JOINTS DETAILS.

SEE STANDARD PLAN B0-3 FOR WEEP HOLE

SEE NOTE
538
7 8
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
R
E
FUG
IO DO
M
INGUEZ
D
E
S
IG N

MOHAMMAD
MOH
S
E
N
ZAD
E
H
-
F
A
R
D
AN

THONY HUGH
E
S
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:18
2-JUL-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07180003231
07-27-23

RETAINING WALL
RWHUGHES

ANTHONY
57339
12-31-23
X/XX/2X

SCALE AS SHOWN
ST
ST
ST
C ON C
H SP A
6' WIDE Conc SW
R/W
Beg RETAINING WALL45.31' Rt 7+37.35
END RETAINING WALL45.57' Rt 8+18.44
RW-3
Elev

29. 92
Elev=20
DATUM
LENGTH MEASURED ALONG RW LOL=81', H=4'
+40

ELEVATION
SCALE: Horiz 1" = 20'
Vert 1" = 5'
B
E
G
IN
RET
A
IN
ING
W
ALL
7 +37
.35

RETAINING WALL MASONRY BLOCK
TYPE 6A, CASE 1,
SEE C-24
LOCATION 24

ADA CURB RAMP
RETAINING WALL No. 2288

NO SCALE

TYPICAL SECTION
"RW 2288" 7+37.35 TO "RW 2288" 8+18.44
PG
RW LOL
OG
FLATT 2:1 EROR
R/W

4.5'
ROUTE 1 CL
"PCH" LINE

45.6'
+60 +80 TYPE 6A
+40
Elev

29. 88
Elev

29. 81 +80
+00
END
RET
A
IN
ING
W
ALL
8 +18
.
4 4
ELE
V 29
.93
ELE
V
2 9
.67
PLAN
SCALE: Horiz 1" = 20'

APPROVED FOR RETAINING WALL WORK ONLY
2530
Conc SW

TOP OF WALL
OG

TOP OF FOOTING

BOTTOM OF FOOTING

TOP OF WALL
FL
OG
PG
+60
Elev

29. 85

TOP OF FOOTING
Elev 24.00

BOTTOM OF FOOTING
Elev 25.00
+
0 4
+
9 9+1
0 SEE NOTE
AND WALL EXPANSION JOINTS DETAILS.

SEE STANDARD PLAN B0-3 FOR WEEP HOLE
539
07 LA
1 46.9/62.9

REFUGIO DOMINGUEZ DESIGN

MOHAMMAD MOHSENZADEH-FARD

ANTHONY HUGHES
xxxxx
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LAST REVISION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL

REG ISTERED
PROFES
SIONAL

ENG INEER
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
DATE PLOTTED =>TIME PLOTTED =>
4/30/2025
3:04:07 PM

CHECKED BY

REVISED BY

DATE REVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

FUNCTIONAL SUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.

THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNED

OR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS
R
USERNAME =>
DGN FILE => ...\0718000323ra05_rw_Quantities.dgn

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1
2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE CALCULATED- DESIGNED BY 07180003231
07-27-23

RETAINING WALL
RWHUGHES

ANTHONY
57339
12-31-23
X/XX/2X

SCALE AS SHOWN
RW-4

APPROVED FOR RETAINING WALL WORK ONLY

QUANTITIES

WALL NUMBER

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE

STRUCTURE EXCAVATION

STRUCTURE BACKFILL

REINFORCING BAR
(RETAINING WALL)
(RETAINING WALL)
(RETAINING WALL)
(RETAINING WALL)

ITEM DESCRIPTION

CY CY CY LB
1923

RETAINING WALL(MASONRY WALL)
SQFT
6 TOTAL
2251
2288
12 12
30 150
410
324
884
30 18
55 43
50 38
135 99
2200
2100
1212
5512
540
541
542

GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW

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

TO: City's geotechnical consultants
City of Malibu Planning Department DATE: 04/04/2025
JOB ADDRESS: 3620.5 SWEETWATER MESA RD
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Anna Johnson, Caltrans District 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CalTrans Road Improvements
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 25-009
TO:

FROM:

Malibu Planning Divison and/or Applicant
City's Geotechnical Consultants
The project is feasible and CAN proceed through the Planning process.

Building Plan Check (BPC) Required ❑Yes ❑No BPC Fees Req'd $ The project CANNOT proceed through the planning process until geotechnical feasibility is determined. Depending upon the nature of the project, this may require engineering geologic and/or geotechnical engineering (soils) reports which evaluate the site conditions, factor of safety, and potential geologic hazards.

SIGNATURE DATE
Determination of geotechnical feasibility for planning should not be construed as approval of building and/or grading plans which need to be submitted for Building Department approval. At that time, those plans may require approval by City Geotechnical Staff. Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed at the time building and/or grading plans are submitted for review, including geotechnical reports APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
** Project Plans for Construction on State Highway prepared by Caltrans dated 8-5 2020 (350 sheets) were reviewed. No further geotechnical reviews are required based on the scope of work presented on the plans. x**
x None
May 21, 2025
(408-656-3210)
ATTACHMENT 3
543

BIOLOGY REVIEW

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

TO: City of Malibu Biologist
City of Malibu Planning Department REVISED DATE 08/20/2025 JOB ADDRESS: CITYWIDE PROJECT
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Anna Johnson, Caltrans District 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CalTrans Road Improvements
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 25-009
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: Adam Pisarkiewicz
TO:

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

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

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

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

Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Building Plan Check (BPC) Required q Yes q No BPC Fees Req'd $ REVISION:

Rev 05/29/2018
X
8/26/25
544
City of Malibu
Biology ● Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road · Malibu, California · 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 · Fax (310) 456-3356 · www.malibucity.org

Page 1 of 3 ends

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Anna Johnson, Caltrans District 7
[email protected]
Project Address: CITYWIDE PROJECT
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 25-009
Project Description: CalTrans Road Improvements
Date of Review: August 26, 2025
Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

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

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 8/20/25
Site Survey: 8/20/25
Landscape Plan:

Hydrozone Plan:

Irrigation Plan:

Fuel Modification Plan:

Grading Plan:

OWTS Plan:

Bio Assessment:

Bio Inventory:

Native Tree Survey:

Native Tree Protection
Plan:

Miscellaneous: “Natural Environment Study” (August 2025) Previous Reviews: 4/7/25 (Incomplete), 5/2/25 (Incomplete)

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

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

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

ERB: This project has the potential to impact ESHA and may require review by the Environmental Review Board pursuant to LIP Section 4.4.4 545
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 25-009
Citywide Project
August 26, 2025

Page 2 of 3 ends

DISCUSSION:

1. The submitted “Natural Environment Study” (August 2025) states that: “After conducting a field review on 8/11/25, it was determined that the northern ESHA boundary (see Figure 2) extends farther than it should as displayed on the website. Through the site visit, it was determined that the ESHA boundary should be at least 25’ from Caltrans right-of-way….With the proposed ESHA boundary occurring 25 feet from Caltrans right-of-way, this would put project activities at 116.6 feet from a known ESHA.” Therefore, the proposed development is farther than 100-feet from ESHA and in compliance with Chapter 4 of the LIP.

2. The submitted “Natural Environment Study (August 2025) states that: “Any vegetation directly adjacent to the project limits is ornamental, ruderal, or disturbance-oriented, but will not be impacted.” Therefore, no native vegetation, including native trees, will be impacted in any way.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

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

A. No new landscaping is proposed with this project. Therefore, none is approved. Should the applicant intend to plant any new vegetation with a potential to exceed six feet in height, or change 500/2,500 square feet or more (new residence/existing residence) of the existing landscaping area, a detailed landscape plan shall be submitted for review and approval prior to any planting.

B. Grading/excavation/vegetation removal scheduled between February 1 - September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of such activities. Surveys shall be completed no more than five days from proposed initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified, a buffer area no less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced off until it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of the surveys shall be turned in to the City within two business days of completion of surveys.

C. All new development including structures, septic systems, or landscaping, shall be set back no less than (100) feet from the (ESHA and parkland). The proposed development is over 100 feet from ESHA and parkland because of the 25-foot Caltrans right-of-way. 546
City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 25-009
Citywide Project
August 26, 2025

Page 3 of 3 ends

-o0oIf you have any questions regarding the above requirements, please contact the City Biologist office at your earliest convenience.
cc: Planning Project file
Planning Department
547

PUBLIC WORKS REVIEW

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

TO:

City of Malibu Planning Department
Public Works Department
DATE: 03/31/2025
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Anna Johnson, Caltrans District 7
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: CalTrans Road Improvements
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 25-009
JOB ADDRESS: 3620.5 SWEETWATER MESA RD
TO: Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: Public Works Department
The following items described on the attached memorandum shall be addressed and resubmitted.

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

Building Plan Check (BPC) Required ❑Yes ❑No BPC Fees Req'd $

SIGNATURE DATE
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Rev 120910
8/29/2025
548
1 City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To: Planning Department
From: Nadia Fahoum, Associate Engineer
Date: August 29, 2025
Re: 3620.5 Sweetwater Mesa Road– CDP 25-009 (Caltrans CAPM Project) The Public Works Department has reviewed the plans submitted for this project. Public Works can recommend approval subject to the following conditions:

1. The City of Malibu, Public Works Deputy Director and/or Superintendent shall be invited to the preconstruction meeting prior to any construction activity taking place.

2. Applicant is to provide a Public Notification letter by printed notice to occupants of all properties within the construction zone on any access, parking and circulation restrictions and limitationsthat will be created by the construction at least 72 hours in advance of the commencement of construction.

3. Access to the driveways to all properties in the vicinity of the construction activity shall be maintained at all times. Should access restrictions be temporarily needed, it will be the responsibility of the applicant to provide proper notification and coordination with the property owners for restricted access.

4. If Temporary bathroom facilities for construction workers are used, the temporary bathroom facilities shall have secondary containment and be sited and maintained to prevent any spills to the environment.

5. A traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and shall be approved by Caltrans prior to.

6. No signs shall be placed outside the Caltrans right of way unless all required encroachment permits are first obtained from the City of Malibu or permission granted from private property owners. Copies of Caltrans encroachment permits shall be submitted to the City prior to the construction.

7. Applicant shall ensure temporary “No Parking” signs shall designate the dates and times the parking restrictions are to be enforced. Such signs shall be posted 72 hours in advance of parking restriction and shall be placed no more than 100 feet apart and at each end of the area to be restricted.

8. The applicant shall maintain signs through the duration of construction from the time of placement to time of completion and is responsible of replacement of missing or damaged signs.

9. Changeable message signs shall be deployed as appropriately throughout the duration of construction to properly notify the public of ongoing work and impacts along Pacific Coast Highway.

10. All lighting proposed for installation shall be in compliance with the City of Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance.

11. Wherever parking may be removed along Pacific Coast Highway to construct proposed improvements, applicant should make every effort to replace parking elsewhere on the highway. 549
STATE OF CALIFORNIA — NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200
VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93001-2801
PH (805) 585-1800
WWW.COASTAL.CA.GOV
September 4, 2025
Raneika K. Brooks, AICP
Community Development Department, City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Caltrans EA 35420 – Malibu Safety Elements (North Project) Dear Ms./Mrs. Brooks:

Commission staff has reviewed the proposal by Caltrans to install a sidewalk along the northbound side of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), between John Tyler Drive and Malibu Canyon Road, as part of EA 35420 Malibu Safety Elements project, as well as a future sidewalk connection to the southbound bus stop at the John Tyler Drive/PCH intersection. We offer the following comments to assist the City of Malibu in its review of these improvements for consistency with the certified Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP).

The proposed improvements represent an important opportunity to address longstanding deficiencies in pedestrian infrastructure along this portion of PCH.

Enhancing pedestrian access and safety in this location is consistent with the public access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act and the certified Malibu LCP, including Land Use Plan Policies 2.24, 2.63, 2.68, and 2.73, which encourages development of pedestrian facilities that enhance public access to and along the shoreline and recreational areas. A future connection to the southbound bus would also help ensure safe, usable, and continuous access consistent with these public access policies.

Regarding biological resources, these improvements would be located near known environmentally sensitive habitat areas (ESHA). However, both improvements would be located down slope of any nearby ESHA, work would be limited to developed and/or disturbed areas of the public right-of-way, and no direct impacts to ESHA would be anticipated. Therefore, these two improvements would comply with biological resources protections policies pursuant to LUP Chapter 3 (Marine and Land Resources).

We appreciate the intent of the project to improve pedestrian safety and access along this busy and constrained stretch of the PCH corridor. With appropriate conditions and additional detail to address the issues outlined above, the project could further the Coastal Act and LCP goals of enhancing public access while protecting coastal resources.

ATTACHMENT 4
550
Commission staff is available to discuss any of these comments in greater detail or to assist in resolving any issues raised during the permitting process. Please feel free to contact us to arrange a meeting or site visit if helpful.

Sincerely,
Marlene Alvarado
Transportation Program
California Coastal Commission
551
From: malibu planning
To: Gail Duncan
Subject: FW: Protected Bike Lane Alternative for CDP 25-009 PCH Improvements Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:32:20 PM
Attachments: Discussion Paper- Transforming Crisis into Leadership on the Pacific Coast Highwaydocx.pdf DRIVING CHANGE 1B FINAL no line2TRANSPARENT.png
image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Community Development Department
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 485
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Michel Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 2:22 PM
To: Drew Leonard ; Candace Bond <[email protected]>
Cc: Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Rob Duboux <[email protected]>; Yolanda Bundy <[email protected]>; malibu planning <[email protected]> Subject: Protected Bike Lane Alternative for CDP 25-009 PCH Improvements Dear Drew and Candace,
I am writing regarding Coastal Development Permit No. 25-009 for Pacific Coast Highway improvements, specifically the proposed "15 miles of new or upgraded bike lanes." The Emily Shane Foundation has developed a comprehensive proposal for protected bike lanes that directly addresses the safety crisis documented on PCH Malibu. Our recent discussions with Caltrans leadership demonstrate that protected separation - not painted lanes - represents the current federal and state safety standard for high-speed corridors like PCH.

Key Points for Commission Consideration:

Safety Imperative: Federal Highway Administration research shows protected bike lanes reduce crashes by 40-53% compared to painted lanes. Given PCH's documented fatality record, painted lanes are insufficient.

Regulatory Compliance: The proposed improvements must align with federal IIJA Complete Streets requirements and California SB 960 mandates for separated bicycle infrastructure on state highways.

Cost-Effective Implementation: Protected lanes can be integrated into the planned 552
reconstruction at minimal additional cost while providing substantially greater safety benefits.

Federal Funding Alignment: The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides 80% federal matching funds specifically for separated bike infrastructure projects.

Attached is our detailed implementation proposal, which I shared with Caltrans and CalSTA.

This proposal outlines how protected bike lanes can be incorporated into the current CDP scope while meeting federal safety standards and tapping into available funding. I've also created a test program to validate the proposal's feasibility, and we're confident it can be implemented quickly and cost-effectively, while laying the groundwork for the remainder of the PCH project.

The Planning Commission has the opportunity to ensure PCH improvements meet current safety standards rather than perpetuating an outdated approach that has proven inadequate.

I request that the Commission consider requiring protected separation in any bike lane improvements approved under this permit.

I plan to attend Monday's meeting and am available for questions.

Respectfully,
Michel Shane
Co-Founder, The Emily Shane Foundation
[email protected]
Attachment: PCH Malibu Protected Bike Lane Implementation Plan Opinion Column in MalibuTimes:
https://bit.ly/45PImr4
CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6cHgTPqZJY
553
554
555
Discussion Paper: Transforming Crisis into
Leadership on the Pacific Coast Highway
A Strategic Discussion on the Mandatory, Feasible, and Fiscally Prudent Implementation of Protected Bike Lanes on PCH Malibu
Presented to CalSTA Chief Safety Officer Rachel Carpenter & Caltrans Acting Chief Safety Officer Paul Chung.

Prepared by: The Emily Shane Foundation
Michel Shane, Founder
556
2 Executive Summary: The Strategic Imperative
The Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Malibu currently represents California's most visible and indefensible transportation safety failure. The status quo is untenable, as it creates escalating legal, reputational, and financial risks for the state with each preventable tragedy. This paper argues that this significant liability presents a strategic opportunity to transform a crisis into a national model for coastal highway innovation.

By leveraging proven, readily available solutions, existing funding streams, and current policy mandates, Caltrans and CalSTA can take decisive, low-cost action. Maintaining the current configuration increases risk, whereas implementing a strategic pilot program for protected bike lanes offers minimal financial exposure, maximum public protection, and the opportunity to reclaim the narrative, positioning California as a leader in transportation safety and innovation.

The Unavoidable Mandate for Action
The imperative to re-engineer PCH is not a matter of choice but of compliance. A convergence of federal and state law has created a clear legal and policy crisis.

Federal Mandates Creating Immediate Liability
The federal FAST Act and the subsequent Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) increasingly emphasize that state Departments of Transportation should consider all potential road users in transportation planning and project development. The current configuration of PCH, which forces cyclists to travel alongside 45-55 mph traffic with only a painted line for protection, conflicts with these federal guidance principles and creates potential compliance concerns during federal funding reviews.

State Policy Violations
This federal directive is mirrored and amplified by California's policies:
• Caltrans Director's Policy 37 (DP-37) establishes "Complete Streets" as the default standard for all departmental projects
• SB 960 (recently enacted) mandates the consideration of cycling needs on state roadways • Safe System Approach (formally adopted by both CalSTA and Caltrans) requires the physical separation of road users traveling at significantly different speeds The current state of PCH represents a significant contradiction of this core principle. Inaction, therefore, is not a neutral stance but a state of active non-compliance with established law and departmental policy.
557
3 The Financial Reality: Proactive Investment vs. Reactive Liability
A sober assessment of the financial landscape reveals that inaction is the most expensive possible option.

The Liability Exposure vs. Investment Analysis
Risk Factor Annual Exposure Pilot Program Cost ROI
Potential fatality settlement $15-25 million estimated $150,000-250,000 60-160:1 minimum Federal funding review risk $50-100 million $150,000-250,000 200-400:1 Caltrans Project Cost Comparisons
Project Type Typical Cost Malibu PCH Pilot Cost Ratio
Single Highway Interchange $20-50 million $150,000-250,000 80-300x more expensive 1-mile Highway Widening $5-15 million $150,000-250,000 20-60x more expensive Traffic Signal Installation $200,000-500,000 $150,000-250,000 Equivalent to pilot cost Bridge Replacement (small) $2-8 million $150,000-250,000 8-32x more expensive Reality Check: The Malibu PCH pilot costs less than a single traffic signal, yet it addresses a statewide safety crisis.

Federal Funding Leverage
The Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program offers:
• $5 billion available over five years
• 80% federal match for precisely this type of safety project • State investment: As little as $30,000-$50,000 to mitigate potential $15+ million liability exposure
• Return on investment: Estimated 60-160:1 based on liability reduction alone Proactive safety measures are not only a moral imperative but a profound fiscal responsibility.

The Rebuilding Imperative: A 5-Year Window for Action
A significant and understandable concern is the impact of any new project on the residents of more than 700 homes, who are facing a long and arduous rebuilding process. However, the reality that this will take a minimum of five years—if not longer—is precisely why immediate action on PCH safety is not a hindrance, but an absolute necessity. 558
4 This extended rebuilding timeline transforms the PCH corridor into a long-term construction zone. For the next half-decade or more, the community will be living with a constant, elevated presence of heavy vehicles—such as cement mixers, dump trucks, and large material delivery trucks—sharing the road with regular high-speed traffic. This is not a temporary inconvenience; it is a new, sustained state of heightened danger for remaining residents, families, and workers.

To ask this community to endure such hazardous conditions for five years is untenable. The "quick build" protected bike lane offers an immediate and essential countermeasure. It can be installed in a matter of weeks, creating a physical buffer that separates people from heavy machinery and traffic. This isn't about adding a new disruption; it's about providing a critical safety shield during the most vulnerable period of the community's recovery.

A Proven and Feasible Solution Portfolio
Concerns about engineering feasibility and local complexity are readily addressed by a portfolio of proven, off-the-shelf solutions that have been successfully deployed in similar coastal environments.

Engineering Reality and Solutions
The Challenge: PCH in Malibu operates within limited spatial constraints due to oceanfront geography and high-value properties, making traditional widening impossible.

The Solution: Smart, efficient engineering that works within existing constraints:
• Lane width reduction: Four 12-foot travel lanes reduced to 11-foot lanes reclaim 4 feet of total width
• Shoulder reallocation: Combined with existing shoulder areas, provides sufficient room for a 3–4-foot protected bike lane
• No property acquisition required
Proven Precedents
Santa Monica Success Story
• 18% reduction in auto traffic on Ocean Avenue after implementation • Significant increase in bicycle usage (up to 10x in some areas) • Demonstrates "traffic evaporation": Improved multimodal options reduce overall car congestion
International Standards
• Netherlands CROW standards provide established guidelines for managing coastal highways with frequent driveway access.
• International precedents demonstrate substantial reductions in cycling fatalities through the use of proper separation techniques.
559
5 Technology Solutions
• Innovative bollard systems: Can be installed in 24-48 hours • Secure residential driveway access: Without compromising protected lane integrity • Proven deployment: Successfully implemented in similar coastal environments These precedents confirm that the challenges in Malibu are not unique and have already been solved elsewhere.

Addressing Objections: Emergency Response and Traffic
Flow
The most common objections to protected bike lanes—concerns over emergency response times and traffic impacts—are consistently refuted by real-world data.

Emergency Response: The Evidence and Coordination
Cedar Rapids Comprehensive Study
• 3,872 emergency responses analyzed
• Finding: No negative impact on response times after "road diet" implementation • Methodology: Before/after comparison with statistical significance Paris Fire Department Analysis (https://cyclingmagazine.ca/advocacy/paris-firefightersresponse-time-has-shortened-because-of-bike-lanes/) • Studies indicate improved response times with protected bike lanes in urban environments
• Mechanism: Protected lanes provide a clear, uncongested corridor for emergency vehicles to bypass traffic
Coordinated Implementation with Emergency Services. Working with local emergency services ensures seamless integration:

LA County Fire Department Integration
• Coordination discussions with Malibu area fire leadership indicate compatibility with protected lane navigation protocols.
• Equipment Compatibility: Current fire trucks can navigate 11-foot lanes with protected barriers
• Emergency Override: Breakaway bollards allow immediate access, $25-75 replacement cost
• Fire Response Enhancement: A Protected Lane can eliminate traffic conflicts that delay fire suppression and evacuation vehicles
560
6 LA County Sheriff Malibu Station Coordination
• Discussions with Malibu Station leadership confirm that patrol vehicles are compatible with barrier systems.
• Emergency Access Codes: Universal override system for all protective barriers • Evacuation Coordination: Protected lane provides a dedicated route for emergency vehicle coordination during major incidents
The Malibu Fire Reality Critical insight: PCH gridlock during fire evacuations is already the single most significant impediment to emergency access. A protected lane transforms from a simple bikeway into a dedicated emergency vehicle corridor, enhancing public safety rather than compromising it during a crisis.

A Comprehensive Vision for Coastal Mobility: The "Blue
Highway"
While the immediate implementation of protected bike lanes on PCH addresses the urgent safety crisis, it should be viewed as the first step in a broader, more innovative vision for California's coastal transportation.

Long-Term Vision Integration: The "Blue Highway" Initiative The Emily Shane Foundation is simultaneously developing and supporting long-term solutions, including the Malibu Transit Waterway Project, also known as the "Blue Highway." This initiative, championed by the Pier-to-Pier group, proposes establishing a high-speed ferry service as a resilient and efficient alternative to highway travel.

Traffic Mitigation and Emergency Resilience: The Blue Highway provides a faster, scenic alternative to PCH, with an estimated travel time of 18.5 to 23 minutes between Malibu and Santa Monica, compared to the typical 32 minutes of driving. Crucially, the concept was developed in the aftermath of recent wildfires, highlighting its potential as a vital marine corridor for emergency evacuations when PCH is closed or congested.

A No-Cost Partnership Opportunity: The project is structured as a public-private partnership, with the initial phase fully funded by private investment. The government's request is not for capital, but for support and approval to facilitate a rapid launch. This presents a unique opportunity to enhance regional mobility and emergency resilience without direct cost to local communities or the state.

Strategic Positioning: This dual approach demonstrates comprehensive transportation innovation. The protected bike lanes represent the immediate, proven, and mandated solution to today's safety crisis. The Blue Highway initiative complements this by providing a resilient, forward-thinking, and privately funded alternative for the future, positioning California as a leader in both urgent safety action and long-term multimodal innovation. 561
7 A Risk-Minimizing Implementation Strategy
A phased, data-driven implementation strategy allows the state to act decisively while minimizing risk and maximizing learning.

Phase 1: Quick-Build Pilot (6 Months)
Timeline: October 2025 - March 2026
Scope: 3-mile pilot program between Pepperdine University and Malibu Pier Cost: $150,000-$250,000
Benefits:
• Immediate response to public safety crisis
• Concrete data generation for future decisions
• Minimal financial exposure
• Implementation during the low-tourism season
Phase 2: Smart Technology Integration (Year 2)
Approach: Data-driven expansion based on pilot results
Features:
• Smart barriers at high-conflict driveways
• Formalized emergency service protocols
• 80% federal funding match eligibility
Phase 3: Full Corridor Completion (2027-2028)
Timeline: Pre-2028 Olympics completion
Scope: Full 21-mile Malibu corridor
Strategic Value:
• International showcase for California innovation
• Olympic Games visibility for coastal infrastructure
• Comprehensive funding through SS4A and related programs 30-Day Action Plan
Week 1-2: Administrative Foundation
• Designate Malibu PCH as District 7 priority project (no budget impact) • Initiate federal SS4A grant application (potential $10M+ award) • Coordinate with the City of Malibu on the implementation timeline 562
8 Week 3-4: Stakeholder Engagement
• Pepperdine University partnership meeting (student safety initiative) • LA County Sheriff/Fire coordination (emergency protocol development) • Malibu business community briefing (economic opportunity emphasis) Immediate Benefits
• Risk Mitigation: Demonstrates proactive response to safety crisis • Political Protection: Shows immediate action while preserving decision flexibility • Media Narrative: "California takes decisive action on coastal safety" A Personal Perspective
I am not a transportation engineer or policy expert. I am a father who lost his daughter Emily on this very stretch of PCH, and a survivor of this highway's dangers myself. Through my grief and determination to prevent other families from experiencing this tragedy, I have spent considerable time and limited resources researching what professional transportation agencies should have already implemented.

The evidence is overwhelming, and the solution is clear. Protected bike lanes on PCH Malibu are not just the right thing to do—they are the fiscally responsible action that will save both lives and taxpayer dollars. The technology exists, the funding is available, and the legal mandate is clear.

The question I must ask is this: If a grieving father with no formal transportation training can assemble this compelling case for immediate action, why hasn't the nation's leading transportation agency already moved forward? The Emily Shane Foundation has identified not just the moral imperative, but the financial imperative for action. Every day of delay increases liability exposure, while federal funding opportunities advance regardless of our decision.

This is not a complex policy debate—it is a straightforward safety and financial management decision that protects California from predictable, preventable tragedies while positioning the state as a national leader in transportation innovation.

Conclusion and Recommendation
The choice facing CalSTA and Caltrans is clear:

Option A: Status Quo Defense
• Continue defending an indefensible position
• Contradicts established engineering practice
• Violates federal and state policy mandates
• Ignores agencies' own adopted Safe System principles
• Guarantees: Continued exposure to multi-million-dollar settlements and reputational damage
563
9 Option B: Proactive Leadership
• Implement proven, evidence-based safety measures
• Save lives through established engineering solutions
• Leverage federal funding for state priorities
• Transform crisis into a competitive advantage
• Outcome: Position California as a national leader in transportation innovation The Strategic Reality
The question is not whether PCH will eventually have protected bike infrastructure, but whether that change is initiated through proactive leadership or forced by reactive crisis management.

Immediate Recommendation
We strongly recommend authorizing a 30-day planning process for the 6-month Malibu PCH pilot program.

This action:
• Begins immediate institutional risk mitigation
• Preserves all long-term decision-making flexibility
• Provides a data-driven foundation for a permanent, life-saving solution • Demonstrates California leadership in transportation safety innovation Time is the critical factor: Every month of delay increases liability exposure while federal funding opportunities and Olympic preparation timelines advance regardless of our decision.

Contact Information
Michel Shane
The Emily Shane Foundation
[email protected]
Available for immediate consultation and technical support on implementation planning 564
From: malibu planning
To: Gail Duncan
Subject: FW: Supporting Documentation: Legal & Federal Guidance for Protected Bike Lanes:Coastal Development Permit No. 25-009, Pacific Coast Highway
Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 4:32:41 PM
Attachments: DRIVING_CHANGE_1B_FINAL_no_line2TRANSPARENT.png Supporting Documentation- Legal & Federal Guidance for Protected Bike Lanes.pdf image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
Community Development Department
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 485
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
From: Michel Shane <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 3:15 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Yolanda Bundy <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Rob Duboux <[email protected]>; Candace Bond <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>
Subject: Supporting Documentation: Legal & Federal Guidance for Protected Bike Lanes:Coastal Development Permit No. 25-009, Pacific Coast Highway
Here's additional information that backs up my previous email, including the relevant statutes. I've also included a document with the key details.

Here, we've included direct excerpts from relevant federal and state laws, as well as agency guidance, as required by law for bike lanes.

1. Federal Law: 23 U.S. Code § 217 - Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways This federal statute establishes a non-negotiable requirement to consider cyclist safety in all federally funded transportation projects.

Source Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/217 Key Section: (g) Planning and Design
Direct Excerpt:
"The safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists shall be given due consideration in the design of transportation projects..." Implication: Choosing a demonstrably less safe option (painted lanes) when a proven 565
safer alternative exists (protected lanes) is a failure to give "due consideration" as mandated by federal law.

2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA): Proven Safety Countermeasures The FHWA, a division of the U.S. DOT, explicitly identifies separated bike lanes as a superior safety measure based on extensive data.

Source Link: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/separated_bike_lanes/ Key Finding: Documented Crash Reduction Statistics
Direct Excerpt:
"Separated bike lanes have been found to reduce crashes. The crash reduction varies by the type of crash, from 40 to 53 percent." Implication: The federal government’s own experts have proven that protected lanes prevent injuries and save lives. This is the established safety standard.

3. Federal Law: Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) & "Complete Streets" The IIJA provides the funding and the framework for creating safer roads for all users. It is not just a suggestion, but a national policy directive.

Source Link: https://highways.dot.gov/complete-streets
Key Policy: The law directs states and metropolitan organizations to "provide for the safe and adequate accommodation of all users of the surface transportation network." Direct Excerpt on Funding:
"The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law establishes a new discretionary grant program, the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) program, with $5 billion in appropriated funds over 5 years to support local initiatives to prevent death and serious injury on roads and streets." Implication: Federal policy and significant funding are aligned to support building safer infrastructure like protected bike lanes. This project is a prime candidate for these funds, which often cover up to 80% of the cost.

4. California State Law: Senate Bill 960 (SB 960)
This state law connects transportation infrastructure directly to legally mandated climate goals.

Source Link: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml? bill_id=202120220SB960
Key Section: Legislative findings and declarations.

Direct Excerpt:
"To achieve the state’s climate goals, deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector are needed, which includes a 25- percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2030." Implication: To meet this VMT reduction mandate, cities must provide safe and practical alternatives to driving. Unsafe, unprotected bike lanes do not achieve this.

Building protected lanes is a necessary action to comply with state climate law.

Sincerely
Michel Shane
Chair
566
emilyshane.org
Opinion Column in MalibuTimes:
https://bit.ly/45PImr4
CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6cHgTPqZJY
567
568

Supporting Documentation: Legal & Federal Guidance for Protected Bike Lanes
This document provides direct excerpts from the federal and state laws and agency guidance referenced in the accompanying letter regarding the Pacific Coast Highway improvements under CDP 25-009.

1. Federal Law: 23 U.S. Code § 217 - Bicycle Transportation and Pedestrian Walkways This federal statute mandates that the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians be considered in all federally funded transportation projects.
● Source Link: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/217 ● Key Section: (g) Planning and Design
● Direct Excerpt: “The safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists shall be given due consideration in the design of transportation projects..." Implication: This establishes a legal requirement to actively consider and incorporate safety measures for cyclists, not just paint lines as an afterthought. Opting for a less safe design (painted lanes) when a proven safer alternative (protected lanes) exists could be interpreted as a failure to give "due consideration."

2. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Proven Safety Countermeasures The FHWA, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, maintains a list of infrastructure projects with proven, data-backed abilities to reduce crashes and save lives. Separated Bike Lanes (also called "Protected Bike Lanes") are on this list. ● Source Link:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/separated_bike_lanes/ ● Key Finding: Crash Reduction Statistics
● Direct Excerpt: “Separated bike lanes have been found to reduce crashes. The crash reduction varies by the type of crash, from 40 to 53 percent." Implication: The federal government’s own experts have identified protected bike lanes as a superior safety measure based on clear evidence. Choosing not to implement this countermeasure on a high-speed road like PCH would be inconsistent with federal safety guidance.

3. California State Law: Senate Bill 960 (SB 960)
569
This bill addresses the integration of state climate goals with transportation planning. It highlights the necessity of creating infrastructure that supports alternatives to driving. ● Source Link:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220SB960 ● Key Section: Legislative findings and declarations.
● Direct Excerpt: “To achieve the state’s climate goals, deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector are needed, which includes a 25-percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 2030."
Implication: To meet this legally mandated VMT reduction, cities must provide safe and practical alternatives to driving. Unsafe, unprotected bike lanes do not encourage people to leave their cars at home. Building protected lanes is a direct and necessary step toward fulfilling the state's climate and transportation objectives.

Thank you
570
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 15, 2025, at 6:30 p.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.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 25-009 - An application to install 19 new guardrails, 22 new or upgraded curb ramps, 6,956 linear feet of new sidewalks, three new retaining walls, two realigned intersections, 42 new light poles, 15 miles of new or upgraded bike lanes, a new California Highway Patrol pull-out, median reconstruction at various locations, and associated roadway improvements along Pacific Coast Highway within the Public Right-of-Way
LOCATION: Citywide Project, along Pacific Coast Highway within the public right-of-way from Serra Road to the Ventura County border
APPLICANT / OWNER: Caltrans District 7
APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(d) and 15301(c) APPLICATION FILED: March 31, 2025
CASE PLANNER: Adam Pisarkiewicz, Contract Planner, [email protected] (949) 489-1442
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Commission’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 Planning Commission on, or before, the date of the meeting.

LOCAL APPEAL - A decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten days following the date of action which the appeal is made and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and filing fee, as specified by the City Council. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms or in person at City Hall, or by calling (310) 456-2489, extension 246.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’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’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU OR

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

YOLANDA BUNDY, Community Development Director Date: September 4, 2025 ATTACHMENT 5
571
From: Salvatore A Fish
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Meeting tonight
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 8:29:27 PM
Please continue the appropriate questions to Caltrans reps…..too many inconsistent and empty responses from the “Three Muskateers”
We are not in favor of their proposal.

Sal and Barbara Fish
Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS
572

EXHIBIT C
From: Scott Dittrich
To: R Y A N; Kevin Keegan; Wade Major
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: Caltrans at July Public works commission
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:17:39 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
What I did not say tonight, I – and others – objected to many of the points that were brought up tonight by Caltrans. Specifically the sidewalk in front of Pepperdine and the two merge lanes becoming Ts and the lights and other sidewalks.

We give our opinion directly to staff and they are supposed to use that when they present to Council. But if a project goes to the Planning Commission you do not see our analysis and the input we might give. Something wrong here. Yes there were three of us that spoke tonight, Which may or may not be a Brown Act violation. I don't think so since there was no communication between us on this except at out July meeting. I’ll ask Trevor.

I will bring your not getting access to our meeting at the next council meeting and ask for Council’s advice.

Scott Dittrich
From: R Y A N
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 at 7:49 PM
To: Kevin Keegan Wade Major
Action Sports
Subject: Fw: October 20, 2025 Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Item No 4.A.

From: Planning Commission <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:45 PM
Subject: October 20, 2025 Regular Planning Commission Meeting, Item No 4.A.

Commissioners,
Attached is correspondence regarding Item No. 4.A. on tonight’s agenda. 573
Regards,
Gail Duncan (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
574
From: Lauren Linhardt
To: Planning Commission
Subject: No on Item 4A (street lights West Malibu)
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 6:44:41 PM
To the Planning Commission,
I am writing to express my opposition to Item 4A which would add 42 new street lights to West Malibu. I am concerned that this would add to light pollution and l love the dark starry skies in West Malibu. The CalTrans money might be better spent in East Malibu where there are more accidents and traffic.

Thank you for considering my opinion,
Lauren Linhardt
Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
575
From:

To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: 10-20-25 meeting 4A Caltrans
Date: Saturday, October 18, 2025 8:07:24 AM
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
The Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth (MCSG)has the following comments on the Cal Trans proposal before you on October 20 , 2025.

Street Lights
MCSG is strongly opposed to installing 42 additional street lights along PCH in western Malibu for the following reasons:

1. Under Malibu's General Plan western Malibu was to remain rural in nature.

These lights are inconsistent with the General Plan.

2. These lights are not in keeping with the Mission and Vision statement ( M&V statement) of Malibu's Local Coastal Program which is quoted below .

2. More accidents occur in Eastern Malibu than in the west end illustrating that street lights do not prevent accidents.

3. The need for these lights have not been proven necessary.

4. Street lights, even if dark sky compliant , will have an a cumulative effect on the night sky and the ability to view the stars in the night sky. ( violates M&V statement)

5. Moths, are very important pollinator insects and are attracted to artificial light produced by street lights, disrupting their life cycle and harming/killing these necessary pollinators. ( violates M&V statement)

6. Street lights are not a rural or semi rural amenity but rather an urban or suburban one and have no place in western Malibu . ( violates M&V statement)

7. There is an energy crisis, especially with the introduction with AI and although small these lights do not help this crisis but contribute to it.

8. Light poles are ugly and will distract form the beauty of PCH which is a designated scenic highway. ( violates M&V statement)

9. As SCE is hopefully undergrounding its wires and removing their poles, more poles to PCH shouldn't be along PCH .

10. It will save Cal Trans money to eliminate these proposed lights from their plan.

Bike Paths

1.MCSG agrees with the comments of Michael Shane.

2.To better prevent cycling accidents the bile lanes should be protected Mission and Vision Statement
Malibu is committed to ensure the physical and biological integrity of its environment through the development of land use programs and decisions, to protect the public and private health, safety and general welfare. Malibu will plan to preserve its natural and cultural resources, which include the ocean, marine life, tide pools, beaches, creeks, 576
canyons, hills, mountains, ridges, views, wildlife and plant life, open spaces, archaeological, paleontological and historic sites, as well as other resources that contribute to Malibu’s special natural and rural setting.

Malibu will maintain its rural character by establishing programs and policies that avoid suburbanization and commercialization of its natural and cultural resources.

Malibu will gradually recycle areas of deteriorated commercial development that detract from the public benefit or deteriorate the public values of its natural, cultural and rural resources.

Malibu will provide passive, coastal-dependent and resource-dependent visitor-serving recreational opportunities (at proper times, places and manners) that remain subordinate to their natural, cultural and rural setting, and which are consistent with the fragility of the natural resources of the area, the proximity of the access to residential uses, the need to protect the privacy of property owners, the aesthetic values of the area, and the capacity of the area to sustain particular levels of use. 577
From: Malibu Township Council
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Marni Kamins; Drew Leonard; Skylar Peak; Elizabeth Riddick; City Council Cc: Bill Sampson; Patt Healy; R N; Dru Jacobson; Ann Doneen; Mariela Guastavino; Rebecca Evans; Kelsey Pettijohn; Yes; Yes
Subject: Item 4A CDP 25-009
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 8:14:42 PM
Attention Planning Commission and City Council,
Since 1947, the Malibu Township Council (MTC) has stood for responsible development, environmental protection, and public safety along Pacific Coast Highway.

We appreciate Caltrans’ intent to improve safety, but the current plan fails to meet modern safety standards, increases certain risks, and erodes Malibu’s rural coastal identity.

1. The Real Safety Problem
Pacific Coast Highway has claimed 61 lives since 2010—most of them pedestrians and cyclists.

From 2012–2014: 19 pedestrian collisions (6 fatal) and 41 bicycle collisions (1 fatal).

From 2016–2020: 13 additional pedestrian and 1
bicyclist fatalities.

In 2023: four Pepperdine students killed while walking along PCH.

The greatest danger lies with those outside their cars—yet Caltrans’ plan focuses mainly on vehicles.

2. Unprotected Bike Lanes Are Not Safe
Caltrans proposes 15.4 miles of Class II (painted) bike lanes, unprotected beside 50-mph traffic.

As Michel Shane, co-founder of the Emily Shane Foundation, noted in his correspondence (p. 510 ff of the staff report):

Protected lanes reduce crashes by 40–53 percent compared with paint.

Federal law (23 U.S.C. § 217) requires “safe accommodation” for 578
cyclists and pedestrians.

California SB 960 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mandate “Complete Streets” designs with separation on highspeed corridors.

Federal programs can fund up to 80 percent of protected-lane costs.

Choosing paint over protection is neither safe nor fiscally responsible.

3. Lane Narrowing Must Only Be Done With Real Protection Caltrans proposes reducing lane widths from 12 ft to 10.5 ft to fit painted bike lanes—without physical separation.

That combination is dangerous.

On a 50-mph, mixed-use corridor carrying trucks, RVs, buses, and emergency vehicles, narrow lanes without barriers increase side-swipe and run-off-road crashes.

MTC supports Class IV protected lanes—with bollards, curbs, or raised buffers—even if that requires some controlled lane narrowing.

But narrowing lanes for paint alone is a poor trade-off that endangers everyone.

4. Lighting vs. Rural Character
The project adds 42 new streetlights, including along Zuma Beach.

This conflicts with Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance and our community’s coastal character.

There are already street lights at important intersections.

Use 3000K lumens instead of turning PCH into an urban corridor.

No additional street lights in Western Malibu. They violate the General Plan and are not in keeping with Malibu's Vision and Mission Statement.

5. Sidewalk at Heathercliff & PCH
579
We strongly support the proposed sidewalk at Heathercliff Road, where 13-year-old Emily Shane was killed in 2010.

This improvement is long overdue and must be continuous, ADAcompliant, and connected across both sides of the intersection. It exemplifies the kind of targeted, data-driven safety measure Malibu truly needs.

7. Roundabouts and Evacuation Concerns
Roundabouts and lane reductions may work in small towns, but not on a wildfire-evacuation route handling 20–40 thousand vehicles per day.

These features must be modeled for emergency access and evacuation flow before any construction proceeds. If Caltrans plans on lighting these roundabouts up like a billboard then Malibu can do without them to maintain our rural character.

8. A Better Path Forward
MTC urges the City and Caltrans to:

1. Replace Class II stripes with Class IV protected lanes.

2. Keep lighting dark-sky-compliant and minimal.

3. Build continuous sidewalks and safer crossings, starting at Heathercliff.

4. Model evacuation and traffic impacts before approval.

5. Pursue federal safety grants to fund protection rather than paint.

Conclusion
Malibu deserves real safety, not symbolic paint and unnecessary lights.

Let’s follow the data, honor the lives lost, and design a PCH that protects its people while preserving our night skies and coastal heritage.

Respectfully submitted,
580
Jo Drummond
for the Malibu Township Council
581
From: Charlotte Frieze
To: Planning Commission; Yolanda Bundy; Gail Duncan; Rebecca Evans; John Mazza Subject: ITEM #4A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-009 CalTrans Citywide proposed upgrades Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 4:33:14 PM
Attachments: 2025-10-19 Planning Commission - CalTrans lights.docx Please see the attached letter requesting the Commissioners reconsider adding more lights to PCH.

I would appreciate your distributing the letter to the Commissioners.

Thank you.
--
Charlotte M. Frieze
Malibu, CA
582

CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
RE: ITEM #4A COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT 25-009
CalTrans Citywide proposed upgrades
DATE: October 19, 2025
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission:

Please protect Malibu’s Dark Skies.

CalTrans proposes to install 42 new light poles.

Please reconsider adding additional lights that will infuse the night sky with unnatural illumination.

Since the Woolsey Fire there are fewer trees to shield the light emanating from the existing light poles. Adding to this glow will interrupt winged migration and prevent residents from enjoying their beautiful natural surroundings- the reason one moves to Malibu. When we look out from our homes, we cherish the stars and moon glow over the ocean. This will be lost with the addition of more lights.

Installing additional light on PCH will create a glow that will be expanded exponentially by fog.

Prevent the proposed new lights from destroying our natural environment.

Thank you.
pacific coast highway Malibu CA 90265
583
From: Bill Sampson
To: Planning Commission; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; Marni Kamins; John Mazza; Skylar Peak Subject: Agenda for 4/20/2025, item 4A - the "CalTrans" project Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 7:43:24 PM
Honorable Commissioners:

I am submitting this brief comment on behalf of
the Malibu Township Council, of which I am
President. The above item presents a
tremendous number of changes to Malibu's Main
Street also known as Pacific Coast Highway.

My comment addresses the lighting part of the
plan which envisions installing forty-two new
street lights in our city, contrary to the
instructions of the Vision and Mission Statements
which, as you all took an oath to follow, are the
law of the land. One of the first things we
noticed when we moved here in 1980 was that
the night sky was spectacular, including frequent
viewings of our very own galaxy, the Milky Way.

Rosemary and I sometimes laughed about our
one street light, bravely piercing the evening, at
the intersection of western Broad Beach Road and
PCH. It is obtrusive but not very.

Part of the CalTrans plan includes two
roundabouts, highway features that are far from
universal favorites. It is clear they will have
flashing warning signs, intense lighting so that
the Sunday night (and really every night) racers
might slow down for the other racers careening
down Encinal. Admittedly there may be locals
584
who will approach that particular intersection with
the trepidation it merits, but, we are in a minority
out here. It's going to look like the LA
Convention Center/LA Live area on date night.

We have a Dark Skies Ordinance for a reason - to
have dark skies. Please note that ANY lighting
must be 3000K according to the ordinance
although approving FORTY-TWO lights will
transform our Main Street into a Westside
Freeway. I don't think any of us wants that, least
of all the Malibu Township Council. Do not
approve this project as presented.

BILL SAMPSON, President, Malibu Township
Council
585
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Planning Commission; City Council
Subject: DARK SKY ORDINANCE
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 10:44:29 AM
Why are the City of Malibu’s DARK SKY ORDINANCE and reasonable lighting solution ignored? Additional lights achieve nothing:

They do not improve safety on PCH or in neighborhoods which are over- lite with personal driveway lighting.

They flood light into dark zone habitats…and harm the mico habitats for wildlife including moths and other pollinators.

They harm the surf animal habitat.

They created cross- light glare - which makes driving on PCH at night more dangerous.

And most important…the City of Malibu is a DARK SKY community…as decided by the City Council and residents of Malibu over a decade ago.

Turn off the lights and turn on the NIGHT!
Dawn N Ericson

MALIBU PARK
586
From: K Hill
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re. Item 4.A. Caltrans project
Date: Thursday, October 16, 2025 11:22:55 AM
Hi Commissioners,
Here are a few high-level considerations for you as you dig into the details of Caltrans’ proposed project.

Caltrans' “Complete Streets” program fundamentally ignores the City’s Vision and Mission requirement to maintain rural characteristics. (Recall that the General Plan is effectively the City’s “Constitution,” for which the LPC and MMC are enabling laws, but aren’t the sumtotal of the law. The General Plan cannot be contravened.) Their “Complete Streets” program should be inapplicable because PCH is not a street, it is a highway. For instance, highways don’t have sidewalks.

They’re implicitly proposing a logical impossibility (and possibly a legal one): They want to call PCH a street, yet they refuse to reduce speeds from highway speeds, for safety. Is it a street or is it a highway? If they would put in sidewalks, would that render PCH a “street” such that the speed limit could be reduced to “neighborhood” speed(s)? And where's the data showing that the proposed sidewalks would even be useful? Finally, you should want to see solid evidence of need for all of the lighting proposed. Even if each single fixture is “Dark Sky compliant,” the cumulative effect would be significant (the code embodies a convenient fiction that downward facing light has no effect on night skies, ignoring reflected and atmospherically-ambient light).

Best,
Kraig
587
From: Scott Dittrich
To: Malibu Township Council; Planning Commission; John Mazza; Marni Kamins; Drew Leonard; Skylar Peak; Elizabeth Riddick; City Council
Cc: Bill Sampson; Patt Healy; R N; Dru Jacobson; Ann Doneen; Mariela Guastavino; Rebecca Evans; Kelsey Pettijohn; Yes; Yes
Subject: Re: Item 4A CDP 25-009
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 9:00:01 AM
Dear Planning Commission,
Caltrans has lost their way. Their proposals in Western Malibu will change the character of our city forever. Their proposals in Eastern Malibu to narrow lanes to add a discontinuous bike lane is outright dangerous and will lead to more fatalities and more accidents. Conditions in recent years are considerably more dangerous as drivers text. Narrowing the lanes? This is the worst possible solution. The reality is that there is not enough right of way to have a bike lane in Eastern Malibu.

The answer is to lower speed limits, making everyone more safe, but Caltrans refuses to consider this – specifically because they want a bike lane regardless of safety or cost. Caltrans has ignored the pleas by many of us to lower speed limits, perhaps by getting an EO by the Governor or an emergency declaration to reduce the speed limit to 35mph so we do not need a survey, which will show that speeds should be raised. (I think we’ve all seen that such an emergency declaration can result in lower speed limits since it is now 25mph for construction, though from Big Rock to the Pier there is no or less construction that at this time a year before the fire).

Thank you,
Scott Dittrich
From: Malibu Township Council
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 at 8:14 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>, Robby Mazza , marni kamins ,
, , Elizabeth Riddick
, City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Bill Sampson , Patt Healy , R N
, Dru Jacobson Ann Doneen
, Mariela Guastavino ,
Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>, Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>, Yes , Yes
Subject: Item 4A CDP 25-009
Attention Planning Commission and City Council,
588
Since 1947, the Malibu Township Council (MTC) has stood for responsible development, environmental protection, and public safety along Pacific Coast Highway.

We appreciate Caltrans’ intent to improve safety, but the current plan fails to meet modern safety standards, increases certain risks, and erodes Malibu’s rural coastal identity.

1. The Real Safety Problem
Pacific Coast Highway has claimed 61 lives since 2010—most of them pedestrians and cyclists.
· From 2012–2014: 19 pedestrian collisions (6 fatal) and 41 bicycle collisions (1 fatal).
· From 2016–2020: 13 additional pedestrian and 1 bicyclist fatalities. · In 2023: four Pepperdine students killed while walking along PCH.

The greatest danger lies with those outside their cars—yet Caltrans’ plan focuses mainly on vehicles.

2. Unprotected Bike Lanes Are Not Safe
Caltrans proposes 15.4 miles of Class II (painted) bike lanes, unprotected beside 50-mph traffic.

As Michel Shane, co-founder of the Emily Shane Foundation, noted in his correspondence (p. 510 ff of the staff report):
· Protected lanes reduce crashes by 40–53 percent compared with paint.
· Federal law (23 U.S.C. § 217) requires “safe accommodation” for cyclists and pedestrians.
· California SB 960 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act mandate “Complete Streets” designs with separation on highspeed corridors. · Federal programs can fund up to 80 percent of protected-lane 589
costs.

Choosing paint over protection is neither safe nor fiscally responsible.

3. Lane Narrowing Must Only Be Done With Real Protection Caltrans proposes reducing lane widths from 12 ft to 10.5 ft to fit painted bike lanes—without physical separation.

That combination is dangerous.

On a 50-mph, mixed-use corridor carrying trucks, RVs, buses, and emergency vehicles, narrow lanes without barriers increase side-swipe and run-off-road crashes.

MTC supports Class IV protected lanes—with bollards, curbs, or raised buffers—even if that requires some controlled lane narrowing.

But narrowing lanes for paint alone is a poor trade-off that endangers everyone.

4. Lighting vs. Rural Character
The project adds 42 new streetlights, including along Zuma Beach.

This conflicts with Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance and our community’s coastal character.

There are already street lights at important intersections.

Use 3000K lumens instead of turning PCH into an urban corridor.

No additional street lights in Western Malibu. They violate the General Plan and are not in keeping with Malibu's Vision and Mission Statement.

5. Sidewalk at Heathercliff & PCH
We strongly support the proposed sidewalk at Heathercliff Road, where 13-year-old Emily Shane was killed in 2010.

This improvement is long overdue and must be continuous, ADA590 compliant, and connected across both sides of the intersection. It exemplifies the kind of targeted, data-driven safety measure Malibu truly needs.

7. Roundabouts and Evacuation Concerns
Roundabouts and lane reductions may work in small towns, but not on a wildfire-evacuation route handling 20–40 thousand vehicles per day.

8. A Better Path Forward
MTC urges the City and Caltrans to:

1.Replace Class II stripes with Class IV protected lanes.

2.Keep lighting dark-sky-compliant and minimal.

3.Build continuous sidewalks and safer crossings, starting at Heathercliff.

4.Model evacuation and traffic impacts before approval.

5.Pursue federal safety grants to fund protection rather than paint.

Conclusion
Malibu deserves real safety, not symbolic paint and unnecessary lights.

Let’s follow the data, honor the lives lost, and design a PCH that protects its people while preserving our night skies and coastal heritage.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Drummond
for the Malibu Township Council
591
From: R Y A N
To: R Y A N; Kelsey Pettijohn; Candace Bond; Richard Rojas; Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans; Patricia Salazar Cc: Haber, Lee J@DOT
Subject: 10-20-2025 P.C. Item 4A = "Separation Distance" - Defined CVC 21760 (legally and practically) Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 8:03:11 PM
Planning Commission:

There are several studies which back-up common sense knowledge that many Malibuites already know about PCH in eastern Malibu, such as all the side-swipe collisions to other vehicles, parked vehicles, and bicyclists occurring before a subsequent 2015 Safety Study.

Anecdotal evidence and crash reports would verify this if 30-years worth could be consolidated. Regardless, the side-swipe collisions reduced after Caltrans established minimum 12-foot-wide travel lanes throughout Malibu in response to the 1996 PCH Bicycle Facilities Study's recommendations and the 2013 Southern California Association of Government's (SCAG) grant-funded independent PCH Safety Study. (I only have the draft version handy on short notice.)
We don't hear of the side-swipes and vehicle mirrors crashing between vehicles driving the same direction as much nowadays — just the vehicles that leave the lane and hit parked vehicles, etc. Arnold York, publisher of the Malibu Times even did it. Consider this safety improvement of 12-foot minimum lane width almost universally ACHIEVED, yet some folks who weren't around back then are now proposing NARROWING PCH vehicle lanes to see what might result AND create a recreational facility Bike Lane.

We already know the horrific answer because we LIVED IT the prior tragedies of substandard vehicle lane widths' defective condition. Bel Air Bay Club comes to mind.

Here it is specifically (I can only find this Draft version on short notice.) 592
593
Of particular note is new California Vehicle Code section 21760, adopted in 2023, which requires motorists have 3-foot SEPARATION DISTANCE from a bicyclist in the same lane before passing. If 3-feet is not possible, a motorist cannot legally pass. Luckily, PCH has two lanes in 594
each direction which provides option to CHANGE LANES (which creates its own safety issues).

However, if the #2 lane (closest to the roadside) is maintained at 14-foot-wide stripe distance to the "fog" line, opportunities to achieve the stipulated 3-foot separation distance for safety would exist more prevalently and with likely result in more actual separation distance — than the painted line separating a narrowed #2 lane from a 3-foot-wide dedicated Bicycle Lane.

This is because the bicyclist MUST ride WITHIN the BIKE lane IF such Bicycle Facility (lane) exists (and NOT further to the right side of road the shoulder) which is both preferable and possible in many locations, duh.

Thus, the FLAWED ideology of carving a "painted" 3-foot-wide BICYCLE LANE out of a 14-footwide #2 lane would put bicyclists CLOSER to motorists that would have more trouble staying in the narrower lane (especially critical along road curvature where the four fatalities occurred a year ago). The unintended consequences are safety defecits worse than the status quo.

CVC 21760 DOES NOT APPLY if a narrow white stripe of paint creates a separate Bike Lane.

This is both TERRIBLE and STUPID because PCH motorists would NOT be legally required to slow down to comply with existing 3-feet separation of CVC 21760 ‐- and won't. And the No Honking rule might also not apply. It is better to leave well enough alone, or WIDEN the #2 lane to 14-feet wherever possible.

And several prior Engineeting and Traffic "Speed") studies of PCH when 10-11-foot wide lanes existed in eastern Malibu disprove the notion being advocated MIGHT result IF travel lanes were narrowed back to substandard width (page 8 of draft 2013 SCAG Safety Study, above, and attached for printing). Thus, if no reduction of vehicle speed, but in narrower lanes which decrease separation distance, and negate the new California law requiring 3-feet of separation, there is NO improvement to metrics and the project would CAUSE crashes and reduction in safety.

Ryan
595
From: R Y A N
To: Adam Pisarkiewicz; Rebecca Evans; Gail Duncan; Tyler Eaton; Yolanda Bundy; Planning Commission; Patricia Salazar; Kellan Martz
Subject: 10-20-25 Planning Commission CDP 25-009 - Street Lighting between Serra Canyon Road and L.A. County Line, Malibu, CA
Date: Monday, October 20, 2025 5:16:13 PM
Attachments: McGraw-Edison-GALN-Galleon-II-Spec-Sheet.pdf City of Malibu:

I submit the following specifications of street light product availablity into the record for Coastal Development Permit 25-009 scheduled for Hearing tonight by the City of Malibu Planing Commission. for discussion purposes at tonight's meeting of the Planning Commission.

It would behoove the City to stipulate the State of California's own standard for sale of consumer light bulbs — namely specification for 90 or numerically higher Color Rendering Index performance. The higher the numerical value, the more-accurately colors of objects "rendered" by whatever the artificial light source's color spectrum (i.e., 3,000-Kelvin corrolated color temperature) rating.

The color of emitted light can be 3000-Kelvin Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) as indicated in the ordering materials and sales guide, attached, by McGraw Edison — division of Cooper Lighting Solutions (a U.S. company over 180 years old). FURTHER, specification is available for the all-important QUALITY of light rating of 90 Color Rendering Index (CRI) performance (on scale of 1-100) by designating suffix 930 to the part number. See page 2 fine print of ordering option in the middle of the page. Standard CRI rating is only 70 and thus necessitates more "lumens" to determine color by the brains of humans and wildlife. By specifying 90 CRI minimum, and 3000 Kelvin maximum numerical values for these two ratings, Malibu will achieve the maximum benefit toward its Dark Skies goals and requirements. The remaining metric is simply the intensity of light in lumens.

The attached documents prove product availability from made-in-USA manufacturer compliant with the Buy American Act, etc. The purpose of this submission is to document current product availability to attain the lighting performance subject to regulation by the City, i.e., minimum 90 CRI and 3000 596
Kelvin CCT. These specifications are neither burdensom nor economically infeasible, and advance the interests of the seaside environment and Dark Skies.

Ryan
597
Project Catalog # Type
Prepared by Notes Date
PS500052EN page 1
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Quick Facts
• Lumen packages range from 3,300 - 102,700
(33W - 658W)
• 17 optical distributions
• Efficacy up to 178 LPW
Interactive Menu
• Ordering Information page 2
• Mounting Details page 3
• Optical Distributions page 5
• Product Specifications page 5
• Energy and Performance Data page 6
• Control Options page 17
Dimensional Details
Area / Site Luminaire
McGraw-Edison
GALN Galleon II
"A"
9-1/2"
"B" [241mm]
"A"
"B" 9 1/2"
241mm
3-3/4"
[94mm]
"A"
9-1/2"
"B" [241mm]
"A"
"B" 9 1/2"
241mm
3-3/4"
[94mm]
Number of
Light Squares Width "A" Housing Length "B" Weight with Standard or QM Arm
EPA with Standard
or QM Arm
1-4 16" 22" 29 lb 0.95
5-6 22" 22" 39 lb 0.95
7-9 22" 28-1/8" 48 lb 1.1
NOTES: For arm selection requirements and additional line art, see Mounting Details section.

Connected Systems
• Wavelinx LITE Wireless
• Wavelinx PRO Wireless
• AirMesh Wireless
Standard Pole Mount Arm
1 Product Certifications
Product Features
Pole Drilling Pattern
Type "N" TYPE "N"
3/4" [19mm]
Diameter
Hole
(2) 9/16" [14mm]
Diameter
Holes
1-3/4"
[44mm]
7/8" [22mm]
2"
[51mm]
Light ARchitect AVA IL A B LE
TM

COMPLIANT OPTIONS

BAA BUY AMERICAN ACT
a v a il a b l e

COMPLIANT OPTIONS
BABA Build Amer ic a
Bu y Amer ic a
NOTES:

1. IDA Certified (3000K CCT and warmer only, fixed mounting options) 598
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 2
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Product Family 1, 2
Light Engine Configuration
Color
Temperature Voltage Distribution Mounting Finish Light
Square
Square
Count
Lumen
Output
GALN=Galleon II
BAA-GALN=Galleon II
Buy American Act
Compliant 26
TAA-GALN=Galleon II
Trade Agreements Act
Compliant 26
BABA-GALN=Galleon

II BABA/IIJA
Compliant 38
SA=16 LED
Light Square
SB=26 LED
Light Square
1=1 Light Square
2=2 Light Squares
3=3 Light Squares
4=4 Light Squares
5=5 Light Squares
6=6 Light Squares
7=7 Light Squares
8=8 Light Squares
9=9 Light Squares
A=Output Level 1
B=Output Level 2
C=Output Level 3
D=Output Level 4 4, 16
Z=Configured Output32
722=70CRI, 2200K
727=70CRI, 2700K
730=70CRI, 3000K
735=70CRI, 3500K
740=70CRI, 4000K
750=70CRI, 5000K
760=70CRI, 6000K
827=80CRI, 2700K
830=80CRI, 3000K
835=80CRI, 3500K
840=80CRI, 4000K
930=90CRI, 3000K
935=90CRI, 3500K
940=90CRI, 4000K
950=90CRI, 5000K
AMB=Amber14, 16
U=120-277V
H=347V-480V 7, 29
1=120V
2=208V
3=240V
4=277V
8=480V 7, 29
9=347V 7
DV=277V-480V
DuraVolt
Drivers 28, 29, 30
T1=Type I
T2=Type II
T2R=Type II Roadway
T3=Type III
T3R=Type III Roadway
T4FT=Type IV Forward Throw
T4W=Type IV Wide
5NQ=Type V Narrow
5MQ=Type V Square Medium
5WQ=Type V Square Wide
SL2=Type II w/Spill Control
SL3=Type III w/Spill Control
SL4=Type IV w/Spill Control
SLL=90° Spill Light Eliminator Left
SLR=90° Spill Light Eliminator
Right
RW=Rectangular Wide Type I
AFL=Automotive Frontline
T2BC=Type II w/ Backlight Control 39
T3BC=Type III w/ Backlight Control 39
T4BC=Type IV w/ Backlight Control 39
LBC=90° Left w/ Backlight Control 39
RBC=90° Right w/ Backlight Control 39
[Blank]=Standard Pole Mount Arm
QU=Quick Mount Universal Arm
QM=Pole Mount Arm with
Quick Mount Adaptor
PA=Pole Mount, Adjustable
SP=3” Slipfitter, Adjustable 8
SP2=2-3/8” Slipfitter,
Adjustable 8
QMA=Quick Mount Mast
Arm, Fixed
MA=Mast Arm, Fixed
WM=Wall Mount, Fixed
WA=Wall Mount, Adjustable
UP=Upswept Arm
AP=Grey
BZ=Bronze
BK=Black
DP=Dark Platinum
GM=Graphite
Metallic
WH=White
RALXX=Custom
Color
Ordering Information
SAMPLE NUMBER: GALN-SA4C-740-U-T4FT-GM
Options (Add as Suffix) Controls and Systems Options (Add as Suffix) Accessories (Order Separately) 27 DIM=External 0-10V Dimming Leads 19
F=Single Fuse (120, 277 or 347V Specify Voltage)
FF=Double Fuse (208, 240 or 480V Specify Voltage)
20K=20kV UL 1449 fused surge protective device 10
2L=Two Circuits 10
HA=50°C High Ambient 16
HSS=Installed House Side Shield 17
BCS=Backlight Control Shield 17, 37
GRSBK=Glare Reducing Shield, Black 22
GRSWH=Glare Reducing Shield, White 22
LCF=Light Square Trim Painted to Match Housing 25
TH=Tool-less Door Hardware 5
CC=Coastal Construction finish 3
L90=Optics Rotated 90° Left
R90=Optics Rotated 90° Right
3SDCM=3 Standard Deviation Color Matching 36
AHD145=After Hours Dim, 5 Hours 21
AHD245=After Hours Dim, 6 Hours 21
AHD255=After Hours Dim, 7 Hours 21
AHD355=After Hours Dim, 8 Hours 21
DALI=DALI Drivers
CDW=Non-programmable drivers 40
BPC=Button Type Photocontrol. Must specify voltage 120V, 208V, 240V or 277V. 6 PR=NEMA 3-PIN Photocontrol Receptacle
PR7=NEMA 7-PIN Photocontrol Receptacle 20
FADC=Field Adjustable Dimming Controller 31
PSC=Photocontrol Shorting Cap
SPB2=Dimming Motion Sensor, 9’-20’ mounting 23
SPB4=Dimming Motion Sensor, 21’-40’ mounting 23
SPB2/X=Dimming Motion Sensor, limited square count, 9’-20’ mounting 23 SPB4/X=Dimming Motion Sensor, limited square count, 21’-40’ mounting 23 MS/DIM-L20=Motion Sensor for Dimming Operation, 9’-20’ Mounting 33 MS/DIM-L40=Motion Sensor for Dimming Operation, 21’-40’ Mounting 33 WLS2XX=WaveLinx LITE, SR Driver, Dimming Motion and Daylight, Bluetooth Programmable, 7’ - 15’ Mounting 12, 18, 34
WLS4XX=WaveLinx LITE, SR Driver, Dimming Motion and Daylight, Bluetooth Programmable, 15’ - 40’ Mounting 12, 18, 34
WPS2XX=WaveLinx PRO, SR Driver, Dimming Motion and Daylight, WAC Programmable, 7’ - 15’ Mounting 12, 13, 18, 34
WPS4XX=WaveLinx PRO, SR Driver, Dimming Motion and Daylight, WAC Programmable, 15’ - 40’ Mounting 12, 13, 18, 34
DIM10-L20=AirMesh Occupancy Sensor (9’-20’ Mounting) 18, 35 DIM10-L40=AirMesh Occupancy Sensor (21’-40’ Mounting) 18, 35 OA/RA1016=NEMA Photocontrol Multi-Tap - 105-285V
OA/RA1027=NEMA Photocontrol - 480V
OA/RA1201=NEMA Photocontrol - 347V
OA/RA1013=Photocontrol Shorting Cap
OA/RA1014=120V Photocontrol
MA1252=10kV Surge Module Replacement
MA1036-XX=Single Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8” O.D. Tenon
MA1037-XX=2@180° Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8” O.D. Tenon
MA1197-XX=3@120° Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8” O.D. Tenon
MA1188-XX=4@90° Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8” O.D. Tenon
MA1189-XX=2@90° Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8” O.D. Tenon
MA1190-XX=3@90° Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8” O.D. Tenon
MA1191-XX=2@120° Tenon Adapter for 2-3/8” O.D. Tenon
MA1038-XX=Single Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2” O.D. Tenon
MA1039-XX=2@180° Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2” O.D. Tenon
MA1192-XX=3@120° Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2” O.D. Tenon
MA1193-XX=4@90° Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2” O.D. Tenon
MA1194-XX=2@90° Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2” O.D. Tenon
MA1195-XX=3@90° Tenon Adapter for 3-1/2” O.D. Tenon
SRA238=Adapter kit for mounting 3” SP arm to 2-3/8” O.D. vertical tenon FSIR-100=Wireless Configuration Tool for MS/DIM 33
LS/HSS=Field Installed House Side Shield for SA Light Squares 9, 17 LS/HSS-SB=Field Installed House Side Shield for SB Light Squares 9, 17 LS/BCS=Backlight Control Shield 9, 17, 37
LS/GRSBK-2PK =Glare Reducing Shield, Black 9, 22
LS/GRSWH-2PK =Glare Reducing Shield, White 9, 22
LS/PFS=Perimeter Shield, Black 15
WOLC-7P-10A=WaveLinx Outdoor Control Module 11, 18, 13
TL7-G1-HV= AirMesh 7-PIN node, 110-480V 11, 18, 35
CBSSW-450-002= AirMesh central base station with 5-button control 35 NOTES:

1. Customer is responsible for engineering analysis to confirm pole and fixture compatibility for all applications. Refer to our white paper WP513001EN for additional support information.

2. DesignLights Consortium® Qualified. Refer to www.designlights.org Qualified Products List under Family Models for details.

3. Coastal construction finish salt spray tested to over 5,000-hours per ASTM B117, with a scribe rating of 9 per ASTM D1654.

Not available with TH option.

4. When using SA light squares, Output Level 4 not available with color temperatures 722, 727, 827, 830 or 930 when HSS is used.

5. TH option not 3G rated. Not available with Coastal Construction (CC) option.

6. Not available with voltage options H, 8 or 9.

7. Not available with SB1A or SB2A configurations. Not available in combination with HA high ambient and sensor options at Output Level 3. H voltage not available with sensor options, choose voltage 8 or 9.

8. SP arm limited to 3” O.D. vertical tenon. SP2 limited to 2-3/8” O.D. vertical tenon.

9. One required for each Light Square.

10. 2L is not available with SB light squares. Not available with SPB at 347V or 480V. Not available with WaveLinx or 20kV surge option.

11. Requires PR7.

12. Replace XX with sensor color (WH, BZ or BK.).

13. WAC Gateway required to enable field-configurability: Order WAC-PoE and WPOE-120 (10V to PoE injector) power supply if needed. WAC not required for LC Bluetooth sensors.

14. Narrow-band 590nm +/- 5nm for wildlife and observatory use. Choose Output Level 1; supplied at 500mA drive current only.

Not available with SB light squares. Exact luminaire wattage available in IES files. Available with 5WQ, 5MQ, SL2, SL3 and SL4 distributions. Can be used with HSS option.

15. Set of 4 pcs. One set required per Light Square.

16. HA option not available with Output Level 4 or AMB Amber.

17. Not for use with T1, 5NQ, 5MQ, 5WQ or RW optics.

18. Cannot be used with other control options.

19. Low voltage control lead brought out 18” outside fixture. Not available with DALI or integrated controls options.

20. Not available if any SPB, or WaveLinx sensor is selected. Motion sensor has an integral photocell.

21. Requires the use of BPC photocontrol or the PR7 or PR photocontrol receptacle with photocontrol accessory. Not available with SB light squares when using Output Level 4.

22. Not for use with T1, T4FT, T4W or SL optics. See IES files for details. Not available with SB light squares.

23. Sensor configuration mobile application required for configuration. See controls page for details.

24. Replace X with number of Light Squares controlled by the SPB, referencing the “SPB/X Availability Table” on the controls page.

25. Not available with HSS, GRSWH or GRSBK.

26. Only product configurations with these designated prefixes are built to be compliant with the Buy American Act of 1933 (BAA) or Trade Agreements Act of 1979 (TAA), respectively. Please refer to DOMESTIC PREFERENCES website for more information.

Components shipped separately may be separately analyzed under domestic preference requirements.

27. For BAA or TAA requirements, Accessories sold separately will be separately analyzed under domestic preference requirements.

Consult factory for further information.

28. DuraVolt drivers feature added protection from power quality issues such as loss of neutral, transients and voltage fluctuations. Visit www.signify.com/duravolt for more information.

29. 480V not to be used with ungrounded or impedance grounded systems.

30. Not available with SA1A or SA1B. Not available with SB1, or any SB configuration using Output Level 1. Not available with any control option except SPB

31. Cannot be used with DALI, PR7, or other motion response control options. Not available with SB light squares when using Output Level 4.

32. Use GALN Product Configurator to specify lumen output, drive current and wattage. Not available with AMB. Not available with SB light squares.

33. Uses the FSP-211 motion sensor. The FSIR-100 configuration tool is required to adjust parameters including high and low modes, sensitivity, time delay, cutoff and more. Consult your lighting representative at Cooper Lighting Solutions for more information.

34. Controls system is not available with photocontrol receptacles (PR , PR7) or other controls systems (FADC, SPBx).

35. Requires AirMesh central base station CBSSW-450-002 and Synapse commissioning for operation.

36. 3-step MacAdam ellipse binning. Available in 740 CRI/CCT only. Longer lead times apply, consult your lighting representative at Cooper Lighting Solutions for more information.

37. Not available with SB light squares.

38. Only product configurations with these prefixes are built to be compliant with the Buy American Act of 1933 (BAA) or the Build America Buy America Act (BABA). BABA is the minimum Government compliance requirement for the Build America Buy America standards which is part of the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA). Individual Government Agencies may have more stringent compliance standards. Please refer to the DOMESTIC PREFERENCES website or consult the CLS Domestic Preferences team for more information. Components shipped separately may be separately analyzed under domestic preference requirements.

39. Select SA light square. Only available with Output Levels 1, 2 or 3. Not compatible with HSS, GRS, BCS or PFS shield options, or LCF.

40. Uses non-NFC (Near Field Communication) drivers to eliminate field-programmability. 599
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 3
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
TYPE "R"
3/4" [19mm]
Diameter Hole
2-5/16"
[59mm]
1-1/16"
[27mm] 2-1/8"
[54mm]
(2) 5/8" [16mm]
Diameter Holes
Mounting Details
Pole Drilling Patterns
Type "N" Type "R" Type "M"
Pole Configuration Options
TYPE "N"
3/4" [19mm]
Diameter Hole
(2) 9/16" [14mm]
Diameter
Holes
1-3/4"
[44mm]
7/8" [22mm]
2"
[51mm]
2 @ 180° 3 @ 120°
(Round poles only)
4 @ 90° 2 @ 90° 3 @ 90° 2 @ 120°
(Round poles only)
3/4" [19mm]
Diameter Hole
(2) 5/8" [16mm]
Diameter Holes
4-7/8" [124mm]
2-7/16" [62mm]
2-5/16"
[59mm]
TYPE "M"
*NOTE: Use Type N drilling pattern
"A"
9-1/2"
[241mm] "B"
Quick Mount Arm (QM)*
"A" 6"
[149mm]
3-3/4"
[94mm]
"B"
Mast Arm, Fixed (MA)
*NOTE: Fits 2-3/8" O.D. tenon
*NOTE: Universal bolt pattern compatible with Type N through Type M drilling patterns "A"
8-5/8"
[220mm]
9-1/2"
[242mm]
5-5/16"
[135mm]
"B"
Upswept Arm (UP)*
"A"
9-5/32"
[233mm]
6-3/16"
[157mm]
10-5/32"
[258mm]
"B"
Wall Mount, Fixed (WM)
"B" 10-1/4"
[260mm]
Standard Quick Mount Arm (QU) Quick Mount Mast Arm Assembly (QMA) "A"
3-3/4"
[94mm] "B" 10-5/8"
[271mm]
*NOTE: Universal bolt pattern compatible with Type N through Type M drilling patterns "A"
7"
[178mm]
3-1/8"
[78mm]
*NOTE: Fits 2-3/8" O.D. tenon
Upswept Arm (UP)
Mast Arm, Fixed (MA)
Wall Mount, Fixed (WM)
Quick Mount Universal Arm (QU) Quick Mount Mast Arm (QMA) Pole Mount Arm with Quick Mount Adaptor (QM)
600
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 4
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Wall Mount, Adjustable (WA)
"A"
11-3/16"
[284mm]
6-3/16"
[157mm]
"B"
10-5/32"
[258mm]
Pole Mount, Adjustable Arm (PA)*
"A"
"B" 11-5/8"
[296mm]
4-3/4"
[121mm]
*NOTE: Use Type N drilling pattern
3" Slipfitter, Adjustable (SP)
"A"
"B"

4.8”
[122 mm]

7.9”
[200mm]

9.08"
[230mm]
*NOTE: Fits 3" O.D. tenon
2-3/8" Slipfitter, Adjustable (SP2)
"A"
9-1/2"
[241mm]
"B"
3-3/4"
[97mm]
7-1/8"
[180mm]
*NOTE: Fits 2-3/8" O.D. tenon
80˚
-10˚
Range of Motion
5˚ Increments
Mounting Details
Tilt Angle
(Degrees)
Number of
Light Squares Weight 1 @ 90° 2 @ 180° 2 @ 90° 2 @ 120° 3 @ 90° 3 @ 120° 4 @ 90° 0°
1-4 33.5 lb (15.2 kg) 0.85 1.70 1.46 1.66 2.31 2.25 2.35 5-6 43.5 lb (19.7 kg) 0.86 1.71 1.62 1.80 2.49 2.35 2.50 7-9 52.5 lb (23.8 kg) 0.98 1.95 1.75 1.98 2.73 2.55 2.76 15°
1-4 33.5 lb (15.2 kg) 1.10 1.71 1.95 2.26 2.81 3.30 2.87 5-6 43.5 lb (19.7 kg) 1.42 1.71 2.27 2.72 3.13 3.63 3.15 7-9 52.5 lb (23.8 kg) 1.69 1.96 2.67 3.22 3.65 4.38 3.72 30°
1-4 33.5 lb (15.2 kg) 1.72 1.81 2.58 3.21 3.44 4.59 3.53 5-6 43.5 lb (19.7 kg) 2.26 2.29 3.11 4.00 3.97 5.27 4.00 7-9 52.5 lb (23.8 kg) 2.75 2.85 3.73 4.83 4.71 6.45 4.81 45°
1-4 33.5 lb (15.2 kg) 2.25 2.36 3.10 4.00 3.96 5.63 4.08 5-6 43.5 lb (19.7 kg) 2.96 2.99 3.81 5.06 4.67 6.49 4.71 7-9 52.5 lb (23.8 kg) 3.63 3.76 3.73 6.17 5.59 8.03 5.73 60°
1-4 33.5 lb (15.2 kg) 2.63 2.77 3.49 4.58 4.34 6.21 4.48 5-6 43.5 lb (19.7 kg) 3.46 3.51 4.32 5.84 5.19 7.01 5.22 7-9 52.5 lb (23.8 kg) 4.27 4.44 5.25 7.15 6.23 8.80 6.40 Fixture Weights and EPAs
Adjustable Arm Range of Motion
• Includes WA, SP, SP2 and PA mounting options
• Adjustable in increments of 5°
• Must maintain downward facing orientation
Wall Mount, Adjustable (WA)
3” Slipfitter, Adjustable (SP)
2-3/8” Slipfitter, Adjustable (SP2)
Pole Mount, Adjustable Arm (PA)
601
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 5
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Asymmetric Area Distributions
T3
(Type III)
SL2
(Type II with Spill Control)
SL3
(Type III with Spill Control)
T4FT
(Type IV Forward Throw)
T4W
(Type IV Wide)
SL4
(Type IV with Spill Control)
T2
(Type II)
Specialized Distributions
AFL
(Automotive Frontline)
SLR
(90° Spill Light Eliminator Right)
SLL
(90° Spill Light Eliminator Left)
T2R
(Type II Roadway)
RW
(Rectangular Wide Type I)
T3R
(Type III Roadway)
5NQ
(Type V Square Narrow)
5MQ
(Type V Square Medium)
5WQ
(Type V Square Wide)
Standard
Street Side
House Side
Street
Side
Optics Rotated Left @ 90°[L90]
House
Side
Street
Side
Optics Rotated Right @ 90° [R90]
House
Side
Rotated Optics
T1
(Type I)
Asymmetric Roadway Distributions Symmetric Distributions Backlight Control Distributions
T2BC
(Type II w/ Backlight Control)
T3BC
(Type III w/ Backlight Control)
T4BC
(Type IV w/ Backlight Control)
LBC
(90º w/ Backlight Control)
RBC
(90º w/ Backlight Control)
Construction
• Die-cast aluminum housing and heat sink
• Three housing sizes, using 1 to 9 light squares
Optics
• High-efficiency injection-molded AccuLED Optics technology • 17 optical distributions for area site and roadway applications • 4 shielding options include HSS, BCS, GRS and PFS
• IDA Certified (3000K CCT and warmer only, fixed mounting options) • 5 step MacAdam ellipse binning (5 SDCM) standard with 70CRI and 80CRI. 3SDCM option available with 740 CRI/CCT. 3 step MacAdam ellipse binning standard with 90CRI
Electrical
• Removable power tray assembly includes drivers, surge modules and control modules for ease of maintenance and serviceability
• Standard with 0-10V dimming
• Standard with 10kV surge module, optional 20kV surge module • Suitable for operation in -40°C to 40°C ambient environments. Optional 50°C high ambient (HA) configuration
• Luminaire available with the field adjustable dimming controller (FADC) to manually adjust wattage and reduce the total lumen output and light levels.

Comes pre-set to the highest position at the lumen output selected Mounting
• Arms are factory installed, enabling closed-housing installation • All arms suitable for round or square pole installation • All arms provide clearance for multiple fixture installations at 90° Finish
• 6 standard finishes use super durable TGIC polyester powder coat paint, providing 2.5 mil nominal thickness and salt-spray tested to 3,000 hours per ASTM B117
• RAL and custom color matches available
• Coastal Construction (CC) option salt-spray tested to 5,000 hours per ASTM B117, achieving a scribe rating of 9 per ASTM D1654
Compliance
• Visit https://www.designlights.org/search/ to confirm qualification. Not all product variations are DLC qualified
• IDA Certified (3000K CCT and warmer only, fixed mounting options) • FHWA and FTA agencies are utilizing their BAA rules for BABA compliance. Only product configurations with these prefixes are built to be compliant with the Buy American Act of 1933 (BAA) or the Buy America Build America Act (BABA).BABA is the minimum Government compliance requirement for the Buy America Build America standards which is part of the Infrastructure and Investment Jobs Act (IIJA). Individual Government Agencies may have more stringent compliance standards.
• Please refer to the DOMESTIC PREFERENCES website or consult the CLS Domestic Preferences team for more information. Components shipped separately may be separately analyzed under domestic preference requirements Typical Applications
• Outdoor, Parking Lots, Walkways, Roadways, Building Areas • Sports lighting, including tennis, pickleball, basketball courts Warranty
• Five-year limited warranty. Consult website for details. www.cooperlighting.com/legal
Product Specifications
Optical Distributions
602
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 6
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Energy and Performance Data
Lumen Maintenance (TM-21)
Output Level Ambient
Temperature
25,000
hours*
50,000
hours*
60,000
hours*
100,000
hours**
Theoretical
L70 hours**
Output
Levels 1-3
25°C 99.4% 99.0% 98.9% 98.3% > 2.4M
40°C 98.7% 98.3% 98.1% 97.4% > 1.9M
50°C 98.2% 97.2% 96.8% 95.2% > 851,000
Output
Level 4
25°C 99.4% 99.0% 98.9% 98.3% > 2.4M
40°C 98.5% 97.9% 97.7% 96.7% > 1.3M
* Supported by IES TM-21 standards
** Theoretical values represent estimations commonly used; however, refer to the IES position on LED Product Lifetime Prediction, IES PS-10-18, explaining proper use of IES TM-21 and LM-80.

Lumen
Output
SA Light
Squares
SB Light
Squares
Output
Level 1 615mA 350mA
Output
Level 2 800mA 450mA
Output
Level 3 1050mA 615mA
Output
Level 4 1200mA 900mA
Lumen Multiplier
Ambient
Temperature
Lumen
Multiplier
0ºC 1.02
10ºC 1.01
25ºC 1.00
40ºC 0.99
50ºC 0.97
FADC Position Percent of Typical
Lumen Output
1 25%
2 48%
3 56%
4 65%
5 75%
6 80%
7 85%
8 90%
9 95%
10 100%
Note: +/-5% typical value
FADC Position Percent of Typical
Lumen Output
1 14%
2 25%
3 32%
4 43%
5 49%
6 57%
7 65%
8 72%
9 80%
10 100%
Note: +/-5% typical value
FADC Position Percent of Typical
Lumen Output
1 19%
2 38%
3 47%
4 63%
5 74%
6 85%
7 95%
8 97%
9 100%
10 100%
Note: +/-5% typical value
FADC Settings
SA1-SA3 (All Output Levels)
Drive Currents
FADC Settings
SA4-SA6 (All Output Levels)
FADC Settings
SA7-SA9 (All Output Levels)
603
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 7
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 33 63 93 121 154 182 215 244 274
Input Current @ 120V 0.283 0.529 0.778 1.058 1.310 1.556 1.839 2.089 2.335 Input Current @ 208V 0.165 0.309 0.460 0.618 0.771 0.919 1.082 1.240 1.379 Input Current @ 240V 0.143 0.270 0.398 0.540 0.671 0.796 0.944 1.078 1.194 Input Current @ 277V 0.125 0.237 0.352 0.473 0.581 0.705 0.818 0.962 1.057 Input Current @ 347V 0.098 0.181 0.272 0.362 0.454 0.544 0.636 0.738 0.816 Input Current @ 480V 0.073 0.133 0.200 0.267 0.335 0.400 0.470 0.554 0.600 Optics
T1
Lumens 4,619 9,180 13,628 18,059 22,861 27,070 31,796 36,863 41,385 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 Lumens per Watt 140 146 147 149 148 149 148 151 151
T2
Lumens 4,654 9,249 13,730 18,194 23,032 27,273 32,034 37,138 41,694 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 141 147 148 150 150 150 149 152 152
T2R
Lumens 4,716 9,372 13,913 18,437 23,340 27,637 32,462 37,634 42,251 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 143 149 150 152 152 152 151 154 154
T3
Lumens 4,589 9,120 13,538 17,940 22,711 26,892 31,587 36,620 41,112 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 139 145 146 148 147 148 147 150 150
T3R
Lumens 4,735 9,411 13,970 18,513 23,436 27,751 32,596 37,790 42,425 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 143 149 150 153 152 152 152 155 155
T4FT
Lumens 4,617 9,176 13,622 18,051 22,851 27,058 31,782 36,847 41,366 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 140 146 146 149 148 149 148 151 151
T4W
Lumens 4,631 9,203 13,662 18,104 22,918 27,138 31,876 36,955 41,488 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 140 146 147 150 149 149 148 151 151
SL2
Lumens 4,619 9,180 13,627 18,058 22,860 27,069 31,795 36,861 41,383 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 140 146 147 149 148 149 148 151 151
SL3
Lumens 4,586 9,115 13,531 17,931 22,699 26,879 31,571 36,602 41,091 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 139 145 145 148 147 148 147 150 150
SL4
Lumens 4,529 9,002 13,363 17,708 22,417 26,544 31,178 36,146 40,580 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B1-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 137 143 144 146 146 146 145 148 148
5NQ
Lumens 4,829 9,598 14,247 18,880 23,901 28,301 33,242 38,539 43,266 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 Lumens per Watt 146 152 153 156 155 155 155 158 158
5MQ
Lumens 4,853 9,645 14,318 18,974 24,020 28,442 33,407 38,731 43,482 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 147 153 154 157 156 156 155 159 159
5WQ
Lumens 4,843 9,625 14,288 18,934 23,969 28,382 33,337 38,649 43,390 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 147 153 154 156 156 156 155 158 158
SLL/
SLR
Lumens 3,989 7,927 11,768 15,594 19,741 23,375 27,456 31,831 35,736 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 121 126 127 129 128 128 128 130 130
RW
Lumens 4,774 9,488 14,085 18,665 23,628 27,979 32,863 38,100 42,774 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 Lumens per Watt 145 151 151 154 153 154 153 156 156
AFL
Lumens 4,673 9,286 13,785 18,268 23,126 27,384 32,164 37,290 41,864 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 Lumens per Watt 142 147 148 151 150 150 150 153 153
* Nominal data for 70 CRI. ** For additional performance data, please reference the Galleon Supplemental Performance Guide.

SA Light Squares, Output Level 1, 4000K CCT, 70 CRI Galleon II IES Files Supplemental Lumen Tables 604
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 8
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 44 82 121 164 204 243 286 325 364 Input Current @ 120V 0.367 0.689 1.014 1.378 1.704 2.027 2.393 2.716 3.041 Input Current @ 208V 0.213 0.401 0.594 0.802 0.997 1.188 1.400 1.605 1.782 Input Current @ 240V 0.184 0.347 0.510 0.694 0.860 1.021 1.210 1.386 1.531 Input Current @ 277V 0.160 0.303 0.449 0.605 0.757 0.898 1.065 1.242 1.347 Input Current @ 347V 0.125 0.235 0.355 0.471 0.592 0.710 0.828 0.958 1.065 Input Current @ 480V 0.092 0.172 0.258 0.344 0.432 0.517 0.605 0.706 0.775 Optics
T1
Lumens 5,748 11,423 16,957 22,470 28,446 33,683 39,563 45,867 51,494 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 131 139 140 137 139 139 138 141 141
T2
Lumens 5,790 11,508 17,083 22,638 28,658 33,935 39,859 46,210 51,879 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 132 140 141 138 140 140 139 142 143
T2R
Lumens 5,868 11,662 17,311 22,941 29,041 34,388 40,391 46,827 52,572 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 133 142 143 140 142 142 141 144 144
T3
Lumens 5,710 11,347 16,845 22,322 28,258 33,461 39,303 45,565 51,155 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 130 138 139 136 139 138 137 140 141
T3R
Lumens 5,892 11,710 17,383 23,035 29,161 34,530 40,558 47,020 52,788 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 134 143 144 140 143 142 142 145 145
T4FT
Lumens 5,745 11,418 16,949 22,460 28,433 33,668 39,546 45,847 51,471 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 131 139 140 137 139 139 138 141 141
T4W
Lumens 5,762 11,451 16,999 22,526 28,517 33,767 39,662 45,982 51,622 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 131 140 140 137 140 139 139 141 142
SL2
Lumens 5,747 11,422 16,956 22,469 28,444 33,681 39,561 45,865 51,491 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 131 139 140 137 139 139 138 141 141
SL3
Lumens 5,707 11,342 16,836 22,311 28,244 33,444 39,283 45,542 51,129 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 130 138 139 136 138 138 137 140 140
SL4
Lumens 5,636 11,201 16,627 22,034 27,893 33,028 38,794 44,976 50,493 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B1-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 128 137 137 134 137 136 136 138 139
5NQ
Lumens 6,009 11,942 17,727 23,492 29,739 35,214 41,362 47,953 53,835 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 Lumens per Watt 137 146 147 143 146 145 145 148 148
5MQ
Lumens 6,039 12,001 17,816 23,609 29,887 35,389 41,568 48,191 54,103 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 137 146 147 144 147 146 145 148 149
5WQ
Lumens 6,026 11,976 17,778 23,559 29,824 35,315 41,480 48,090 53,989 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 137 146 147 144 146 145 145 148 148
SLL/
SLR
Lumens 4,963 9,863 14,642 19,403 24,563 29,085 34,163 39,607 44,465 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B1-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 113 120 121 118 120 120 119 122 122
RW
Lumens 5,940 11,806 17,526 23,224 29,400 34,813 40,891 47,407 53,222 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 135 144 145 142 144 143 143 146 146
AFL
Lumens 5,814 11,555 17,153 22,730 28,775 34,073 40,021 46,398 52,090 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 132 141 142 139 141 140 140 143 143
* Nominal data for 70 CRI. ** For additional performance data, please reference the Galleon Supplemental Performance Guide.

SA Light Squares, Output Level 2, 4000K CCT, 70 CRI Galleon II IES Files Supplemental Lumen Tables 605
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 9
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 57 108 160 213 269 321 377 429 481 Input Current @ 120V 0.478 0.905 1.338 1.810 2.244 2.675 3.150 3.584 4.013 Input Current @ 208V 0.279 0.532 0.780 1.064 1.313 1.559 1.845 2.093 2.339 Input Current @ 240V 0.243 0.458 0.664 0.916 1.123 1.328 1.582 1.788 1.991 Input Current @ 277V 0.213 0.404 0.582 0.808 0.997 1.164 1.401 1.589 1.745 Input Current @ 347V 0.164 0.322 0.471 0.644 0.795 0.943 1.117 1.269 1.414 Input Current @ 480V 0.121 0.235 0.341 0.469 0.579 0.681 0.814 0.923 1.022 Optics
T1
Lumens 7,101 14,113 20,950 27,763 35,146 41,616 48,882 56,671 63,623 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 125 131 131 130 131 130 130 132 132
T2
Lumens 7,154 14,219 21,107 27,970 35,408 41,927 49,247 57,094 64,098 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 126 132 132 131 132 131 131 133 133
T2R
Lumens 7,250 14,408 21,389 28,344 35,881 42,487 49,905 57,857 64,954 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 127 133 134 133 133 132 132 135 135
T3
Lumens 7,054 14,020 20,812 27,580 34,914 41,342 48,560 56,297 63,203 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 124 130 130 129 130 129 129 131 131
T3R
Lumens 7,280 14,468 21,477 28,461 36,029 42,663 50,111 58,096 65,222 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 128 134 134 134 134 133 133 135 136
T4FT
Lumens 7,098 14,107 20,941 27,751 35,130 41,598 48,860 56,646 63,594 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 125 131 131 130 131 130 130 132 132
T4W
Lumens 7,119 14,148 21,003 27,832 35,233 41,720 49,004 56,812 63,781 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 125 131 131 131 131 130 130 132 133
SL2
Lumens 7,101 14,112 20,949 27,761 35,144 41,614 48,879 56,668 63,619 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 125 131 131 130 131 130 130 132 132
SL3
Lumens 7,051 14,013 20,802 27,566 34,897 41,321 48,535 56,269 63,172 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 124 130 130 129 130 129 129 131 131
SL4
Lumens 6,963 13,839 20,543 27,223 34,463 40,808 47,932 55,569 62,386 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 122 128 128 128 128 127 127 130 130
5NQ
Lumens 7,424 14,755 21,903 29,025 36,743 43,508 51,104 59,247 66,515 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 130 137 137 136 137 136 136 138 138
5MQ
Lumens 7,461 14,828 22,012 29,169 36,926 43,725 51,359 59,542 66,846 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 131 137 138 137 137 136 136 139 139
5WQ
Lumens 7,445 14,797 21,966 29,108 36,849 43,633 51,250 59,417 66,705 BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 131 137 137 137 137 136 136 139 139
SLL/
SLR
Lumens 6,132 12,187 18,091 23,973 30,348 35,936 42,210 48,935 54,938 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 108 113 113 113 113 112 112 114 114
RW
Lumens 7,340 14,587 21,653 28,694 36,325 43,013 50,522 58,573 65,757 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 129 135 135 135 135 134 134 137 137
AFL
Lumens 7,183 14,276 21,193 28,084 35,552 42,098 49,448 57,327 64,359 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 126 132 132 132 132 131 131 134 134
* Nominal data for 70 CRI. ** For additional performance data, please reference the Galleon Supplemental Performance Guide.

SA Light Squares, Output Level 3, 4000K CCT, 70 CRI Galleon II IES Files Supplemental Lumen Tables 606
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 10
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 65 125 184 245 309 368 433 493 552 Input Current @ 120V 0.546 1.041 1.535 2.082 2.578 3.070 3.619 4.114 4.605 Input Current @ 208V 0.318 0.610 0.893 1.219 1.504 1.786 2.113 2.397 2.679 Input Current @ 240V 0.276 0.523 0.758 1.046 1.282 1.516 1.806 2.041 2.274 Input Current @ 277V 0.241 0.460 0.662 0.920 1.133 1.325 1.593 1.807 1.987 Input Current @ 347V 0.187 0.370 0.543 0.740 0.915 1.085 1.285 1.459 1.628 Input Current @ 480V 0.138 0.269 0.391 0.537 0.663 0.782 0.932 1.057 1.173 Optics
T1
Lumens 7,814 15,529 23,053 30,549 38,672 45,793 53,787 62,358 70,007 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 120 124 125 125 125 124 124 126 127
T2
Lumens 7,872 15,645 23,225 30,777 38,962 46,135 54,189 62,824 70,530 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 121 125 126 126 126 125 125 127 128
T2R
Lumens 7,977 15,854 23,535 31,188 39,482 46,751 54,913 63,663 71,472 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 123 127 128 127 128 127 127 129 129
T3
Lumens 7,762 15,427 22,901 30,348 38,418 45,491 53,433 61,947 69,546 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 119 123 124 124 124 124 123 126 126
T3R
Lumens 8,010 15,920 23,632 31,317 39,645 46,944 55,139 63,925 71,767 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 123 127 128 128 128 128 127 130 130
T4FT
Lumens 7,810 15,522 23,043 30,535 38,655 45,772 53,763 62,330 69,976 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 120 124 125 125 125 124 124 126 127
T4W
Lumens 7,833 15,568 23,110 30,625 38,769 45,907 53,921 62,513 70,182 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 121 125 126 125 125 125 125 127 127
SL2
Lumens 7,813 15,528 23,052 30,547 38,670 45,790 53,784 62,354 70,003 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 120 124 125 125 125 124 124 126 127
SL3
Lumens 7,758 15,419 22,889 30,332 38,398 45,468 53,406 61,916 69,511 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 119 123 124 124 124 124 123 126 126
SL4
Lumens 7,662 15,228 22,605 29,955 37,921 44,903 52,742 61,146 68,646 BUG Rating B1-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 118 122 123 122 123 122 122 124 124
5NQ
Lumens 8,169 16,235 24,101 31,938 40,431 47,874 56,232 65,193 73,190 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 126 130 131 130 131 130 130 132 133
5MQ
Lumens 8,210 16,316 24,221 32,097 40,632 48,113 56,512 65,517 73,554 BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 126 131 132 131 131 131 131 133 133
5WQ
Lumens 8,192 16,282 24,170 32,029 40,546 48,011 56,393 65,379 73,399 BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 126 130 131 131 131 130 130 133 133
SLL/
SLR
Lumens 6,747 13,410 19,906 26,379 33,394 39,542 46,445 53,846 60,451 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 104 107 108 108 108 107 107 109 110
RW
Lumens 8,076 16,050 23,826 31,574 39,970 47,329 55,592 64,450 72,356 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 124 128 129 129 129 129 128 131 131
AFL
Lumens 7,904 15,709 23,320 30,902 39,120 46,323 54,410 63,079 70,817 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 122 126 127 126 127 126 126 128 128
* Nominal data for 70 CRI. ** For additional performance data, please reference the Galleon Supplemental Performance Guide.

SA Light Squares, Output Level 4, 4000K CCT, 70 CRI Galleon II IES Files Supplemental Lumen Tables 607
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 11
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
SB Light Squares, Output Level 1, 4000K, 70 CRI
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 31 57 85 114 142 171 199 227 256
Input Current @ 120V 0.263 0.484 0.717 0.952 1.201 1.434 1.685 1.918 2.151 Input Current @ 208V 0.154 0.280 0.420 0.552 0.700 0.839 0.979 1.119 1.259 Input Current @ 240V 0.136 0.245 0.370 0.483 0.615 0.740 0.860 0.985 1.110 Input Current @ 277V 0.122 0.216 0.330 0.425 0.546 0.660 0.762 0.876 0.989 Input Current @ 347V - - 0.248 0.328 0.413 0.495 0.577 0.665 0.743 Input Current @ 480V - - 0.182 0.238 0.304 0.364 0.426 0.493 0.547 Optics
T1
Lumens 4,696 9,389 14,086 18,816 23,716 28,470 33,388 37,964 42,763 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 152 164 166 165 167 167 168 167 167
T2
Lumens 4,704 9,404 14,109 18,846 23,754 28,515 33,442 38,024 42,831 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 152 164 167 165 168 167 168 167 168
T2R
Lumens 4,835 9,667 14,503 19,373 24,418 29,313 34,377 39,087 44,029 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 156 169 171 170 172 172 173 172 172
T3
Lumens 4,751 9,497 14,249 19,033 23,989 28,798 33,773 38,401 43,256 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 154 166 168 167 169 169 170 169 169
T3R
Lumens 4,874 9,743 14,618 19,526 24,611 29,544 34,648 39,396 44,376 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 158 170 173 171 174 173 174 173 174
T4FT
Lumens 4,692 9,380 14,074 18,799 23,694 28,444 33,358 37,929 42,724 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 152 164 166 165 167 166 168 167 167
T4W
Lumens 4,738 9,472 14,211 18,983 23,926 28,723 33,685 38,300 43,142 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 153 165 168 167 169 168 169 169 169
SL2
Lumens 4,719 9,433 14,153 18,905 23,828 28,605 33,546 38,143 42,965 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 153 165 167 166 168 167 168 168 168
SL3
Lumens 4,640 9,276 13,916 18,589 23,430 28,127 32,986 37,506 42,247 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B1-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 150 162 164 163 165 165 166 165 165
SL4
Lumens 4,706 9,408 14,115 18,854 23,764 28,527 33,456 38,040 42,849 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 152 164 167 165 168 167 168 168 168
5NQ
Lumens 4,975 9,945 14,921 19,931 25,121 30,157 35,367 40,213 45,297 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 Lumens per Watt 161 174 176 175 177 176 178 177 177
5MQ
Lumens 4,972 9,939 14,912 19,919 25,106 30,139 35,346 40,189 45,269 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 161 173 176 175 177 176 178 177 177
5WQ
Lumens 4,802 9,600 14,403 19,239 24,249 29,110 34,139 38,817 43,724 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 155 168 170 169 171 170 171 171 171

SLL/SLR
Lumens 4,730 9,457 14,188 18,952 23,887 28,676 33,630 38,238 43,072 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 153 165 168 166 169 168 169 168 169
RW
Lumens 4,889 9,773 14,663 19,586 24,686 29,635 34,755 39,517 44,513 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 158 171 173 172 174 173 175 174 174
AFL
Lumens 4,828 9,652 14,482 19,344 24,381 29,269 34,325 39,029 43,963 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 Lumens per Watt 156 168 171 170 172 171 172 172 172
608
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 12
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
SB Light Squares, Output Level 2, 4000K, 70 CRI
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 40 74 109 147 183 220 257 293 330 Input Current @ 120V 0.330 0.627 0.919 1.255 1.547 1.838 2.174 2.466 2.758 Input Current @ 208V 0.192 0.370 0.533 0.739 0.902 1.066 1.272 1.435 1.598 Input Current @ 240V 0.169 0.327 0.467 0.655 0.794 0.933 1.121 1.260 1.400 Input Current @ 277V 0.150 0.294 0.412 0.588 0.706 0.823 1.000 1.118 1.235 Input Current @ 347V 0.112 0.215 0.316 0.431 0.531 0.632 0.746 0.847 0.947 Input Current @ 480V 0.086 0.160 0.230 0.320 0.390 0.460 0.550 0.620 0.690 Optics
T1
Lumens 5,895 11,786 17,683 23,620 29,771 35,739 41,913 47,656 53,681 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 148 159 162 161 163 162 163 163 163
T2
Lumens 5,905 11,805 17,711 23,658 29,818 35,796 41,980 47,732 53,766 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 148 160 162 161 163 162 164 163 163
T2R
Lumens 6,070 12,135 18,206 24,319 30,652 36,797 43,154 49,067 55,270 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 153 164 167 165 168 167 168 168 168
T3
Lumens 5,963 11,922 17,887 23,892 30,114 36,151 42,396 48,206 54,300 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 150 161 164 163 165 164 165 165 165
T3R
Lumens 6,118 12,231 18,350 24,511 30,894 37,087 43,494 49,454 55,706 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 154 166 168 167 169 168 169 169 169
T4FT
Lumens 5,890 11,775 17,667 23,599 29,744 35,706 41,875 47,613 53,632 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 148 159 162 161 163 162 163 163 163
T4W
Lumens 5,948 11,891 17,840 23,830 30,035 36,056 42,285 48,079 54,157 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 149 161 163 162 164 164 165 164 164
SL2
Lumens 5,923 11,842 17,766 23,732 29,912 35,908 42,111 47,882 53,935 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 149 160 163 161 164 163 164 164 164
SL3
Lumens 5,824 11,644 17,469 23,335 29,412 35,308 41,407 47,081 53,033 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 146 158 160 159 161 160 161 161 161
SL4
Lumens 5,907 11,810 17,718 23,668 29,831 35,811 41,998 47,752 53,789 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 148 160 162 161 163 162 164 163 163
5NQ
Lumens 6,245 12,484 18,731 25,020 31,535 37,857 44,397 50,480 56,862 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 157 169 172 170 173 172 173 172 173
5MQ
Lumens 6,241 12,477 18,719 25,005 31,516 37,834 44,370 50,450 56,827 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 157 169 171 170 173 172 173 172 172
5WQ
Lumens 6,028 12,051 18,080 24,151 30,440 36,542 42,855 48,728 54,887 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 151 163 166 164 167 166 167 166 167

SLL/SLR
Lumens 5,938 11,871 17,811 23,791 29,986 35,997 42,216 48,001 54,069 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 149 161 163 162 164 163 164 164 164
RW
Lumens 6,137 12,268 18,406 24,587 30,989 37,201 43,628 49,606 55,877 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 154 166 169 167 170 169 170 169 170
AFL
Lumens 6,061 12,117 18,179 24,283 30,606 36,742 43,089 48,993 55,187 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 152 164 166 165 168 167 168 167 167
609
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 13
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
SB Light Squares, Output Level 3, 4000K, 70 CRI
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 54 101 149 201 250 301 351 400 450 Input Current @ 120V 0.437 0.857 1.259 1.714 2.116 2.518 2.973 3.375 3.776 Input Current @ 208V 0.254 0.498 0.721 0.996 1.219 1.442 1.717 1.940 2.163 Input Current @ 240V 0.223 0.437 0.628 0.874 1.065 1.256 1.501 1.693 1.884 Input Current @ 277V 0.197 0.386 0.550 0.772 0.936 1.100 1.322 1.485 1.649 Input Current @ 347V 0.150 0.292 0.432 0.584 0.724 0.863 1.016 1.155 1.295 Input Current @ 480V 0.111 0.213 0.311 0.427 0.525 0.622 0.738 0.836 0.933 Optics
T1
Lumens 7,841 15,675 23,517 31,414 39,594 47,531 55,743 63,381 71,393 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 144 155 158 157 159 158 159 159 159
T2
Lumens 7,853 15,700 23,555 31,464 39,657 47,607 55,832 63,482 71,507 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 144 156 158 157 159 158 159 159 159
T2R
Lumens 8,073 16,139 24,214 32,344 40,766 48,938 57,393 65,257 73,507 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 148 160 162 161 163 163 164 163 163
T3
Lumens 7,931 15,856 23,789 31,776 40,051 48,080 56,386 64,112 72,217 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 146 157 160 158 161 160 161 160 161
T3R
Lumens 8,137 16,267 24,405 32,599 41,088 49,325 57,846 65,773 74,087 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 150 161 164 162 165 164 165 165 165
T4FT
Lumens 7,834 15,661 23,496 31,385 39,558 47,488 55,692 63,324 71,329 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 144 155 158 156 159 158 159 158 159
T4W
Lumens 7,910 15,814 23,726 31,693 39,946 47,953 56,238 63,944 72,027 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 145 157 159 158 160 159 160 160 160
SL2
Lumens 7,878 15,749 23,629 31,562 39,781 47,756 56,006 63,681 71,731 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 145 156 158 157 159 159 160 159 159
SL3
Lumens 7,746 15,486 23,234 31,035 39,117 46,958 55,070 62,616 70,532 BUG Rating B1-U0-G2 B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 142 153 156 155 157 156 157 157 157
SL4
Lumens 7,857 15,707 23,565 31,477 39,674 47,627 55,855 63,509 71,538 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 144 156 158 157 159 158 159 159 159
5NQ
Lumens 8,305 16,604 24,911 33,275 41,940 50,348 59,046 67,137 75,624 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 153 165 167 166 168 167 168 168 168
5MQ
Lumens 8,300 16,594 24,896 33,255 41,915 50,318 59,010 67,097 75,578 BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 153 164 167 166 168 167 168 168 168
5WQ
Lumens 8,017 16,027 24,046 32,120 40,484 48,600 56,996 64,806 72,998 BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 147 159 161 160 162 162 163 162 162

SLL/SLR
Lumens 7,897 15,788 23,687 31,641 39,880 47,875 56,146 63,839 71,909 BUG Rating B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 145 156 159 158 160 159 160 160 160
RW
Lumens 8,162 16,317 24,480 32,699 41,215 49,476 58,024 65,975 74,315 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 150 162 164 163 165 164 166 165 165
AFL
Lumens 8,061 16,115 24,177 32,295 40,705 48,865 57,307 65,160 73,397 BUG Rating B1-U0-G1 B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 148 160 162 161 163 162 164 163 163
610
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 14
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
SB Light Squares, Output Level 4, 4000K, 70 CRI
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 80 148 218 294 365 440 513 585 658 Input Current @ 120V 0.638 1.234 1.840 2.469 3.094 3.680 4.349 4.934 5.519 Input Current @ 208V 0.367 0.705 1.045 1.410 1.779 2.090 2.513 2.824 3.135 Input Current @ 240V 0.320 0.614 0.913 1.227 1.567 1.827 2.220 2.480 2.740 Input Current @ 277V 0.280 0.537 0.813 1.075 1.402 1.626 1.992 2.215 2.439 Input Current @ 347V 0.219 0.430 0.640 0.897 1.089 1.280 1.537 1.729 1.920 Input Current @ 480V 0.160 0.313 0.479 0.700 0.829 0.958 1.179 1.308 1.437 Optics
T1
Lumens 10,654 21,299 31,955 42,684 53,800 64,585 75,742 86,121 97,008 BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 134 144 147 145 147 147 148 147 147
T2
Lumens 10,671 21,333 32,006 42,752 53,886 64,688 75,863 86,258 97,162 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 134 145 147 146 148 147 148 147 148
T2R
Lumens 10,969 21,929 32,901 43,948 55,392 66,496 77,984 88,670 99,879 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 138 149 151 150 152 151 152 152 152
T3
Lumens 10,777 21,545 32,324 43,177 54,420 65,329 76,616 87,114 98,127 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 135 146 148 147 149 148 149 149 149
T3R
Lumens 11,056 22,103 33,161 44,295 55,830 67,022 78,600 89,371 100,668 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 139 150 152 151 153 152 153 153 153
T4FT
Lumens 10,644 21,280 31,926 42,646 53,751 64,526 75,674 86,043 96,920 BUG Rating B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 134 144 146 145 147 147 148 147 147
T4W
Lumens 10,748 21,488 32,239 43,063 54,277 65,158 76,414 86,885 97,869 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 135 146 148 147 149 148 149 149 149
SL2
Lumens 10,704 21,400 32,106 42,886 54,054 64,890 76,100 86,528 97,467 BUG Rating B2-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 134 145 147 146 148 147 148 148 148
SL3
Lumens 10,525 21,042 31,570 42,169 53,151 63,805 74,828 85,082 95,837 BUG Rating B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 132 143 145 144 146 145 146 145 146
SL4
Lumens 10,675 21,342 32,020 42,771 53,908 64,715 75,895 86,295 97,204 BUG Rating B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 134 145 147 146 148 147 148 148 148
5NQ
Lumens 11,285 22,561 33,849 45,214 56,988 68,412 80,230 91,224 102,756 BUG Rating B3-U0-G1 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 142 153 155 154 156 155 156 156 156
5MQ
Lumens 11,278 22,547 33,828 45,187 56,954 68,371 80,182 91,169 102,694 BUG Rating B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 142 153 155 154 156 155 156 156 156
5WQ
Lumens 10,893 21,778 32,673 43,644 55,009 66,037 77,445 88,057 99,189 BUG Rating B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 137 148 150 149 151 150 151 151 151

SLL/SLR
Lumens 10,731 21,453 32,186 42,993 54,189 65,051 76,290 86,743 97,709 BUG Rating B2-U0-G3 B3-U0-G4 B3-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 135 145 148 146 149 148 149 148 148
RW
Lumens 11,090 22,171 33,263 44,431 56,001 67,228 78,842 89,645 100,978 BUG Rating B3-U0-G2 B4-U0-G2 B5-U0-G3 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G4 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 139 150 153 151 153 153 154 153 153
AFL
Lumens 10,953 21,897 32,852 43,882 55,309 66,397 77,868 88,538 99,730 BUG Rating B2-U0-G1 B3-U0-G2 B3-U0-G3 B3-U0-G3 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G4 B4-U0-G5 B4-U0-G5 B5-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 138 148 151 149 152 151 152 151 152
611
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 15
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Backlight Control Optics, Output Level 1, 4000K CCT, 70 CRI Backlight Control Optics, Output Level 2, 4000K CCT, 70 CRI Optics SA1A SA2A SA3A SA4A SA5A SA6A SA7A SA8A SA9A
T2BC
Lumens 3,639 7,299 10,947 14,537 17,743 21,263 24,840 28,510 32,106 BUG Rating B0-U0-G1 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 125 131 134 135 130 131 129 131 131
T3BC
Lumens 3,824 7,670 11,504 15,276 18,645 22,344 26,103 29,960 33,739 BUG Rating B0-U0-G1 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 132 137 141 142 136 137 135 138 138
T4BC
Lumens 3,698 7,417 11,125 14,772 18,030 21,607 25,242 28,972 32,626 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 128 133 137 138 132 133 131 133 133
RBC
Lumens 3,327 6,673 10,008 13,290 16,221 19,439 22,709 26,065 29,352 BUG Rating B0-U0-G1 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 Lumens per Watt 115 120 123 124 119 119 118 120 120
LBC
Lumens 3,327 6,673 10,008 13,290 16,221 19,439 22,709 26,064 29,352 BUG Rating B0-U0-G1 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 115 120 123 124 119 119 118 120 120
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 29 56 82 108 136 162 193 218 245
Input Current @ 120V 0.247 0.469 0.680 0.939 1.150 1.361 1.619 1.829 2.041 Input Current @ 208V 0.144 0.273 0.396 0.546 0.669 0.792 0.942 1.070 1.188 Input Current @ 240V 0.126 0.240 0.348 0.480 0.588 0.696 0.828 0.944 1.045 Input Current @ 277V 0.111 0.212 0.310 0.424 0.522 0.620 0.734 0.844 0.929 Input Current @ 347V 0.087 0.160 0.240 0.319 0.400 0.481 0.559 0.650 0.721 Input Current @ 480V 0.066 0.118 0.177 0.237 0.295 0.354 0.414 0.483 0.532 Optics SA1B SA2B SA3B SA4B SA5B SA6B SA7B SA8B SA9B
T2BC
Lumens 4,549 9,135 14,026 17,976 22,214 26,621 31,146 35,647 39,532 BUG Rating B0-U0-G1 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 118 125 132 125 124 125 125 126 126
T3BC
Lumens 4,780 9,599 14,739 18,890 23,344 27,975 32,730 37,460 41,542 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 124 132 139 131 131 131 131 132 133
T4BC
Lumens 4,622 9,282 14,253 18,267 22,574 27,052 31,650 36,224 40,172 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 119 128 134 127 126 127 127 128 128
RBC
Lumens 4,159 8,351 12,823 16,434 20,309 24,338 28,475 32,590 36,141 BUG Rating B0-U0-G1 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 107 115 121 114 114 114 114 115 116
LBC
Lumens 4,158 8,351 12,822 16,434 20,308 24,337 28,474 32,589 36,140 BUG Rating B0-U0-G1 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 107 115 121 114 114 114 114 115 116
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 39 73 106 144 179 213 249 283 314 Input Current @ 120V 0.320 0.610 0.890 1.220 1.500 1.781 2.110 2.385 2.671 Input Current @ 208V 0.185 0.352 0.513 0.704 0.865 1.027 1.217 1.380 1.540 Input Current @ 240V 0.161 0.307 0.449 0.615 0.756 0.898 1.064 1.210 1.347 Input Current @ 277V 0.141 0.270 0.395 0.539 0.665 0.790 0.934 1.069 1.185 Input Current @ 347V 0.111 0.207 0.314 0.414 0.522 0.629 0.729 0.847 0.943 Input Current @ 480V 0.083 0.152 0.229 0.303 0.380 0.457 0.532 0.620 0.686 612
McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 16
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Backlight Control Optics, Output Level 3, 4000K CCT, 70 CRI Optics SA1C SA2C SA3C SA4C SA5C SA6C SA7C SA8C SA9C
T2BC
Lumens 5,676 11,326 16,920 22,428 27,616 33,094 38,563 43,758 49,195 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 113 118 121 118 117 117 117 116 118
T3BC
Lumens 5,965 11,902 17,780 23,568 29,020 34,777 40,524 45,983 51,697 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 119 124 127 124 123 123 123 121 124
T4BC
Lumens 5,768 11,509 17,194 22,791 28,063 33,630 39,187 44,466 49,992 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 115 120 122 120 119 119 119 117 120
RBC
Lumens 5,189 10,355 15,468 20,504 25,247 30,255 35,255 40,004 44,976 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 103 108 110 108 107 107 107 106 108
LBC
Lumens 5,189 10,354 15,468 20,503 25,246 30,255 35,255 40,004 44,975 BUG Rating B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G2 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G3 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G4 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 B0-U0-G5 Lumens per Watt 103 108 110 108 107 107 107 106 108
Number of Light Squares 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Nominal Power (Watts) 50 96 140 190 236 283 330 377 417 Input Current @ 120V 0.427 0.803 1.176 1.606 1.979 2.352 2.782 3.155 3.528 Input Current @ 208V 0.248 0.465 0.672 0.929 1.136 1.343 1.601 1.808 2.015 Input Current @ 240V 0.218 0.407 0.586 0.814 0.993 1.171 1.399 1.578 1.757 Input Current @ 277V 0.192 0.359 0.512 0.718 0.872 1.025 1.231 1.384 1.537 Input Current @ 347V 0.144 0.286 0.418 0.573 0.704 0.836 0.991 1.122 1.253 Input Current @ 480V 0.108 0.209 0.301 0.418 0.510 0.602 0.719 0.811 0.903 613
Cooper Lighting Solutions
1121 Highway 74 South
Peachtree City, GA 30269
P: 770-486-4800
www.cooperlighting.com
© 2025 Cooper Lighting Solutions
All Rights Reserved.

Specifications and dimensions
subject to change without notice.

McGraw-Edison GALN Galleon II
PS500052EN page 17
October 14, 2025 1:51 PM
Control Options
0-10V (DIM)
This fixture is offered standard with 0-10V dimming driver(s). The DIM option provides 0-10V dimming wire leads for use with a lighting control panel or other control method.

Photocontrol (BPC, PR and PR7)
Optional button-type photocontrol (BPC) and photocontrol receptacles (PR and PR7) provide a flexible solution to enable “dusk-to-dawn” lighting by sensing light levels. Advanced control systems compatible with NEMA 7-pin standards can be utilized with the PR7 receptacle.

After Hours Dim (AHD)
This feature allows photocontrol-enabled luminaires to achieve additional energy savings by dimming during scheduled portions of the night. The dimming profile will automatically take effect after a “dusk-to-dawn” period has been calculated from the photocontrol input. Specify the desired dimming profile for a simple, factory-shipped dimming solution requiring no external control wiring. Reference the After Hours Dim supplemental guide for additional information.

Dimming Occupancy Sensor (SPB and MS/DIM-LXX)
These passive infrared (PIR) sensors are factory installed in the luminaire housing. When the SPB (FSP-321 or FSP-311) or MS/DIM (FSP-211) sensor options are selected, the occupancy sensor is connected to a dimming driver and the luminaire dims when no motion is detected. After a set period of time, the luminaire turns off, and when motion is detected, the luminaire returns to full light output. Both sensors are factory preset to dim down to approximately 10% power with a time delay of five minutes. The MS/DIM sensor requires the FSIR-100 programming tool to adjust factory defaults. The SPB sensor default parameters are listed in the table below and can be configured utilizing the Sensor Configuration mobile application for iOS and Android devices. The SPB/X is configured to control only the specified number of light squares (See SPB/X Availability Table below.) An integral photocontrol can be activated with the app for “dusk-to-dawn” control or daylight harvesting - the factory default is off. Four sensor colors are available; Bronze, Black, Gray and White, and are automatically selected based on the luminaire finish as indicated by the table below.

WaveLinx Wireless Control and Monitoring System
Operates on a wireless mesh network based on IEEE 802.15.4 standards enabling wireless control of outdoor lighting. WaveLinx (WPS2 to WPS4) outdoor wireless sensors offer passive infrared (PIR) occupancy and photocell for closed loop daylight harvesting. Sensors are factory preset to dim down to 50% after 15 minutes of no motion detected. Two lens options are available for mounting heights of 7’ to 40’. Use the WaveLinx mobile application for set-up and configuration. At least one Wireless Area Controller (WAC) is required for full functionality and remote communication (including adjustment of any factory pre-sets). WaveLinx Lite (WLS4 and WLS2) outdoor wireless sensors provide PIR occupancy and photocell for closed loop daylight harvesting. Sensors are factory preset to dim down to 50% after 15 minutes of no motion detected. Two lens options are available for mounting heights of 7’ to 40’. Use the WaveLinx Lite mobile application for set-up and configuration. WAC not required. WaveLinx Outdoor Control Module (WOLC-7P-10A) accessory provides a photocontrol enabling astronomic or time-based schedules to provide ON, OFF and dimming control of fixtures utilizing a 7-PIN receptacle. The out-of-box functionality is ON at dusk and OFF at dawn.

AirMesh (DIM10)
AirMesh integrated wireless controls system includes factory installed DIM10 Synapse control module and FSP-201 motion sensor; requires additional AirMesh components for operation. Contact Synapse at www.synapsewireless.com for product support, warranty and terms and conditions.

For mounting heights up to 15' (WPS2 and WLS2) For mounting heights up to 40' (WPS4 and WLS4) SPB sensor finish matched to luminaire finish
Luminaire Finish SPB Sensor
Finish*
WH White White
BK Black Black
GM Graphite Metallic Black
BZ Bronze Bronze
AP Gray Gray
DP Dark Platinum Gray
SPB/X Availability Table
Fixture Square Count Available SPB/X Square Count
1 Not Available
2 Not Available
3 Not Available
4 2
5 2 or 3
6 3
7 2, 3, 4 or 5
8 2, 3, 5 or 6
9 3 or 6
Occupancy Sensor
Setting MS/DIM SPB WaveLinx Lite
(WLS4 / WLS2)
WaveLinx
(WPS)
High Mode % 100% 100% 100% 100%
Low Mode % 10% 10% 50% 50%
Time Delay 5 min 5 min 15 min 15 min
Cut Off Delay 1 hr 1 hr Disabled Disabled
Photocell Enabled No No Yes Yes
*SPB bezel color automatically selected based on luminaire finish Default Program Settings (Out of the Box Functionality) 614
From:

To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A 10/20/25
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2025 7:51:16 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners:

I ask you to postpone any decisions re this CDP.

AB1014 has now been signed into law and on 1/1/26 – the City of Malibu will be allowed to “ask” Cal Trans to reduce the speed limits on PCH throughout the City. Given this development, I think it wise to take a few extra months to “ask” Cal Trans to come up with a plan for reduced speed limits between Serra Rd and County Line. Wouldn’t it make sense to first reduce the speed limits before putting in 15 miles of bike lanes, 42 new light poles, and other safety measures?? If you really want to make PCH safer, we just must reduce the speed limits first…period.

Secondarily, I found it almost impossible to find the locations for the 42 new light poles. I think it prudent for Cal Trans to put an exhibit together that is resident/layperson friendly so we can really see where these light poles are being installed and why.

Regards, Victoria Hand
(47-year resident)
615
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please be careful when viewing message Report Suspicious
From: Johnson, Anna@DOT
To: Lu, Janice C@DOT; Pe, Nancy N@DOT
Subject: Fw: CDP for EA 35420 - Malibu Hwy 1 Bike Lanes and Safety Improvements Date: Friday, October 24, 2025 9:19:59 AM
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Stevens, Eric@Coastal <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2025 10:13:36 PM
To: Johnson, Anna@DOT <[email protected]>
Cc: Alvarado, Marlene@Coastal <[email protected]>; Allen, Peter@Coastal <[email protected]>
Subject: CDP for EA 35420 - Malibu Hwy 1 Bike Lanes and Safety Improvements Hi Anna,
We appreciate Caltrans’ coordination with Commission staff related to the request from the Malibu Planning Commission to evaluate a continuous class II bike lane throughout the length of the project limits (from Serra Road to the Ventura County border). This is an important improvement that we very much support generally.

However, our understanding is that the continuous bike lane would result in the removal of 495 public parking spaces that would not be replaced as part of this project. Commission staff appreciates the safety concerns throughout this area and fully support implementation of traffic calming measures and improvements to bicycle and pedestrian safety. In the PCH Master Plan Feasibility Study, Caltrans identified measures to compensate and replace this lost parking, e.g. through new beach angled parking, etc., but it does not appear this project has the same such elements.

As we have said in prior comments on the safety study, public access to the coast for inland residents, the majority of who unfortunately have to drive at this time, is an important issue, and that access needs to be protected. Therefore, as much as we support the bike lane improvements, we cannot support removing almost 500 public parking spaces unless they are substantially replaced. We do of course support the expansion of bike lanes in any areas where public coastal access parking is not removed. It is unclear at this time if any of the 495 spaces do not serve coastal recreation (whether beach or inland trails) but we could work together on analyzing that question. We also continue to think that this project should include various traffic calming and other multi modal improvements to the greatest extent, and we look forward to working with you to try and get as many multimodal and traffic calming

EXHIBIT D
616
improvements in this project as we can. We also look forward to working with you on the PCH Master Plan process in order to improve the safety and protect public access for all users of the corridor.

Thanks,
Eric
Eric Stevens / California Coastal Commission / Southern California Transportation Program Manager 617
From: Lu, Janice C@DOT
To: Rebecca Evans
Cc: Johnson, Anna@DOT; Adam Pisarkiewicz; Pe, Nancy N@DOT; Lee, John K@DOT; Dominguez, Refugio@DOT; Liao, Andy C@DOT
Subject: FW: Caltrans Response for Item #3 & 6- CAP M project Date: Friday, October 24, 2025 12:03:57 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png
image005.png
image006.png
CCC-email-PCH-ParkingElimination.pdf
Cross-Section_Corral Cyn Sidewalk.pdf
Hi Adam and Rebecca,
Since Anna is off today, I am forwarding our responses for items #3 and #4 for Malibu to post today. Would you please forward this email to Tyler Eaton as well? Here is our response:

Item #3: Attached is the cross section file.

Item #6 – Caltrans has evaluated to implement a continuous class II bike lane within the project for both directions and it will not be feasible to implement a continuous class II bike lanes for the following reasons:
a. About 200-400’ feet approaching the intersection, due to having the left turn and right turn lanes, there are not enough space to stripe in a bike lane. ( example at Cross Creek going SB and NB direction.
b. Caltrans has reached out to the Coastal Commission (CCC) to discuss the possibility of eliminating the existing parking spaces to provide longer segments of Class II bike lanes.

Attached is the email we got from CCC. We will have to go through a very lengthy process and public engagement to conclude for a decision on eliminating the parking, which this project does not have the time for. The project funding will lapse to proceed through this process.

Thanks,
Janice Lu, P.E.

Project Manager
Senior Transportation Engineer
Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles - Program and Project Management Tel: (213) 215-2393
618
This Message Is From an External Sender
This message came from outside your organization. Please be careful when viewing message Report Suspicious‌
From: Tatiana Holden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2025 1:29 PM
To: Pe, Nancy N@DOT <[email protected]>; Assaad, Osama@DOT <[email protected]>; Haber, Lee J@DOT <[email protected]> Cc: Rob Duboux <[email protected]>; Nadia Fahoum <[email protected]>; Travis Hart <[email protected]>
Subject: CAP M project
Good afternoon, Caltrans Team, Below are the comments made last night by the Planning Commission. Please let us know if you’d like to discuss the comments and proposed responses in preparation to the November 3rd meeting. MOTION Chair ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerStart
ZjQcmQRYFpfptBannerEnd
Good afternoon, Caltrans Team,
Below are the comments made last night by the Planning Commission. Please let us know if you’d like to discuss the comments and proposed responses in preparation to the November 3rd meeting.

MOTION Chair Leonard moved and Commissioner Kamins seconded a motion to continue the item to the November 3, 2025 Regular Planning Commission meeting and to request Caltrans:
1) modify plan sheet SD-8 to revise the sign in the lower right-hand corner to delete “and museum” and add a sign for the Surfrider Beach / Adamson House turnoff (located across the bridge from the Malibu Lagoon State Beach);
2) applicant to dialog with Pepperdine University officials and the Malibu Country Estates Homeowners Association regarding the utility of a sidewalk extending from Malibu Canyon Road to John Tyler Road depicted on plan sheets L-5 to L-7 and the supporting retaining wall depicted on plan sheets L-6 and R-1;
3) applicant to bring back additional detail on the sidewalk section near Corral Canyon with dimensions to demonstrate the adequacy of width for both sidewalk and parking depicted on plan sheets L-12 to L-14;
4) applicant to assess whether only minimal intersection lighting will provide adequate light safety and reduce the number of new streetlights and update plan sheets E-27 to E-37 to show both existing and the proposed lighting;
5) append Condition No. 16 with, “Caltrans, the City Manager and Public Works Director shall work together to determine which portions of the project are feasible and shall be approved for nighttime construction work.”;
6) applicant to provide both the current proposed bicycle lanes and an alternative for bicycle lanes to be contiguous where possible and identify the related reduction of parking 619
spaces which would result, and
7) consensus for proposed improvements to guardrails, curb ramps, retaining walls at Heathercliff Road and at Busch Drive, intersection realignments, median reconstruction, vehicle pull out for law enforcement use and associated roadway improvements.

In addition to the formal motion, the Commission recommended:

Applicant should try to avoid impacts to residences from speed feedback signs with flashing lights;
The turn pocket on southbound PCH to Malibu Canyon Road should be lengthened; The Webb way turn pocket should be lengthened in both directions; PCH turn pocket heading southbound from Kanan should be lengthened; and Turn pocket for Trancas at Broad Beach Road should be lengthened.

Thanks,
Tatiana L. Holden
Assistant Public Works Director/Assistant City Engineer Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 338
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
620
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
D
E
S
IG N
07180003231
08-07-23
M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E
S
t
a 2006
+50
MATCH
LINE
S
ta
2 020+
5 0
Beg HMA DIKE (TYPE C)
Beg REMOVE AC DI

37.82'Rt2013+0.82
Beg HMA DIKE (TYPE F)

END HMA DIKE (TYPE C)
Beg GUARD RAILING DELINEATOR
Beg MGS (STEEL POST)(TYPE 11A LAYOUT)
END ALTERNATIVE IN-LINE TERMINAL TL-3

37.25'Rt2013+75.84

CORRAL CANYON BRIDGE
Beg VEGETATION CONTROL MAT (RUBBER OR FIBER)

37.62'Rt2013+15.84
(RUBBER OR FIBER)

END VEGETATION CONTROL MAT
JOIN ExistSIDEWALK CURB

END HMA DIKE (TYPE F)

END END ANCHOR ASSEMBLY (TYPE SFT-M)

END REMOVE GUARDRAIL

36.13'Rt2014+75.84
Beg HMA DIKE (TYPE E)
Beg REMOVE AC DIKE
2015+52.11
12 Beg REMOVE GUARDRAIL
2014+26.00
Beg ALTERNATIVE IN-LINE TERMINAL TL-3

37.81'Rt2013+25.83

END REMOVE GUARDRAIL
2016+40.81
Beg END ANCHOR ASSEMBLY (TYPE SFT-M)

END GUARD RAILING DELINEATOR
END MGS (STEEL POST)(TYPE 11A LAYOUT)

36.25'Rt2014+69.60
Beg REMOVE AC DIKE
2016+53.57

SAW CUT

EXISTING BRIDGE
END TYPE 1
2014+96.37
2017+81.85
(COLORED)SIDEWALK
Beg PERVIOUS Conc
Beg Conc CURB AND CUTTER

37.05'Lt2014+23.28
Beg TYPE 1
2013+94.48
(COLORED)SW
6'WIDE PERVIOUS Conc
2007+90.00
Beg ALTERNATIVE IN-LINE TERMINAL SYSTEM TL-3

END GUARD RAILING DELINEATOR
END MGS (STEEL POST)(TYPE 12A LAYOUT)

44.1'Lt2016+81.37
(RUBBER OR FIBER)

END VEGETATION CONTROL MAT
END ALTERNATIVE IN-LINE TERMINAL TL-3

45.2'Lt2017+31.37
Beg Trans RAILING (TYPE AGT)
Beg GUARD RAILING DELINEATOR
Beg MGS (STEEL POST) (TYPE 12A LAYOUT)

END CONCRETE BARRIER TRANSITION

42.5' Lt 2015+93.39
Beg VEGETATION CONTROL MAT (RUBBER OR FIBER)
Beg CONCRETE BARRIER TRANSITION
Beg REMOVE GUARDRAIL

41.9'Lt2015+81.39
ROUTE 1
END MGS (STEEL POST) (TYPE 12A LAYOUT)
END Trans RAILING (TYPE AGT)

42.5' Lt 2016+18.39
6 R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
7 8 9
2010
1 2
3 4
2015
6 7
8 9
2020
50-50.5"LINE PCH_ "
N86°35'27"W 812.46'
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
R
E
FUG
IO DO
M
INGUEZ
D
E
S
IG N
AN

THONY HUGH
E
S
NGUY
E
N HUA
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:53
24-OCT-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07180003231
07-27-23LAYOUT
SCALE: 1" = 50'
LHUGHES

ANTHONY
C57339
12-31-27
X/XX/2X
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT C ON C
CNOC
TSOP
TSOP
EKID
PSA H
PSA H
EKID
EKID
WH
WH

PIR AR- P ON C EKID C
RIPAR P
BU
RO
CK
TSOP
BU

SP A SP A H H
- AL 1
- AL 1
CNOC
H SP A
CONC
CONC
RAMP
VEN-1
VEN-1

END REMOVE GUARDRAIL

48.19'Lt2006+62.03
No. #

CURVE DATA
R À T L
6 3,000.00 11°30'46" 302.42 602.81

EXHIBIT E
621
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:41
24-OCT-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

CROSS SECTIONS

CORRAL CANYON SIDEWALK

1.5%
STATION 2014+23.28 TO STATION 2015+09.79
(TYPE B2-6)

AND GUTTER
Conc CURB
OG
4"
FG
(COLORED)

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

SIDEWALK
8'
(NO PARKING ALLOWED)

SHOULDER

12.2'
60'
R/W
LANE
11'
LANE
11'
MEDIAN
RAISED
3'
ROUTE 1
CL

0.75'
1'

1.5%
STATION 2015.09.79 TO STATION 2017+31.36
(TYPE B2-6)

AND GUTTER
Conc CURB
OG
4"
FG
(COLORED)

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

SIDEWALK
5' TO 8'
(NO PARKING ALLOWED)

SHOULDER
12' TO 12.2'
60'
R/W
LANE
11'
LANE
11'
MEDIAN
RAISED
3'
ROUTE 1
CL

0.75'
1'

1.5%
* STATION 2017+31.36 TO STATION 2017+65
(TYPE B2-6)

AND GUTTER
Conc CURB
OG
4"
FG
(COLORED)

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

SIDEWALK

6.0'

SHOULDER

13.6' TO 14'
60'
R/W
LANE
11'
LANE
11'
MEDIAN
RAISED
3'
ROUTE 1
CL

0.75'
1'
STATION 2017+31.36 TO STATION 2020+50
* (NO PARKING ALLOWED)
X-12
622
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
D
E
S
IG N
07180003231
08-07-23
13 MAT
CH
L
INE
S
t
a
2 020
+
50 M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E
S
t
a 2034
+50
(COLORED) SW6' WIDE PERVIOUS Conc
ROUTE 1
N86°35'27"W 812.46'
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
1 2 3 4 2025 6 7 8 9 2030 1 2 3 4
"PCH_50-50.5"LINE S86°36'10"W 1,096.56'
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
R
E
FUG
IO DO
M
INGUEZ
D
E
S
IG N
AN

THONY HUGH
E
S
NGUY
E
N HUA
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:51
24-OCT-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07180003231
07-27-23LAYOUT
SCALE: 1" = 50'
LHUGHES

ANTHONY
C57339
12-31-27
X/XX/2X
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT TSOP
TSOP

PAR-PIR
DIKE

AR-PIR P
HW
DIKE
DIKE
TSOP
UB
TSOP
VC VC
TSOP
TSOP
TSOP
UB
DIKE
DIKE
SP A H
TSOP

PMAC UND ORG
H SP A
HPSA

DN OU RGPMAC
1- AL
1- AL
1- AL
1- AL
H SP A
H SP A
CNOC
C ON C
C ON C
T
TSOP
TS
UB
EKID
623
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:45
24-OCT-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

1.5% (TYPE B2-6)

AND GUTTER
Conc CURB
OG
4"
FG
(COLORED)

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

SIDEWALK

6.0'

SHOULDER

13.6' TO 14'
60'
R/W
LANE
11'
LANE
11'
MEDIAN
RAISED
3'
ROUTE 1
CL

0.75'
1'
STATION 2020+50 TO STATION 2028+15.68

1.5%
STATION 2028+15.68 TO STATION 2031+97.37
(TYPE B2-6)

AND GUTTER
Conc CURB
OG
4"
FG
(COLORED)

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

SIDEWALK

6.0'

SHOULDER

9.5' TO 14'
60' TO 109.73'
R/W
LANE
11'
LANE
11'

DOUBLE STRIPED MEDIAN
3' TO 12'
ROUTE 1
CL

0.75'
(NO PARKING ALLOWED)
* STATION 2022+50 TO STATION 2025+00
* (TIME-LIMITED PARKING)
* STATION 2027+00 TO STATION 2028+15.68
(TIME-LIMITED PARKING)

1.5%
STATION 2031+97.37 TO STATION 2034+50
(TYPE B2-6)

AND GUTTER
Conc CURB
OG
4"
FG
(COLORED)

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

SIDEWALK

6.0'

SHOULDER

9.5' TO 11'
60' TO 109.73'
R/W
LANE
11'
LANE
11'

LEFT-TURN LANE
12'
ROUTE 1
CL

0.75'
(TIME-LIMITED PARKING)

CROSS SECTIONS
X-13

CORRAL CANYON SIDEWALK
624

TO REMAIN IN PLACE
Exist TEMPORARY RAILING (TYPE K)
CORRAL
CANYON
RD
MATCH
L
INE
S
t
a
2048
+
50 MA
T
C
H
L
IN
E
S
t
a 2034
+50
Beg HMA DIKE (TYPE E)
Beg REMOVE AC DIKE
2044+15.47
CONTRACT 07-313504)
(In CONSTRUCTION Under
SOLSTICE CANYON CREEK Br

END HMA DIKE (TYPE E)

END REMOVE AC DIKE
2036+5.46
SEE C-9
LOCATION 9

ADA CURB RAMP
Beg Conc CURB AND GUTTER
Beg REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER

89.35' Rt 2042+89.47
END Conc CURB AND GUTTER

END REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER

37.48'Rt2043+76.03
2046+64.06
L-14
(COLORED) SIDEWALK
END PERVIOUS Conc
END Conc CURB AND GUTTER

38.78' Lt 2039+75.87
ROUTE 1
1 1
1 1
1 EKID
H SP A
C ON C
TSOP
TSOP
EKID
DIKE
DECK
TSOP
TSOP
C ON C
DIKE
TSOP
POST
DIKE
DIKE
EKID
ASPH
HPSA
C ON C
H SP A

H SP A CORRAL CANYON RD
- AL 1
LA -1
LA -1
- AL 1
H SP A
HPSA
D
D
D
CC
TSOP
TSOP
OP TS
TSOP
TSOP
TSOP
TSOP

TSOP TSOP
C ON C
R/W
R/W
CORRAL
CANYON
RD
R/W
R/W
"P
C
H_50
-50
.
5 " 2037
+47
.52 BC
"P
CH_50
-
5 0
.
5 "
2 043
+22
.
61 EC
2035 6
7 8 9 2040 1
2 3
4 2045
6 7
8 50-50.5"LINE "PCH_
S75°37'10"W 611.96'
S86°36'10"W 1,096.56'
07 LA 1 46.9/62.9
R
E
FUG
IO DO
M
INGUEZ
D
E
S
IG N
AN

THONY HUGH
E
S
NGUY
E
N HUA
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:50
24-OCT-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-
07180003231
07-27-23LAYOUT
SCALE: 1" = 50'
LHUGHES

ANTHONY
C57339
12-31-27
X/XX/2X
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT 625
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE

POST MILES

TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.

TOTAL
SHEETS

LASTREVISION

STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.

Exp.

CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED

PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:49
24-OCT-2025

CHECKEDBY

REVISEDBY

DATEREVISED

PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE

RELATIVE BORDER SCALE

IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/5/2020 UNIT 1819 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE

DESIGNEDBY

CALCULATED-

1.5%
STATION 2034+50 TO STATION 2039+75.87
(TYPE B2-6)

AND GUTTER
Conc CURB
OG
4"
FG
(COLORED)

PERVIOUS CONCRETE

SIDEWALK

6.0'
(TIME-LIMITED PARKING)

SHOULDER
11' TO 12.3'
109.73' TO 111.35'
R/W
LANE
11'
LANE
11'

STRIPED MEDIAN

13.6' TO 14.4'
ROUTE 1
CL

0.75'

4.6' TO 5.4'

CROSS SECTIONS
X-14

CORRAL CANYON SIDEWALK
626
From: Avianna Palone -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:21 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Avianna Palone
ATTACHMENT 5
627
From: Auguste Miller
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: PCH safety and multi-modal access feedback Date: Friday, October 31, 2025 6:49:25 AM
Thank you
Let’s repave and reconstruct the western end of PCH from Cross Creek Rd to the Ventura County safely for all.

The Malibu Planning Commission needs to approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan ASAP so that funding is locked in and we get actual protected bike lanes sobre Esther than later. People can then feel safe biking along that route.

It can help all forms of transportation in terms of crash data as a result of streetscape safety redesign and even help start to maximize roadway throughput through multi-modal access. (Cars being the most ineficient urban transportation method spatially - see traffic vs.

Walking/bus/train etc). Infrastructure matters.

Best
Auguste
90291
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 28, 2025, at 20:10, Planning Commission
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Auguste,
Your correspondence has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners.

Follow-up: What would I want to happen?
How about being able to go Malibu on my own.

From my Venice beach house (Park Av and Speedway), I simply cannot visit Malibu as I do not want to own a car, refusing to add myself to a cardependent, dangerous, traffic jam & sprawl (extremely unsustainable) inducing system.

Ride my e-bike = suicidal
Walk = impossible
Bus = 1 per hr I believe if that, limited service and stops, nothing past sunset Train = non existent for a century
Rideshare = extremely expensive (even without usual traffic jams), good luck getting picked up
Talk about exclusionary…
Best regards,
Auguste Miller
90291
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 20, 2025, at 12:43, Planning Commission
<[email protected]> wrote:
629
Hi Auguste,
Your correspondence has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners.

Regards,
<image001.png>
Gail Duncan (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
From: Auguste Miller
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 11:52 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein
<[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>
Subject: PCH safety and multi-modal access feedback
Dear Malibu leadership, More than 59 people have died on PCH in Malibu over the last 15 years, and many thousands have been injured. True to its name, the road is designed like a highway, and has few or no facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Caltrans currently has a project to improve safety on PCH through Malibu, but it doesn’t have funding, and the scope has been watered down due to the city of Malibu not wanting to lose parking spaces. (!!) You are the worst. Do better.
630
Best,
Auguste Miller
90291
631
From:

To: Planning Commission
Subject: Make Malibu safe
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:31:33 PM
Sent from my iPhone
632
From: Amanda Kiang -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 6:11 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Amanda Kiang
633
From: Alaina Samuel -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 7:35:35 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH

Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

The Caltrans reconstruction project is our one chance to follow through with what everyone pledged – to fix PCH once and for all!
The funding is ready. The plans are ready. The community is ready. All we need is your approval.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Alaina Samuel
634
From: Auguste Miller
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: PCH safety and multi-modal access feedback Date: Tuesday, October 28, 2025 3:42:40 PM
Hi - thank you for your response.

Follow-up: What would I want to happen?
How about being able to go Malibu on my own.

From my Venice beach house (Park Av and Speedway), I simply cannot visit Malibu as I do not want to own a car, refusing to add myself to a car-dependent, dangerous, traffic jam & sprawl (extremely unsustainable) inducing system.

Hi Auguste,
Your correspondence has been distributed to the Planning Commissioners.

Regards,
<image001.png>
Gail Duncan (She/Her)
Administrative Assistant
Community Development Department
Office: 310.456.2489, ext. 309
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
635
<image004.png>
<image005.png>
<image006.png>
From: Auguste Miller
Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2025 11:52 PM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]> Subject: PCH safety and multi-modal access feedback
Dear Malibu leadership, More than 59 people have died on PCH in Malibu over the last 15 years, and many thousands have been injured. True to its name, the road is designed like a highway, and has few or no facilities for pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders. Caltrans currently has a project to improve safety on PCH through Malibu, but it doesn’t have funding, and the scope has been watered down due to the city of Malibu not wanting to lose parking spaces. (!!) You are the worst. Do better.

Best,
Auguste Miller
90291
636
From: Abby Burnam -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:13:08 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Abby Burnam
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FEAEj65SRmm4VciMuK24JwfJ1YxfExF5R5XNt0McQ4qrvSb78yQbuNt0-2Fd5VT5aX9dqO15kzbFSY5F1Qxx2g-2FqfIOhDExlqz2B3d9PBALOtC9e6F7T3ySHTQsOhU-2F1CrDKz-2FdqMI-2B8-2FFIJ2H2epr-2BQxxQ1wQDVWwQMKrOpsqhu7wY3D&c=E,1,AArziY9sQZvQBq7UTFbYb3Nd_pQSrR4bKJNZESOcXfUTc-sD3TW7c0cRaaCq1Sk5FFR_UmeF7n2r1uIJn65A5h9- dxkU5X1OrgLjcHCw016I0Pg,&typo=1>
637
From: Abbey Pleasant -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:20 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan

Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Abbey Pleasant
638
From: Ally Hannagan -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 6:44 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Ally Hannagan
639
From: angelo quiceno
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support cycling on PCH
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 6:23:55 AM
Sent from my iPhone
640
From: Amber Wolfe -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:26 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan

Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

And when the next person dies on PCH, will you be able to sleep comfortably knowing that your decision could have saved their life?
Please approve the Caltrans plan and give Malibu the safe highway it deserves.

Sincerely,
Amber Wolfe
641
From: Ava Samuel -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:20 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Ava Samuel
642
From: Arden Walter
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:09:47 PM
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Arden Walter
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FnX-2BL6xlXQEkiztEv1eYe9krUCi7CERV3AqEOM8bH7TPvDMdHzGxNEdpIEE138HK5fqBqgUKShrqzEgtlta7jnTOJ3qqL0tvZMdY-2FoVuKRnbpi6L2BTU3tQ1iY7p6Yw6xrB0Y0GjPsmBdMbHDYSaRueMAv5PewJMmoV8TGeB4xHb1B5a-2FIDYjf6zQou5p1xCt9&c=E,1,5o6IXjXIBlEwyGPmTMVgJxBbkSxQk6qjZ4BYe53c5kVu-6AX0YO-FraYW8fr8Jpe94ZNwolGHNkhW0oteBjMfeI3-unMZJ3A0Sx6IqS2KC9bq4Dlqc,&typo=1> 643
From: Angelee Valdez - angelee247
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:20:37 PM
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Angelee Valdez
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FuHd5ZEMkW2oij5x8BfrK34vkJwskV7rMxDI-2F6J6r6rLEpKtNof6SK3-2BMLrXzRthdndXfzAsDnGmUTGW2Edv2wGBFDS04iGieYWMWi3- 2BfBddJLsTtSN9f8zTepRGYLwDkdz-2BMwkKwRA0Fin2NYrfk75SmgChNJvw0eESWuR8YiU0- 3D&c=E,1,pfXxKU_fEXFM8sexQjN7kcXCX4Y72u8XikUjeq_F4c93EQTeCKIB6yi6okybIi_wiSRhGlqsaKAH51Af4MY4gcT7LudYmkTQKNqCWkLcgF8tb230hA,,&typo=1> 644
From: Ashley Resurreccion -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:51 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Ashley Resurreccion
645
From: Alicia Yu
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:21:43 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Alicia Yu
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FYy-2BBzhY8M-2BYXTBp5AhhiZp-2BzzQUf-2FQi3th0u1gaU7jJIsDTXJEEFwPry2hjWllef2-2BWuoTpEnDblD3hU8-2FP5TddxKi9-2FC2BsEKa4k23rBTXH2KzalHAPATNJdAfrigHF2ZSgbdoOsXDmhIqAch-2BHrBrILJF8q-2FhshZb0Xa3i-2FMms-3D&c=E,1,Mt9PIefJ5Nrq2G6Bo6vUk9P3wzPjhY1mtP0-0qhnZfhV3lKOT5tRJIcj4BX97wTq6_GX2WY5DS9-AN1gxe48z5fVPHop4OsIemgFJha&typo=1> 646
From: Anniah Smith -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:16 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH

Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Anniah Smith
647
From: Abbie Wolov -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:28 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Abbie Wolov
648
From: Alayna Weyandt -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:39 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Alayna Weyandt
649
From: Brooke Adderton -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:15 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Brooke Adderton
650
From: Bryanna Comilang -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:07 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Bryanna Comilang
651
From: brian OBrien
To: Rebecca Evans
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: comments in opposition to the approval of CDP 25-009 Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 10:00:16 AM
Dear Commissioners
I wish to object to the following provisions of CDP 25-009

1. The addition of 6,956 linear feet of sidewalks which include sidewalks that will eliminate parking access by the public to important beaches. Most importantly, the sidewalk on the ocean side of Coral beach cannot be constructed (except in a limited area) with adjacent parking due to the beach level drop adjacent to the sidewalk and where the parking would be due to the steep drop to the beach. The sidewalk is also proposed to have a curb which would not allow access to the parking area. Because Caltrans used its right of way as the boundary and not the actual topography most of the parking simply would not fit the area designated. The land designated is up to 5 feet below highway level.

2. The sidewalk adjacent to Pepperdine University between Kanan and John Tyler Way and its associated three foot retaining wall would hinder fire suppression equipment for access to a large supply of water that is regularly used in fires. This property is in LA county and not in Malibu and no hearing was noticed for LA county.

3. Fifteen miles of unprotected bike lanes that are not contiguous which "dump" bike travel onto the pacific coast hiway in many places would cause an unsafe situation and potentially cause many deaths. Other studies presented to the commission state that it would be 40-55% more dangerous than protected bike lanes and the number of deaths associated to it in the past have been reported to the commission.

4. New street lights are not placed near intersections and not placed for safety. In many cases there is adequate lighting already in place in essentially the same location. Unlighted intersections are the only places this lighting enhances safety. West Malibu is specifically designated as "rural" in the Malibu General Plan and is not urban as east Malibu is designated. Also, the street lights as designed are not Dark Star compliant as the staff report claims in that they are only shielded on the "house side" and cause unnecessary
glare which effects dark skies and associated effects on animals.

Brian O'Brien
652
From: Brielle Denbo -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:32 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Brielle Denbo
653
From: Bill Melcher -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 6:01 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Bill Melcher
654
From: Beckett Vine -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:28:45 PM
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Beckett Vine
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2Fn0a-2FQRFGmBxav96TTbyMiVmLx5W2Tb5RbYI3vt6QMJz8BUJ5reKBjH3M4SuyMW8QMPYr0ZmfpJKjB5HJ82cyDC79H1YdafeK5l8ZLmp2FcLHF3IsrgQRtDyieARMmMZJaA6V41hgk7QyrMRZCQ6U6QQt6ED1p-2FsTSLai9yCLk9GU-3D&c=E,1,1b46WyCOg-mqFKjLeH1ApzG52O4JmRCg4UraRgApaTuxmaxdiVJ8AxrU7FS9VKozGa5ps-c-uMa2oxFOnSZI6q-c_3h0njUjga87lCjvA,,&typo=1> 655
From: Bricelynn Shields -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:11:49 PM
Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Bricelynn Shields
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F1MgYBmyHSMqVKlS3qYyXI9i0vph4AXcjuGScCEBbbgkuXwzQohxoTawrgpelRpnN4RxVReIOj-2Bt78nppDu8wkYg2F82JjCouCNm6cKdt8FU3sg8IalhKE5jIB-2BpQFweCeJvITmBiu4tw-2BxQY8c1Iuk1VAevQ9iuA8R7VAq60xeItzMPxQwDvH-2FgmCp06Lk2Fxz&c=E,1,ee_fYNSfT50- ABU3CRGyFfJmIMdwqWSVvdNNAEK637kLKyonrK7mWMYjn_6oO_DFK0_D6ievFhzZ7romf63IXJPCGTpVK1iaUanoGCxihTiLw4Zc-0GPeQ,,&typo=1> 656
From: Brigitte Ahrens
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:38:53 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Brigitte Ahrens
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FeY-2BPyGEuCclEgb-2FGHJ2SSS1n5cgx-2BMHbo40NLqAEfq8P1zPol2BXicYE322M89sl0KsPH4gHulzLWmocgAkbBre6w9Cah90YXlFJjzQxt6a2xnSWAE8vJpsQUlqIq-2BacQZnNpzv4kjUicNA-2BRVrB-2FGPphyof5bhP0PFd6- 2FJeGgXI-3D&c=E,1,aYdSV4BaiiZ1Zj0ADq1Uzt-Kn-iiGxHzJnGx8oLig4CHGBLqg-5zYys0pTjRW7S1tgV__scevBe4ctL-KlKwnSVpF0GH3zRaVTweVB4eiisyw,,&typo=1> 657
From: Beate Nilsen -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:21 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
I was hit at PCH and Cross Ck in the 70s, which I described to the council in a letter today and forwarded to you; Allow the City and Caltrans to adopt “urban arterial” or “main street” design standards, not highway standards. Please approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan.

Prioritize lives over delays by saying YES to rebuilding PCH safely, responsibly, and collaboratively. We can continue to refine the details, but we cannot afford to lose the funding and start from zero.

We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Beate Nilsen
658
From: Bob Emrich
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 11:01:28 PM
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Bob Emrich
659
From: Cody Hoyt -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:41 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Cody Hoyt
660
Planning Commission
Re: Item 4A - Caltrans proposal November 3, 2025
Dear Commissioners,
I only just received the Memorandum from Rebecca Evans and do not have time to write my own response to the CalTrans proposed changes to PCH.

I agree with the comments that Scott Dittrich has sent to you all, as follow:

The Caltrans proposal has many fundamental errors and, does not solve the problem of high speed drivers, and in many ways changes the character of Malibu without making anyone safer. This is what happens when you get a design from urban planners.

First, the methodology is wrong. Caltrans never solicited input from those who use the highway, though this would be extremely difficult. Consider that on the first part of this stretch closest to Pepperdine, Malibu residents predominate. After that it is an eclectic mix of Malibu, Ventura, and Oxnard drivers who regularly use the highway, along with surfers, those heading to beaches and parks such as Sycamore Canyon, and those avoiding the 101. But none of these drivers are the problem.

The main problem is those traveling at high rates of speeds. The sheriff has arrested a few of these traveling at speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour. Narrowing lanes and additional lighting will not deter such speeding. None of Caltrans proposals would have made a difference to the tragic accident which killed the 4 Pepperdine girls, which, of course, is not even within the scope of the proposed work. Narrowing lanes may reduce speeds by normal drivers.

They will have no impact on someone who decides to drive at 100 miles an hour.

The secondary issue is that of bike lanes. Painted lanes may work OK on streets where speed limits are much less than on PCH, and while they may provide a feeling of security, you still have 5,000 pound trucks traveling within a couple feet of a 20 pound piece of carbon and aluminum. I would urge using a physical barrier of some type, though because Caltrans does not own enough right of way in some places, it would be discontinuous, creating other issues.

Our Vision Statement must be followed. This means NOT installing lights. Period. It means not installing sidewalks where there is no demand. Period. (In front of Pepperdine is a perfect example). It means not installing useless Ts that will only make merging onto PCH more dangerous. Period.

You must reject this proposal and come up with alternatives that will make PCH safer without sacrificing the rural character that we must steward for future generations.

Caltrans has lost their way. Their proposals in Western Malibu will change the character of our city forever. We are close to our speed cameras being operational. Should we not wait and see their impact on those traveling at excessive speeds. Instead of spending 42 million with stop-gap measures Caltrans should create a permanent plan which includes purchasing enough right of way to allow for continuous Class IV bike lanes and adequate parking for visitors without narrowing lanes.

Please especially respect our Vision Statement and the Malibu Dark Skies ordinance:

No light poles in Western Malibu.

No sidewalks where they are not necessary.

CalTrans's proposal would change Malibu forever.

Remember Don't Change Malibu, let Malibu change YOU!
Vote for the residents.

Thank you,
Charlotte Frieze Jones
661
From: Cooper Davis -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:15 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Cooper Davis
662
From: Cassady Davidson -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:33 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill Dear City,
It is time to say "NO" to people dying because of convenience, which comes in the form of excessive speeding on PCH.

Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Cassady Davidson
663
From: Colin Bogart -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:02:00 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill

Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Colin Bogart
664
From: Caroline King
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Caltrans PCH Safety Project
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 1:41:43 PM
Dear Members of the Malibu Planning Commission,
I’m writing as a local cyclist who regularly rides on PCH, and I’m urging you to approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Project at your November 3 meeting.

Every time I ride on PCH, I’m reminded how dangerous it can be. There’s little room for error, and too often, we read about another preventable crash or fatality along this stretch of highway. The improvements in this plan — protected bike lanes, new sidewalks, lighting, and guardrails — aren’t just “nice to have.” They are essential to keeping people alive, whether they’re biking, walking, or driving.

This project represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make PCH safer for everyone who uses it. If we lose this funding, Malibu could wait years, even decades, for another chance like this. We can continue to refine and improve details later, but we can’t afford to lose the resources and momentum we have right now.

Please choose action over delay. Approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan and help make PCH a safer, more responsible road for all who live, work, and travel along it.

Thank you for your time and for considering the safety of everyone who depends on this road. 665
From: Chris Deleau
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Tyler Eaton; Didier Murillo; Anna Mattioli; Don Schmitz; Scott Hoeft; AK Munaim Subject: 2025.11.03 Item 4.B. (CDP No. 23-034) Applicant Response to Neighbor Correspondence Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 11:54:17 AM
Attachments: Item 4.B. CDP No. 23-034 Applicant Response to Neighbor Comments.pdf 2025-10-31 25-046 dRONE EXHIBIT.pdf
Importance: High
To Whom it May Concern,
Please find the attached correspondence from the project applicant for tonight's Planning Commission hearing.

Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
666
1 November 3, 2025

City of Malibu
Attn: Hon. Chair Leonard, Vice Chair Riddick
& Planning Commissioners
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd.

Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Item 4.B. - 2025.11.3 Planning Commission Hearing (CDP No. 23-034). BluƯtop 1, LLC (Applicant) Response to Neighbor Correspondence
Honorable Chair Leonard, Vice Chair Riddick and Planning Commissioners, This correspondence addresses concerns raised by the applicant’s neighbors.

Below is a summary of issues raised by the attorneys for neighbors Tamara and Mark Mackey, and Unknowingly Devolving, LLC (Neighbors).

Neighbor’s Comment #1: The application remains incomplete because the applicant did not consult with the CA State Lands Commission (SLC) in accordance with LIP 10.5(C) and

13.6.2. Applicant’s Response to Neighbor’s Comment #1: There can be no question, whatsoever, that the applicant’s project will not be anywhere near state trust lands (Tidelands). Local Implementation Plan (LIP) sections 10.5(C) and 13.6.2 apply only to projects that are proposed ‘along the shoreline or fronting a beach.’ This requirement does not apply to bluƯtop properties that are adjacent to and high above the shoreline. The applicant’s development is not proposed on or along a beach; rather, it is proposed on a bluƯ approximately 70’ above the Ocean & beach. While city staƯ did request SLC clearance in its initial incomplete letter, the applicant brought this mistake to the attention of the City Planner, Raneika Brooks, and the city agreed that SLC review was not needed for a bluƯ top lot and that the project could proceed without it. BluƯ top development is not development ‘along the shoreline.’
Neighbor’s Comment #2: The applicant and the City Failed to invite parties with property interests to join as co-applicants.
667
2 Applicant Response #2: LIP 13.6.2 does not require the city to invite easement holders to be co-applicants unless their property interest, e.g., an easement, may be ‘aƯected’ by the applicant’s project.

LIP 13.6.2 states in pertinent part as follows, “All holders or owners of any other interest of record in the aƯected property [AƯected Property Interest] shall be notified in writing of the permit application and invited to join as co-applicant.” It is conceded by the applicant that when new development is proposed within the easement of another which could impact the easement, that the easement holder should be invited to be a co-applicant. The purpose of this provision is two-fold, first it is to allow easement holders to benefit from development and improvements within their easements (e.g., receive permit rights to a road being constructed within their road easement); and second, it allows easement holders to participate in the process to ensure that the project applicant is not proposing any development within the easement that might negatively impact their current or future use and enjoyment of that easement (e.g., to prevent an applicant from potentially building a wall within an access easement).

The LCP does not require the city to invite an easement holder to be co-applicant unless the applicant is proposing development within the easement. The project applicant is not proposing any development within the portion of the easement that is the common driveway; therefore, the city acted properly in not extending an invitation to neighbors.

Neighbor’s Comment #3: The Project is in a stream ESHA buƯer, must process a Variance application and must comport with LIP 4.7.1 - limiting the Project development area to 25% of the total lot area.

Applicant Response #3: Project development is not located within 100’ of any ESHA or ESHA BuƯer. Upon receiving this comment from the neighbors, the applicant reviewed its own project plans and City GIS files and conducted site reconnaissance to verify the precise location of the stream ESHA and ESHA buƯer. It is acknowledged that the applicant’s architect had previously erred in using City GIS data, without field verification to properly delineate ESHA BuƯer boundaries. The City’s GIS mapping was not accurate; therefore, the resulting ESHA and ESHA BuƯer locations were not accurately reflected on the applicant’s plans. Last week the applicant retained Surveyor Chris Nelson to survey the boundaries of the stream and measure 100’ from said stream to determine the ESHA buƯer. His survey map is attached hereto as EXHIBIT #1 (ESHA Delineation) and clearly shows that the applicant’s entire property is located further than 100’ from the stream; therefore, the applicant’s project is not subject to the Development Standards found in Chapter 4 (ESHA) 668
3 of the City’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP). The neighbor’s assertions were based upon the inaccurate buƯer shown on the applicant’s plan set. This error has been corrected by the applicant and the neighbor’s assertions addressed.

Neighbor Comment #4 – Cultural Resources.

Neighbor Comment #4.A. The Project does not comply with the 30’ buƯer requirement from the northern property line, needed to protect cultural resources. The 30’ buƯer requirements is noted in the City’s ARC Review Sheet.

Applicant Response#4.A. The city ‘Review Sheet’ referenced in and attached to the neighbors’ correspondence was applicable only to the excavation permit for soils and percolation testing, which excavation has long been completed. The 30’ buƯer condition referenced in that review sheet is not applicable to the pending Coastal Development Permit. Neither the project archeologist, Dr. Matthew Boxt, nor the City, have recommended or conditioned approval of the residence project (CDP) to provide a buƯer.

No cultural resources were found during excavation and percolation testing by the project geologist and septic engineer. Excavation on site was monitored by Dr. Boxt, and spoils were sifted and analyzed. No In Situ cultural resources were discovered during excavation.

Prior to excavation, the only cultural remnants found on the property were found on the surface of the ground in the northernmost part of the property. During his initial site walk Dr.

Boxt found it most likely that these remnants were not part of any in-situ sensitive site, but rather, were the remains of oƯ-site resources damaged by past construction of PCH or other nearby development, which made their way to the property by process of erosion and redeposition. Finding no further cultural resource materials on site during the excavation testing, Dr. Boxt concluded that the applicant’s property was not likely to contain any sensitive cultural or historical resources of any significance.

Neighbor Comment #4.B. The Applicant’s project failed to comply with LIP 11.2 & 11.3. The Project therefore requires additional archeological testing and CEQA review.

Applicant Response #4.B. The Applicant’s property is not located on an oƯicially mapped cultural resource site. This is undisputed. Mapping and studies contained at Cal State Fullerton’s library confirm that the boundaries of CA LAN 29 are not located on or immediately adjacent to the applicant’s property.

Dr. Boxt investigated the applicant’s property and found no in situ cultural resource materials of any historic or cultural value on site. Dr. Boxt monitored excavation for geologic and percolation testing and sifted the spoils from this testing and analyzed the test pits looking for any indicators that the site may have historic cultural significance. Dr. Boxt found that 669
4 the site was not historically significant and did not appear to contain any in situ artifacts of historic or cultural significance.

LIP 11.3(C) states, “Where the Initial Evaluation reveals that the project will not have an adverse impact on an important cultural resource or cause substantial adverse changes as defined by CEQA, no further Cultural Resources Review shall be required.” [Bold Italic Emphasis Added]
Dr. Boxt made the determination that the project would not have any substantial adverse impact upon any important cultural or historical resource, accordingly, at this point, no further review was required by the LIP or under CEQA.

The neighbors argue that the standard conditions of approval which include construction education and monitoring related to cultural resources [Generally] are site specific “mitigation measures,” that should rightfully be included in a CEQA document such as an Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND); however, these conditions of approval are standard in ALL permits for development in Malibu and are prophylactic in nature and purpose. These conditions of approval are not mitigation measures, notwithstanding the city planner’s mischaracterization of these conditions as mitigation measures.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a project's impact on cultural resources is considered significant if it causes a "substantial adverse change" to a cultural resource. This is determined on a case-by-case basis, often defined as materially impairing the physical characteristics that convey a resource's significance, including demolition, alteration, or destruction of the resource or its immediate surroundings. As has been stated repeatedly, Dr. Boxt has determined that the applicant’s property does not contain any culturally significant resources, nor is it anticipated. It follows that there cannot be a potentially adverse impact upon a significant cultural resource if the resource does not exist in the first instance.

One of the applicant’s neighbors who resides immediately east of the property, at 32960 PCH, claims to have unearthed sensitive cultural materials on his property. Attorneys for “Unknowingly Devolving, LLC” provide photographs of what are alleged to be a native Chumash Mortar and Pestle. What is significant is the fact that these items were photographed on a kitchen table, their origins and nature completely unknown. What is known is that the owner of this property processed and pulled at least four (4) permits for development on that property from 2008 until around 2014. A phase I archeology study was conducted on the Property in the early 2000s prior to the approval of these permits. The study found no significant cultural resources on site. Each of the three development projects/remodels permitted and constructed on this property were found to be 670
5 Categorically Exempt from CEQA and standard conditions of approval for resource monitoring were approved. It is unclear when or where this neighbor may have found the items shown in the submitted photo, if the neighbor even found them, or whether these items are in fact legitimate Native American relics. None of this can be confirmed. The photos and claims made by this neighbor are wholly unreliable and do not constitute substantial evidence. Similarly, the neighbors residing at 33006 PCH, immediately north of the applicant’s property, claim to ‘recall’ that they ‘heard something’ about native American burials on the property to the north of theirs (33004 PCH). Review of records at Cal State Fullerton’s archives does not support the claims of either neighbor. A 1999 Phase I Study undertaken by Dr. Chester King found no burials on that property, contrary to the neighbor’s assertion. Another study was done for 33016 PCH immediately northwest of the applicant’s property and directly west of 33004 PCH. No cultural resources were found on that lot either.

In sum, there are no records or other evidence to substantiate the claims of the neighbors who oppose the applicant’s project; rather, documented records at Cal State Fullerton confirm that the cultural site known as LAN 29 is limited to the boundaries of 33004 PCH (no Burials), some 300’ north of the applicant’s property.

Notwithstanding the lack of significant cultural resources on the applicant’s property, the city has required, and the applicant has committed to complying with, the city’s standard monitoring conditions found in the staƯ report and resolution of approval. Should any significant cultural resources be found during construction, the project would immediately stop, and appropriate study and action would be taken.

Neighbor Comment #5: The City Improperly uses the CDP application process to resolve code enforcement issues.

Applicant Response #5: Coastal Act compliance is required when permitting development either after-the-fact or permitting the removal of unpermitted development. Not only is the use of the CDP permit process appropriate, but it is also required by LIP Sec. 13.3.

Neighbor Comment #6: The Project’s landscaping encroaches into protected primary views.

Applicant Response #6: MMC 17.40.040(A)(17) protects impacts to the protected primary views of neighbors. The applicant’s project proposed trees that “had the potential’ to grow taller than 18’ and impact the private views of the neighbors. Standard conditions of approval require that any trees or other vegetation be pruned to avoid this result. That said, the applicant has agreed to substitute tree species on its landscaping plan, which at 671
6 maximum growth will not exceed 18’. The applicant’s updated landscaping plan was provided to the City Planning Department on October 20, 2025. This comment has been addressed.

Neighbor Comment #7: The project cannot proceed forward until such time as the conditions stated in the Conditional Certificate of Compliance (COC) have been complied with.

Applicant Response #7: Early in the CDP process the applicant complied with the conditions of approval of its COC. The City Cleared the Conditions, establishing compliance with the Subdivision Map Act. This comment has been addressed.

Neighbor Comment #8: The project negatively impacts protected Public Bluewater views and is therefore not consistent with LIP Sec. 6.4. (see page 28 of its October 17, 2025, letter from the neighbor’s attorneys).

Applicant Response #8: The neighbors’ legal counsel conflates and mistakes private view protection with public view protection. Counsel presents a photo of story poles for the proposed residence as viewed from 33006 PCH (immediately north of the applicant’s project). This vantage point is a ‘private view’ not a public view. Public view assessment is undertaken from a designated Public Scenic Area, such as Pacific Coast Highway. City staƯ visited the property and took photographs of the property from Pacific Coast Hwy. The project is not visible from Pacific Coast Hwy, from the Public Beach, or from any public parks or trails nearby and therefore does not impact public views. It is only visible from adjacent private properties. Private view protections apply only to portions of a proposed home that is over 18’ in height. The applicant’s proposed home is less than 18’ in height; therefore, there are no impacts to the neighbors’ protected private views either.

Conclusion
In conclusion, the applicant’s project is consistent with the City’s Local Coastal Program and all other applicable laws and regulations. We agree with the findings in the city’s staƯ report and appreciate the Commission’s time and consideration of the applicant’s project.

Best,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.

Christoper M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
672
673
From: Carmel Abramov
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:46:00 PM
Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

The Caltrans reconstruction project is our one chance to follow through with what everyone pledged – to fix PCH once and for all! The funding is ready. The plans are ready. The community is ready. All we need is your approval.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Carmel Abramov
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FO86UI1e-2FtBfqUYqevxYvgbB3HfVJjA8XXVhjNEJY-2B-2BgfZ-2BOtG4AGFGUOyYQmYhpYOBsmbt8tg4FQqybRNx8k3WYla6Vuk-2BdA3iCSp2F5YEx9sB514VQ7OLgM8NGTq6Y9FrC0VLe7jNS9l8QKOpjMnBTGZFN441VRMk2MpxaXHcJ8-3D&c=E,1,0SublmHf7_sYI7cS9xdJ-trMVc86DOW5423guqYqDDafYCIMbjqKP5LsvtL9bCavE9tPIcl7KsQLb0Z4LG3eKb21sNh_aS5jUBQ5Eu2IqKQSIyjmGtdk34fqw,,&typo=1> 674
From: Chelsea Cook -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:07 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Chelsea Cook
675
From: Carter Corsetti -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:17:09 PM
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Carter Corsetti
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FUK1AEkJb16QnSWrGLuNzLBs9XT14ps8OCm73T91oO1PFZhnkmMi0zAZlCZe-2FouI7evWwjdxoRW6p2OYfZgn-2FjJDNfhUNrfw-2FW2OXkqplwAH6RReLn6Er8eZ2FR1MFQ4ohgEDCgdwQBW1Fb-2FBkv7mVLe1xrgH6-2Bo7M0aDIhtLMBv0- 3D&c=E,1,yg34YOtZWYI6XHtXPiqJPILCfQlyxraxGtkYbBcwVq0kv6txZWiRlR0u9NKl8a2m8qAibAz4_a8mXX_u8yHgiAMlD_g3yRK4sb6tgkQaElRkY_tyS7uVp4Ddeng,&typo=1> 676
From: Carolina Caruso -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:06:57 PM
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Carolina Caruso
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FEeaanhnje-2FiMI-2BYi-2FvKNl8XZjmP2ODllxiXM8-2BWDu1Pv0bK1R7bda3uS70GZ4tqxeRxSvPSAfpBzB4cGYL9ILISYU7u6gnwh9LJ1EhEiXCbJkB2FsUQUJHWP0VXfK6c0N-2BSjSkQ-2Bj4L6c3Hn838wOxKSK9KYkXaxqBzqJ7BCim5U-3D&c=E,1,9Pl_w8U-IkopYZjCzSqcePIcSxjCQKoi5tt_sczksBh0u_G66qd52ivx-CR04Tl5rL2z1OLTaK31i8nMqmELGy2LENjoWOTGYUgVe7BXHBRzjzt&typo=1> 677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
From: Adam Pisarkiewicz
To: Rebecca Evans
Subject: Fw: EA 35420 - sign plans (CDP 25-009)
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:12:45 PM
Attachments: 0735420oa001.pdf
0735420ob001.pdf
0735420ob002.pdf
Hi Rebecca,
Attached are the updated sign plans reflecting the Commission's requested changes. I don't think we have received these from Caltrans yet. Is it possible to send these out as Correspondence to the Commission before the meeting tonight? Thanks,
Adam
From: Johnson, Anna@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:03 PM
To: Adam Pisarkiewicz <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: EA 35420 - sign plans
I’m still confirming with Janice whether we officially responded to the sign item via email, but while we’re checking in that Janice just sent me these 3 attachments which I think show the changes that were made based on the commissioners’ request.

Get Outlook for iOS
From: Lu, Janice C@DOT <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:00:37 PM
To: Johnson, Anna@DOT <[email protected]>
Subject: EA 35420 - sign plans
687
Attached are the sign plans.

Thanks,
Janice Lu, P.E.

Project Manager
Senior Transportation Engineer
Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles - Program and Project Management Tel: (213) 215-2393
688
689
690
691
From: Catherine Tallman -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 4:22 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Catherine Tallman
692
From: Chloe Osmers -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:46 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan

Dear City,
The change for PCH is such a problem and a problem that took the lives of four of my friends
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Chloe Osmers
693
From: Constantina Vlachoulis -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:11 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Constantina Vlachoulis
694
From: Cynthia Rose -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:42 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
On behalf of Santa Monica Spoke and the Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance.

We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Cynthia Rose
Santa Monica Spoke
Director
695
From: Coco Thomas
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:05:14 PM
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Coco Thomas
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FfwkZSkYXThdAMmvZdwngEYdZTp32ViiKrZrVRaL6roTAZugP7SuUtv7etZJ06nQkv6u8S7L1EhMEaZBR27qX6wmYj-2FjIKBalNsiQqUT8FdLxXYYQV2FdX2sCCt7RD29aq5Lnj244LbIlfVp460bTHb8-2BJM9IAKkPXws6mQPdLpP0- 3D&c=E,1,23Xty9MvYuzgeStKmvfh_TILi_RchexeBtWrY4gfT3UDO9j81eLu9dztBd67HoDd7NmXvdPffViu2RIhQZMOsu1rVt1zvDO3L6JrDBRIBp1VESpIg6wsrPEDA,,&typo=1> 696
From: Cierra Villanueva
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:45:02 PM
Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Cierra Villanueva
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FiTiHGSiV7QPukB-2FnCnSaHsQqrNhWOBWVR7eNTJemSg7B0UOIWyNVfU4j4m57tB92FSQMubUKpCncz6dXgtvzwq5prNIZzAXNyHYpcBiy2BlxYKzkU3jMcVe1IE2ZFKTSY4VIt4GkVncZX-2BaezB-2BgogJVH-2BMD3oi4R5fCq-2FOOvQkM3D&c=E,1,t7aY418Zd3IHx8e7E0LUA6NqtIJkctCAGV8ROSaXEz6S96JzTKsZNJKiERVx2gOhoEcTLHUkv7buuxVHYVjg_RqJRkPv6akRlpgtQ1CXwp7lYc,&typo=1> 697
From: Caden Naran
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:49:35 PM
Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Caden Naran
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FEWKUMMOS-2FtL7Chv7tVCLiB5Whi-2BdxdT5Haao-2FHo9KL5SGW4BQgRKj0dyC6l5B3dLGZ8mQXvTAHBYAS-2FfMRzOSxwfRNOemI45Uz5MB2Bk9iyfOGBXVPCeaUQdX-2FmS6fYeDSV-2BufxDIaMNjwbyN2AkNDEPA4f746WGXB6bHJ39aOhg-3D&c=E,1,zCYgvhtCYpfGE7FIAXPBadOHi9CfBTgjXMzCvd_4NIBoYUrQ9XltqB1QGElLGAgZe4AQESD_OiFjrqJDDM5NdteA3tWJUI4rkHGAH35gPSdCg,,&typo=1> 698
From: Cristian Lopez -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:51:36 PM
Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

The Caltrans reconstruction project is our one chance to follow through with what everyone pledged – to fix PCH once and for all! The funding is ready. The plans are ready. The community is ready. All we need is your approval.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Cristian Lopez
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F6-2FChlsi-2By9DMzy8sIfrrWH0yXEmNFObKDD4i-2F1zLSjvs2BBv21oPyzfkGYwPfrzPzi70Q82OyU938QSM6Ztz3LkBtlzcRVUeaFmZUptRWGhTdptzQwY7KfyMK56mj44Z-2FwBTTxG6KiSICTPf2BtwXUBSNwXFWTBoIHwPmtKWn3L10-3D&c=E,1,V1099k_cqXllIJCJprW25VBDWajMaoOppccoKhiZ2dK1B8_vhQe47RukSQbTSu3w6_baW4_lrU3drfA9Kcn-l5Nzfa8ApeoojieFaXbWIu6z0Ptx6xJ3N_N&typo=1> 699
From: Cindy Mc Loughlin
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:10:08 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Cindy Mc Loughlin
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FTpvEno0cfIks-2FNX-2Bv2eFrsV2eMvdlYzu9ptgJ5uwhhzLsx9ZXsCnSckODLnkdL2zmAsrYFvgL3MrbBrS7C-2FSvlzdQsAi57Jlg1iyt8JiozfIZ1UG7HIVCz2Fml3Sgya4OoJCzie7yeOEeAjQBUl80pBIID2MvYrG4XnAnCOI5sZ2BQFC39d593iamhAd3JQz5O&c=E,1,_NY9EIJ_KY_vZlQTjN3Hhl69AHeyi_QXKRnjYH8GVR25c1hW0Lj06peHuGuSLISL5toH0i2k6ED9Aj_c6cs2lD1Ut2- WXcTghkxBBSSa91mr&typo=1>
700
From: Colin Warn -
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 4:24 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Colin Warn
701
From: Carlos Piñón -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 12:58 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
Prioritize safety over "urban beauty." Please support this safety program and help save lives that keep being taken away at this section on PCH.

We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Carlos Piñón
702
From: Celeste Rivera -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:02 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
My son, Eddie Buddy RiveraIV 1/26/2025 Lost his life on the PCH after working numerous hours with recovering to help restore the palisade Malibu fires Sycamore Canyon Cove narrow turn needs to be taken and added preventative measures for safety so another life will not be lost and taken from Family as we lost my baby my only son it could have been prevented
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Celeste Rivera
703
From: Daniela Ferrara Fontes -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:37 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan

Dear City,
Please fix PCH!
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Daniela Ferrara Fontes
704
From: Dimitri George -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:25:39 PM
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Dimitri George
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FGP-2BA2rPSd9IVeNUYpcmsktLPiYWaU3mewnXV5bGds-2BOiCxYmQxyMb3iC0H1mAmWNr0FjdaLdIs3MqR3KxqV-2F3IDfUKpL7uRl7rJjO8p2FzBXGG2JJ7aOngVfiR3iwF2IYYFe4mV5sglxTg9HoVs2PD4ixzHnUwwRVqoznwELntC8-3D&c=E,1,GOZDaoSB6- TcNlkHjY5DbN20y6nqx07RO5I5zFVBJ7PKb2MU4mx2ayRNSPaehkkaTz0EPIpSivVHj7ibM-w7V_7ZqnuZpUGvhbmHfKNXNATrZRghTA,,&typo=1> 705
From: Dennis Mc Cullough -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 12:51 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
As a cyclist and a motorist I would very much welcome your attention and approval for supporting safer opportunities for cyclist and more confident driving considerations along PCH as LA rebuild this amazing landscape.

We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Dennis Mc Cullough
706
From: Diego Martinez -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 12:47 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Diego Martinez
707
From: Cashel Wilson -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:08:04 PM
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Cashel Wilson
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FUPIK9kwx1pBKDHJacWhN5neSWIh9hKsqperyBZvyHpY4VkiYtvFC5lZtee5DTa7Nrbf92qQidZoD9vUKe20oR2IZjIs8E-2BbOxVw1pygxXktw-2FsUf4edzF37h4Y2FSFjXciqbzoRZnzPyZy3cP-2BzRK1oZpoGqkcnmWHDxWM8PPF4w3D&c=E,1,IB9DrNSVPIiuztbeU5r8UypBPpCS6PCqybySGXIzOcwDTscgp_mI2wm29w5uUx9nV_u_PL14H_eAIT_wraOQD6R0nYUPEbZ_h6KlQ4bES1_7qPFmYVZV&typo=1> 708
From: Chris Wizner
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:57:03 PM
Dear City,
I had to leave Malibu to a neighboring city to protect my family after a near death accident last 4th of July, a hit and run before that while my wife was 8 months pregnant and before that the 4 girls killed on PCH (two of them worked for me). Please please approve this plan to make PCH safe.

The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Chris Wizner
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FNTffiDPHw99W6Xxylvv1iDC3vKwwV3NmdwYmohaKGiewq6mgEWOBy9V-2BFCapg1xNTFxKduGuUjJ8pk2nM-2BwvP-2BVklgpbEPxclGRbI-2BaeJJZ2BtwzMiVUn181h1dydLFiYaL7oIrzSo2gL19C8fT7bo8relG5YmnoJKpmgMNhe9Ng-3D&c=E,1,InSSFuzrNO7GdA-gNe0CYRX-vEnrpUf9oIEWe7s_tP_FgMNPgIjvwB3gD0846ovD8smYoae69wxUMmS0rlwaDYW8a22CwhexUooCRA-1ETHukpQPEW0ZsmBvxy8&typo=1> 709
From: Doug Castell -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:48:45 PM
Dear City,
I'm a cyclist who frequently rides on PCH and through the canyons in the area. I have guided tourists and regularly lead rides consisting of 5-50 cyclists. I personally know (knew) multiple DEAD cyclists who died on PCH. Please value life over politics and approve this plan.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Doug Castell
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FCsIpXIwETDyxlmp5Qqk1DdAfBxAERaheU1g6Fr2BlxWblc8hChi9bk8BG5tbR9fVSkngb8UoiXCaFIqY4vB5nz0mt89W5bqWrkHMV9Oh8VNcmBLW1BJFSsNV4G7tmamFsDsDyB33Ra8JJjtdXKExoNHHF3rRpBjWIIf6CA8ymU8A3D&c=E,1,R9uvZRcaSBql7TDzY22ietGKeuxaPbWxOdQLMx9TFJkauKSQXtNKKQdRMAnm1FnoE1AdxWfDogPFsHnYE6NxUhcZz3PM1nLCSC-gE8HHFyFc5EE,&typo=1> 710
From: D J Haanraadts -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 9:13 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
I REALLY would like to be able to bicycle along the Malibu coast line, without fearing for my dear life...

The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
D J Haanraadts
711
From: David Donatoni -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:34:17 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
David Donatoni
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F36Cu9uzMJk85TWVhpNySGncWVb35-2BVW36Q5CmpWOabcwMh2Jtet0VfX9g5znY2BamWIRuBy4GZ33JhuUFSSh1aq6VEYEqtiVY5CHcXnMiOd8WADhyNJ3f6ornS5hm1kF4AjHCvGeMKBKO1lUwCXgB0E1MK48jESrhUDdNN7TMb5c3D&c=E,1,E9dXCrl7Sm4OkfmtMBKnKGANvtR21bV92I8CkBh5_4yDX4AyHne4aq_-mWmF1QOols6Jn8VEFHqYFKbnaFdBqQ3bvbD2- ap3krvqVxLBZHOLxdy3dyuAjgY_aw,,&typo=1>
712
From: Daniela Ferrara Fontes -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:44 PM
Dear City,
Please fix PCH!
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Daniela Ferrara Fontes
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FaA4y7R0l6jm0rrVUNDNnNCg054PXRoRgFeOXNdZBpT1Sm2pXBMjPdj8gGqWvk-2F53OmAku0-2BzZ5iKzz7wnhwq4ZSu15J-2FoPjSkncOYnT2BI78JDGR6UHnCK2EtYWLogTbIDwkDmyHUoYEZnzY63NIOnDSoN0tgNfKzro0nlx36bv0-3D&c=E,1,_aQLK_q5pkfNux4nG2xnn_daM_yhVM1b6SFneKaPK4TsLfxWXv86Q3evOatw9by4CRnQFr4_IbEBXX2D0QmKRlkPfuo9ENocJRwgBmxn7GOOza38i_R-BfKzQ,,&typo=1> 713
From: Dawn Ericson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Planning Commissions TURN OFF THE LIGHTS & TURN ON THE NIGHT!!!! Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:53:41 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image003.png
image004.png
image002.png
image005.png
Rebecca Evans,
Please distribute for tonights meeting,
Dawn N Ericson
MANTA Publications

PLANNING COMMISSIONERS,
PLEASE
NO MORE LIGHTS on PCH!!!!!

TURN OFF THE LIGHTS & TURN
ON THE NIGHT!!!!
714

MANTA PUBLICATION
On Nov 3, 2025, at 2:42 PM, Planning Commission
<[email protected]> wrote:

You are receiving this email because you are listed as an owner, applicant or interested party for an item on the October 20, 2025 Planning Commission meeting agenda.

The actions taken by the Commissioners on October 20th are attached.

Regards,
715
Rebecca Evans
Senior Management Analyst | Community Development Department Office: (310) 456-2489 ext. 246
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265
716
From: Erik Dozzi
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:54:49 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Erik Dozzi
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FYgaqHq6lI-2F-2FCI7cYDvLPJEZ4XoB-2FPstLHhrU-2F-2FGs90dx1ZsTA8W68ysO3- 2B9kUiEtqt3FVjyQReOK9Y96X9E4BtUP8u4ahpdVEjwfBNbmK6XA4qM-2BMkc1YxtwILHB0pksGK-2BxeTAj51iGJsk3uGmF1wTsrsWc9Fql01f51tm1uNY3D&c=E,1,Kf6hRiUwuyk7UkjzN43Jor7MofxGKJhYm9iGpN7UATM1n_5CrEPnWQcFf_61omcx3rIyexC6w3noYv4k-oLgPxVKzb0ow6cAVHcCQW6- JMjwNA,,&typo=1>
717
From: Diana Williams -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 8:13:46 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan

Dear City,
I don't regularly use PCH because I am concerned about safety, even though my kid does Junior Lifeguards. I think this is also why Waymo cars won't drive on PCH. Something needs to be fixed.

We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Diana Williams
718
From: Deirdre Roney
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Deirdre Ann Roney
Subject: Say YES Tonight, 11/3/25, to Investing $55 million in Rebuilding PCH Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:32:19 PM
Dear Planning Commission,
I’m with Michel. Please say YES to the PCH Safety Improvement Project, an historic opportunity to make Malibu safer and more accessible. I’m a former Malibu planning commissioner. I’ve lived in Malibu almost 40 years. My house burned down in the Palisades Fire and we’re working hard to rebuild. I write this with the vision in my mind of the car that crashed into the side of my friend’s house on PCH late last week. I write this as Fraser Bohm’s next door neighbor. I write this as a parent who saw Emily Shane grow up with my daughter…. But only to a point.

I’m a Dolphin Award Winner, former PTA President, campaigner for local parks and against Malibu’s biggest development deal in history that lost at the polls 60/40 bc people like me educated our citizens about the damning fine print of that deal. And now today I’m saying, DO THIS. Do it for the Malibu we love, that I’ve spent my life working to improve and preserve.

I’m with Michel. Say Yes.

Thank You,
Deirdre Roney
Driving Change: The $55 million crossroads, or
why Nov. 3 will define Malibu’s next 20 years
malibutimes.com
719
From: Emi Erickson
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:18 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Emi Erickson
720
From: Elvis Diaz -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:40 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Elvis Diaz
721
From: Evyn Dalforno
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:15:52 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Evyn Dalforno
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F7LTpxQCZ1AT-2FYx00tHBGCocXV9ktHe2vympeXeF2LnXI15y6jN8L-2B-2BZ-2F6eOG9lYt5fxYoW0FqHzL8B9ZghvC08-2BsO3qKUjnsUwWkXkGaoba2FipBaKJHe7MRUBqv13yIHfFVkJHf1eMzqKTkVMo4vEgv-2FRMQfA1gpyoFeBBWVQ74-3D&c=E,1,rLL10UlxRA3S7eFgLuKY_lokAhPvjNyF6neNAOdVNkaH8kMJpTqjkrXL_iNBazj-XC5rzGvNdAhAtfmPqMsMbA0nN2KivMVo2kGNA6HliON08gAq9nn34cs&typo=1> 722
From: Delaney Milligan -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 7:01 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Delaney Milligan
723
From: Dylan Woodford
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:50:31 PM
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

And when the next person dies on PCH, will you be able to sleep comfortably knowing that your decision could have saved their life? Please approve the Caltrans plan and give Malibu the safe highway it deserves.

Sincerely,
Dylan Woodford
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FIGcwaagUmeVZR3o97iEBBHptNYxl2KgTJnS76-2FcSGc3RERnzEAPw49mmkxAPPXeOZ5UndBUr5vZilRBneI06sccCFGWfwHEsmu5DobnYzJtgL2BBbW2Jen2PavWUG2GTKGeQ431OB9It5eO9Lc-2Bd9ZGf-2BHHItBMoQ7ehGKFzejVE-3D&c=E,1,gpfkTIfXwbD09lj5Trb1-xDVLignDCPiriulGd-r9Ci4_dXtJMrPAvMpCQNLwWdVjF4DZHKeh9rBL4AD44YZfp8cjXMEwTrEnLkXez0qIjO3D2ydN98djmaE_0,&typo=1> 724
From: Emery Carter -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:39 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People

Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Emery Carter
725
From: Emma Cotter
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:39:44 PM
Dear City,
Dear Commission Chair and Planning Commissioners, The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer. If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today. And when the next person dies on PCH, will you be able to sleep comfortably knowing that your decision could have saved their life? My best friend, Asha Weir, was one of the many beautiful lives tragically taken from us because of the danger that is PCH, specifically “Dead Mans Curve”. Please approve the Caltrans plan and give Malibu and its students, families, children, and vibrant, loving community the safe highway it deserves. Sincerely, Emma Cotter The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

And when the next person dies on PCH, will you be able to sleep comfortably knowing that your decision could have saved their life? Please approve the Caltrans plan and give Malibu the safe highway it deserves.

Sincerely,
Emma Cotter
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F4iDPWXTXXXkQ7RK0BzCAdAfUnOxv4UqcyakQu1vjlruH2B55MR6- 2F6muoxvlPKeg1wbwIiSeYK6JLykdTJbsUWvlcfrxQwTaSObusB8k6KRfLU0gtzSwxXXosF-2BgiSRSlEJxJfmr4or6ycX0-2FrH2R8f2FLEwCmCvp20FWi2l7Br4M-3D&c=E,1,iRMZ4EMiSXa_vxynX3ffVe_kHBwiv8NlxKv21igpqqFvPhQGX44HAeZQXWhv4emV12KbTHG5Ra95I6aaKIpbyTFgvINl-GLcBV070Uz-IeCng,,&typo=1> 726
From: Emery Arnold -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 5:22 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Emery Arnold
727
From: Emilie Harrison -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:11:41 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Emilie Harrison
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FEUNL8Edg4wYjWHfAUrkzzbcbdku7oRscf95wMch2wM1PtFiTtF1rVjRrZ1dJPT98THJGlf7AR-2F8QlwrW1LRs-2BAfdXY2Ypm7-2B8GVPNN2B5bMHicAVkTh0RPQQqMMCfEQ-2BeRNlUi8YRhtZN8FW8a2cegzKg-2B7rIW7u8AVK8CQ5qJtg3D&c=E,1,OfdsbShgbHWe2b2myVXbzDue6UQOnTMp7Aj-OzbkHXZnifq_- s8QrjLjEg4vGtXEAZG_mXpOHNyTz3fRIKLatKPAiGYas_AIuLmQv_k2BZkE7XClLe_As_8,&typo=1> 728
From: Eric Arentsen -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:23 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Eric Arentsen
729
From: Elina Sendonaris -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:45:32 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Elina Sendonaris
730
From: Ella Savage -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:53 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now

Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Ella Savage
731
From: Emily Schottel -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:01 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
I am a Pepperdine alum who recently moved away from Malibu because I felt it was unsafe for me and my growing family. We loved Malibu and our community, but felt it was not a good place to raise a family due to the increasingly unsafe roads.

If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Emily Schottel
732
From: Greg Griffin
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 5:24:13 PM
Dear City,
Please prioritize lives and safety over delay.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Greg Griffin
733
From: Gabi Douglas -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:27 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd

Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Gabi Douglas
734
From: Frances Wilder -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:31:58 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill

Dear City,
I don’t regularly used PCH, be I am concerned about the safety.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Frances Wilder
735
From: Eli Kaufman
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 1:23:09 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Eli Kaufman
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F056I9lnhpkn51-2FCDUi-2BgNPpctg8ix3toFBMU5eoR6C3AVyi7kB-2B4tVQTsaLfBUsH3quc2BpBklnWyC7HkAi9yZgR0TIU1JhT5ZOs3TN3bbrueQqTw0imFBjvApvmxRZoKaCqOIQ9FMRv-2FDCVmzg0vNikgsqAyQdioXzdS4Vm8cmI3D&c=E,1,NrVi0FJTVIG9yWm-sHLsZZg5ClO6R89PkCQZBeHA4PD8Y4L3ul_gZXPJSDa5b4a_rqzrpmpQE3j_pn89c_Mq9uaoM1Hdh3lq7ZpevNUivm8&typo=1> 736
From: Elizabeth Sandoval -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:10 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Sandoval
737
From: Giovana Gillotti
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:06:41 PM
Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Giovana Gillotti
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FNmXlagld4hZ518A4M13bMWn2j8- 2BhwYE9nW6jWJ17R1BQKXe7DX2G3EFGysOycKHUwaFyaZjicBVLdUJOQok3ItZ2QIHIlD4hYVJiT1IgkWAWGswO0Hxmi2Fd8t3YO0vPau6VeOLxDTfal3f9yClSmvHAecxqBXrTs42GL-2Fdal-2F-2BY-3D&c=E,1,t3xO8uoeXmDAzH5TGxGTieFhTNP2M9wkK6gDf6HUB32Or3taor1lT9sIWk4PXBG4SF_H7UFIhNP2SQH7OhOMQnu_PKdy5DCRMHLctOGehqiCAfthNDdhoU,&typo=1> 738
From: Eva Leon
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 8:31:45 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Eva Leon
739
From: Emalie Krupinski -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 12:38 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Emalie Krupinski
740
From: Elia Parra -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 9:26 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Elia Parra
741
From: Hannah Allen -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 5:55 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Hannah Allen
742
From: Garrett Yawn -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:52 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Garrett Yawn
743
From: Harley Wachter -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:39 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan

Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Harley Wachter
744
From: Helen Krieger -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 2:58 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Helen Krieger
745
From: Hunter Wentworth
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 7:59:32 AM
Dear City,
I know people who have died in Malibu due to lack of bike access.

In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Hunter Wentworth
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F-2Fp-2FwkdLV7eRkMpmfQ9OSrmE-2FF4pEOjhRpD0ijbjyJmGYBi5IOtUJM2BJ2YmyejCDBWy6LA8gUPnGlac6HZqwdqPhRQwpQjqA1qmYWoL95ZbTj5WEfiEtid7pbGdrdKEw5y2FVniqBQDRhwJ6VhGe9iW577pZ58LEZdmLJkjJTtrzY-3D&c=E,1,_3som8Ma1APQW4WEmg_FJbPmC7py0N0EU3RkWug3stb9kWaGXA605lARzSNtLUU_rYw9MmGiKHcwJ6051uIqr_tzrMfftygQLcQZ8rQiXTnnC2SpKR46g,,&typo=1> 746
From: Giselle Kurianski -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:29 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Giselle Kurianski
747
From: Grace Rigor -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:22:05 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Grace Rigor
748
From: Gena Silberman -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:23:49 PM
Dear City,
My friend and her three friends all died walking on this road because someone was speeding and lost control of their vehicle. Four lives lost, along with so many more.

This road needs to be safer.

We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

The Caltrans reconstruction project is our one chance to follow through with what everyone pledged – to fix PCH once and for all! The funding is ready. The plans are ready. The community is ready. All we need is your approval.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Gena Silberman
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FF1V2fcbm-2BMQq3jPAjIZiCMYgefmfxbE7brtYG5GKHNtw28iPTTSmAaSy3Mktmm6fpNpHSNinB9LdKPsCmGAoByj3- 2FHjCCln45Jic2xqe0NpxsHRWTmKZper1rxkL3rFlo-2FfwsjJw8Tar293eJVcJpoXV3y8yI8Vjy5h6cg6xB6o-3D&c=E,1,2EyTI7pjHOtjva42ztLPl7ThHEcL8MZUzD08BGDu9FmOqz1EWhTHjT7glw9GL0vzTVTEaQb9cw4LNivrqLd3FE7Vhl7PITxS3BaieVcBMZwfaAT_pAs&typo=1> 749
From: Georgia Puckett -
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 7:08 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Georgia Puckett
750
From: Georg Treu -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 12:23 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I’m writing from to strongly urge you to approve the “Choose Life Over Delay” plan. Every day of postponement means more risk, more uncertainty, and less safety for our community. As a local resident who’s lived through fires and rebuilding challenges, I know how much is at stake. We need forward motion—not more hesitation. Please, do what’s right for the people who live here and depend on your leadership to protect our homes and our lives. With deep gratitude for your service, Georg Treu Malibu CA 90265
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Georg Treu
751
From: Grace Smyth
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:57:02 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Grace Smyth
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FPek-2FLpyOszyPdXCuC108CHaOYOzfAfo-2Fn5Gtz34cAnV0s4WwYbkNmqHOCgxAVS8QgPr3ZQ3vet71jMVwyy2FmpHccvWUIGFZAwIwDsyCJkt39XCDLS2TH44ak9T3mt4wtcKbOPVVggpSXG5YiePmyWFW2ftaSdAwtvTUAShTp7aw3D&c=E,1,2PJwyUdVVEdhewukapoTyplxo0DYvlhSuHfdh_BPAIp-eWoIszdfsK2C7njeZjuhQ9muA4JXfUpa1RM42K37pFwD8UZ4WlnOLUQkVLITQ,,&typo=1> 752
From: Jacob Eminger -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 12:50:30 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH

Dear City,
make this safer.

The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Jacob Eminger
753
From: Jalynn Jackson -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:51 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan

Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Jalynn Jackson
754
From: Joshua Pitney
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Making the PCH Safer
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:33:15 PM
Dear Malibu City,
Tonight is when the city council votes on whether or not to implement measures to make the Pacific Coast Highway safer. As a Pepperdine alumnus, I was devastated by the loss of the four girls two years ago. It is my hope that the tragedy will never happen again. Please accept the measures so that people can be safe on the roads.

Thank you,
Joshua Pitney
755
From: Jose Pimienta -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 2:44 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Jose Pimienta
Cartoonist
756
From: Isabella Glynn -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 7:10 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Isabella Glynn
757
From: Isabella Mc Nair -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:08:08 PM
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Isabella Mc Nair
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FU3vVLNfRsBd8TVG0wjZfalUedQBCY0KlJSwLRZbUioYIE7YbNRyjkQnRI5NLRwYjwEEWYYQ1uUpXz41gFCPwVQBwlT2BpZjJq1vNw11Nnn73N8cqWaYttHk-2B0fPbHm-2F4rfiFM6uBnpgZ2nP5Gi-2Fu0M0XqHRT4ARYXVcVffU4ItRk-3D&c=E,1,CH2_YZg6d699MIB6o2qZdfBW9AMVfdGPukW7iA6Uu4XqeoVsp8cOqWl7lJ7s_c9yfQfL68OvFepwWA_p6HVbD0jJpIJZRBV9K7liTEytHtFMHMJeQBb8rJ7&typo=1> 758
From: Jake Rosen -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 11:08 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Jake Rosen
759
From: Iva Margaretich -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:31 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People

Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Iva Margaretich
760
From: Joe Ryan -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 6:00 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Dear City,
with the now reduced speed limits on PCH due to construction/fire relief, we can all see what slower speeds can do to enhance safety
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Joe Ryan
761
From: Jonathan Chue -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 3:50 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Jonathan Chue
762
From: Jenna Cobb -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:09 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Jenna Cobb
763
From: Kaileigh Fuscaldo -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:21:09 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Kaileigh Fuscaldo
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FyWXxJymh2LpDLs95iPDfORtn2qyy-2BFy-2FIQwAmVVZFXVqZRGVrW9rJZIeGeeVpR71aDnp3fHS1slWezzDOWiDqrowHlKhZRchkBFAZyGv2F6lQlAmfKkswtuwzI-2FfkdZ7g4KYF65vfYdF9lux9UQc-2FlB1tpje-2ForTIWXYWn-2FsuuRg-3D&c=E,1,qTgYB4P7dICKHo1zcxuW2SlH0Z8KCJ1Y4- _KIatfauvBfT-Y2eLrZOfrFAW7aDW2jXEKLUk9ex9hwEubMB64n6xUrJOTdeVnwb_eRhdAUf3ZP4kfDQ,,&typo=1> 764
From: Katie Gill
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:11:00 PM
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Katie Gill
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F7oe8zGQWIKb8PNanelqrbOMsvP0YWYhv66giJUBGpzoiae4YZWZ40Utr0r3FkxC5keux2CV7YypEIcxfPn7cTammdj9- 2BNlXx8xULkaJT10KSbT6lqs6xwztNpNUf74sznw6pb2ErI98xyhi9e8iYLqgPPnG9CZiH9fHjyUhh-2Bjs-3D&c=E,1,CMtBxbC7MWaG17zO1Ej7- uU6CH18BR1hXmUynZGlH7WY009kXhJMS_GfrzREW31EmNeuXfB0yGhoHjzHeBvKZjLzoNOpf-61X8Ja5vNajauZc8vz6JAB7pmfsQ,,&typo=1> 765
From: Katharina Grabinger -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:45 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd

Dear City,
Eighty percent of this Caltrans project is repaving — the road will be torn up anyway. Adding safety improvements during reconstruction costs almost nothing. Doing it later would cost tens of millions. Is the City of Malibu prepared to provide that money? Rejecting or delaying this plan wastes money and will cost lives.

Please approve the Caltrans project, and let’s make PCH safer for everyone who uses it, including the cyclists.

Sincerely,
Katharina Grabinger
766
From: Judy Villablanca -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:53:05 PM
Dear City,
We need to make the right plan for PCH and this is the opportunity.

We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Judy Villablanca
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2Fqu-2FDuZSEnC8wY8oSYs-2BR-2BVEOTkKr1BT2EOjtspQggF-2BEoorp3Zc-2FpY3uug9XSLM-2Fg6u-2FfG6AlvgOrq2itBOrGXPqRsqVC1woes5FBINv1- 2F6xpmM3yRyIgZqBwcilfEUu-2BOAwB3oqLAHVhHJLYhQUfHlAsInN-2FMnNXRyCND7-2Fiho-3D&c=E,1,mFScd3FB3oK6EXlg1- 0qW0PoPrXH_jIcO6ahJT6U62S5P5CD3Tmn9vO1MmmUddSDZvornv3e9BISQ_9klt8ZO6j2B7xqYPnLR2J9ZPJGpA,,&typo=1> 767
From: Kelly Sullenberger
To: Planning Commission
Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:25:18 PM
Dear City,
Please make this happen. Lives need to be saved
After decades of preventable deaths, we finally have Caltrans working with us to fix Pacific Coast Highway. The $55 million Caltrans project will repave the entire corridor and allow critical safety improvements.

If this project isn’t approved, the funding disappears for years or even decades. That means no repaving, no safety upgrades, and no second chances.

Please approve the Caltrans plan now. Don’t let this opportunity slip away — lives depend on it.

Sincerely,
Kelly Sullenberger
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2Fhe963oV2BUfn0nNHz6qo6EqDfSk4qXCed3ZVy8mdyxrAspPgV02Yk7USRyS18HIurEMobGmR9KThtl4T6GF7mAte47Q6SleBbrez6GjAlxCfelxNbYQIztdiRHu9E6Fch2BMVFI8vk9eU0quYy6NWSO1wNpIgthmaFU-2FWn-2FbYR99w3D&c=E,1,Qw0CbnPd1w0WhczAtwXqSzXRTBl2X0LE5IPrPSn74uaDKCKGRFcDttto_9n0JSXK-c3ARzladn_8nGjUvNgnkNW1ta0ee3R3YMyC0X8AQ,,&typo=1> 768
From: Kyle Richardson -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:15:14 PM
Dear City,
I rode on my bike on PCH 15 years ago. It was not safe. PCH was never intended to become the race track that it became. Speeds of vehicular cars can be controlled by adding protected bike lanes. Electric bikes have proven a reliable source for commuting 15 or more miles each way. Please support alternatives to vehicular travel along this road. Future generations will thank you for your leadership.

We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

The Caltrans reconstruction project is our one chance to follow through with what everyone pledged – to fix PCH once and for all! The funding is ready. The plans are ready. The community is ready. All we need is your approval.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Kyle Richardson
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FMXsjV6Vxr8iNsuhkweqRnbwoJQ-2F6hueAFpDPNY9cMnvnu-2FiFWUtYCIIrSWVFDzcRNyc0AYxZsvD81To7M4feyyTgEebNvb9UzNFwG2Bllm0H8NJfAO0M3rlN-2Bu-2FA0XBhNS-2FnEIAtZEjHK9IQ-2B7mqLD8yrc2xkuX-2FycKcljtImjq8- 3D&c=E,1,RLiPsw8E72idXzCWJSlCPu38FYXrfZvDBHqFEuCUePOLXLOFlwQ9pgNOGtcm-JF3Y_phQjnut5YB_6lEI5xVy1vsXQv31U2rIOZxZFz4cer&typo=1> 769
From: Kiefo Nilsson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:05:54 PM
Dear City,
Let's make Malibu more accessible and safe for everyone now and into the future! After decades of preventable deaths, we finally have Caltrans working with us to fix Pacific Coast Highway. The $55 million Caltrans project will repave the entire corridor and allow critical safety improvements.

If this project isn’t approved, the funding disappears for years or even decades. That means no repaving, no safety upgrades, and no second chances.

Please approve the Caltrans plan now. Don’t let this opportunity slip away — lives depend on it.

Sincerely,
Kiefo Nilsson
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FT6FBcGV8cVzkLKW0Ljgn5wf28tk2iyPRMJ0WftNMqi3Tkxl-2BRMYA2FuOAI5PJiuQEIpnSD4k8djC2DhTjXRosRCFaEC0V2uR3aoZC1OCmZVbIdWp3KUe7rbDoi-2FvBUqKZFVfmCnyRmETfBuDj2A74rJPROau2FLLPeSOiIC5AyQDI-3D&c=E,1,I_O72anLxx8kCTnTPx_2ZXTf83vJbFjWjTqtn61jTZE6MXQL09FGvcJsaW2TDe7wPKnOIiUCVxFHCyBOBAT7S_88Twr8vpj1tooAucYA5eGSMrIVcRu&typo=1> 770
From: Kelly Petersen -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:44 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH

Dear City,
it is important for the safety of our malibu community that we proceed with these changes Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Kelly Petersen
771
From: Judy Villablanca
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Marni Kamins; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; Skylar Peak Subject: Fwd: Item 4a/Caltrans proposal
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:02:24 AM
I am writing to give my full support to the comments being submitted by the Malibu Township Council regarding the Caltrans plan for PCH. Their points optimize safety of adding bike lanes. The Caltrans proposal to narrow driving lanes and mark bike lanes with paint only is a path to more injuries and deaths on PCH. I also strongly agree with limiting lighting on PCH to preserve our Dark Sky regulations. The deaths that have occurred on PCH in my 26 years living in Malibu have had nothing to do with hampered vision due to lack of light. The issues have been speeding and no safe lanes for pedestrian/bike traffic.

Change does not equate with better. Several Caltrans plan components increase danger along PCH. Please listen and implement the changes proposed by the Malibu Township Council.

Thank you for your consideration.

Judy Villablanca
Malibu resident
772
From: Kate Buatti
To: Planning Commission
Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:05:45 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Kate Buatti
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FnBwQCrfO5UYInhqHfSJZ3q8JXu9MR28UsAWq8-2FseFTf-2BNy-2FQI2k0rkuwTUzYXPDPVZcdGeI3P6nRG-2F3nlht1DQ-2FitYg5Uliw36RKUILXjyHb2FRpMBD5o-2B-2Fpo44D0CD2eWV1j12ITwOqAwp-2B72XMyNYz0D6pHS4byP3Saa4o4EIk-3D&c=E,1,u13skV7rjg72umGXCdAM8ytWv17Nk2JW2TEo12y5B7epyR4wNCm0P4kuQdVGrE-4AWw-8vvtdCZLaSAs3LKUzEyA2BSC-b7tnbQ5ZFd5T0,&typo=1> 773
From: Katie Emick -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:50 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Dear City,
One of my closest friends was killed on this highway due to reckless driving. So many lives lost and if it can be helped/prevented it should. Less reactive action and more preventative action
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Katie Emick
774
From: Kaja Caldwell -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:48:26 PM
Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

The Caltrans reconstruction project is our one chance to follow through with what everyone pledged – to fix PCH once and for all! The funding is ready. The plans are ready. The community is ready. All we need is your approval.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Kaja Caldwell
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FEm-2F2ltYvgf0qrejnBQJdvPn0Mo-2FIo0dObfZ-2F4PtDVc-2BDiWpgHxfAK7MzV2B2WjaF1gi5mdsFM21rAgC4SKTlveIvUZKWKzXzFPJs5syTWTwbM6CRsJKosKu6hvZTA45Ha8CcDgC5iGLBfEoGjZIUTlpbovSq5whEqwhl8JdXnvTM3D&c=E,1,ARXXGf5IlAigYedxdYs1CsG20u7-Iv9tPGYUDCq95V4slDW5MWt2UuHEYMzR850H7IjgRnKswY0-qrxM0VK_WtxQ6CzUf0pJrJ-HcBr6&typo=1> 775
From: Kathryn Freid -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:49 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Kathryn Freid
776
Attention Planning Commission,
Since 1947, the Malibu Township Council (MTC) has stood for responsible development, environmental protection, and public safety along Pacific Coast Highway.

We appreciate Caltrans’ intent to improve safety, but the current plan fails to meet modern standards, increases key risks, and undermines Malibu’s rural coastal identity. So we hope some conditions can be made for the project.

1. The Real Safety Problem
According to the UC Berkeley Traffic Injury Mapping System (TIMS), from 2012 to 2023 there have been 32 pedestrian- and bicycle-related fatalities along PCH in Malibu— well over half of all roadway deaths.

That is not just a statistic—it is a mandate for smarter design.

The greatest danger lies with those outside their cars.

PCH is not a mono-use highway. It is a multi-use corridor serving:
• Pedestrians — residents, beachgoers, and visitors
• Cyclists — commuters, weekend athletes, and tourists
• Motorists — residents, commerce, tourists, and joy riders Because residents are only a fraction of total users, safety design must prioritize the most vulnerable—pedestrians and cyclists.

2. The Real Cause of Crashes
777
Caltrans’ analysis overemphasizes lighting while ignoring the true cause of most collisions: reckless speeding.

Experience proves this: since the Palisades Fires, Eastern Malibu has had no major crashes or fatalities, as the speed limit and lanes have been greatly reduced.

The problem is speed and lack of separation, not darkness.

Adding more lights will not slow drivers—it will urbanize our coastline, violate Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance, and conflict with state and federal ESHA protections that prohibit lighting of beaches, streams, and other environmentally sensitive habitat areas.

Real safety comes from designing for lower speeds and physical bike lane protection, not increased illumination.

3. Painted Lanes Are Not Protection
Caltrans proposes 15.4 miles of Class II painted bike lanes, directly beside 50-60 mph traffic.

Paint is not protection.

According to research cited by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and supported by federal guidance:
• Protected lanes reduce crashes by 40–53%.
• Federal law (23 U.S.C. §217) requires “safe accommodation” for cyclists and pedestrians.
778
• California SB 960 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act require separated Complete.Streets on high-speed corridors.
• Federal programs can fund up to 80% of the cost of protected lanes.

Choosing paint over protection is neither safe, legal, nor fiscally responsible

4. Protection Must Be a Condition of Approval
• Caltrans proposes narrowing vehicle lanes from 12 to 10.5 feet to “fit” painted bike lanes—without barriers.
• That combination is unsafe on a corridor that carries trucks, RVs, buses, and emergency vehicles at high speeds.
• If lanes are narrowed, the reclaimed width must be used to create protected, physically separated bike lanes—consistent with the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, and Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (DP-37): Complete Streets. This can be accomplished within the same dimensions.
• Both FHWA and NACTO are clear: on high-speed, high-volume corridors like PCH, painted lanes are not enough. Physically separated lanes are a “Proven Safety Countermeasure”, reducing serious crashes and fatalities by more than 40%.
• Low-cost, quick-build protection is achievable immediately under existing Caltrans budgets and maintenance authority.

The Emily Shane Foundation’s “Transforming PCH Malibu” proposal details exactly how—through a 3-mile pilot program from Pepperdine to the Pier costing under $500,000, eligible for up to 80% federal reimbursement through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A). This might be a fantastic solution to incorporate the "blue highway" with nearby bike rentals to explore the Civic Center and Pepperdine area.

These safety upgrades can and should be incorporated now without delaying the project’s approval.
779
Achievable protection strategies include:
• Flexible delineator posts or mountable curbs spaced every 20–40 feet for visual and physical separation.
• Parking-buffered bike lanes, where parked cars provide a continuous shield between cyclists and moving traffic (Exhibit.A).
• Breakaway or retractable bollards at driveways and emergency access points, allowing quick passage for fire and medical vehicles.
• Green conflict-zone markings and reflective elements at intersections to increase visibility.

The attached photos Exhibits A–D show how each of these solutions can fit within Malibu’s constrained right-of-way:
• Exhibit A: Protected Bike Lane with Parking Buffer (Cycle Track Configuration) • Exhibit B: Narrow Protected Lane Using Flexible Posts • Exhibit C: Contraflow Protected Bike Lane for Constrained Corridors • Exhibit D: Buffered Narrow Lane with Low-Profile Mountable Curbs These designs align with FHWA, NACTO, and Caltrans standards and can be implemented rapidly using existing funding mechanisms.

Research also confirms that protected lanes are fully compatible with emergency operations. Studies in multiple cities show no delay in response times, and protected lanes can actually serve as bypass routes during congestion or evacuation.

Therefore, MTC urges that approval of this project explicitly include conditions requiring the addition of physical protection wherever feasible.

These improvements should be integrated during final design and construction—not postponed for later phases.

Malibu and Caltrans share the same goal: to make PCH safer now. 780
We support this project’s approval and ask only that it meets the modern, data-driven standards our community deserves.

Safety will come from speed control and bike lane physical separation, not urban illumination.

5. Lighting and Rural Character
The plan adds 42 new streetlights, including six between Zumirez and Zuma View Place where lights already exist at intersections.

These additions are unnecessary, violate Malibu’s Dark Sky Ordinance, and conflict with Coastal Act ESHA protections, which prohibit lighting of beaches, streams, and habitat corridors to safeguard wildlife.

Lighting should be limited only to intersections or street outlets, with fixtures that are:
• 3000 Kelvin or lower,
• fully shielded, and
• designed to minimize glare and sky glow.

Adding a single light at Zuma View may be acceptable, but no additional mid-block lighting between Zumirez and Zuma View Place is warranted.

6. Sidewalks — Heathercliff & PCH
We strongly support the proposed sidewalk at Heathercliff Road, where 13-yearold Emily Shane was killed in 2010. 781
It must be continuous, ADA-compliant, and connected across both sides of the intersection.

This is the kind of data-driven, life-saving improvement Malibu needs.

7. Sidewalks — Pepperdine and Western Malibu
We also support Pepperdine University’s opposition to sidewalks along their campus.

If Pepperdine believed sidewalks would improve safety, they would not oppose them.

Malibu Canyon Road is the transition point where rural Western Malibu begins.

If sidewalks are approved in this area, they should be constructed and maintained of decomposed granite (DG)—as seen in Point Dume Preserve and Malibu Park— preserving the rural aesthetic while providing walkable surfaces.

8. Sidewalks — Dan Blocker Beach
We also question the purpose of adding six-foot-wide concrete sidewalks along Dan Blocker Beach.

Such sidewalks would promote urbanization in a rural coastal stretch and could reduce beach parking, as informal parking widths vary along this segment.

This design must be reconsidered to preserve public access and coastal character. 782

9. A Better Path Forward
MTC urges the City and Caltrans to:
• Replace Class II stripes with Class IV protected lanes integrated with parking buffers per NACTO guidance.
• Make physical protected bike lanes a condition of approval. • Limit lighting to intersections and street outlets only (3000K or lower, fully shaded).
• Prohibit lighting of beaches, streams, and other ESHA. • Reject mid-block lights between Zumirez and Zuma View Place, and opposite Malibu Seafood etc..
• Follow recommendations for sidewalks at Heathercliff & PCH. • Pursue federal safety funding for protection—not paint or urban lighting.

Conclusion
Thirty-two lives—more than half of all fatalities since 2012—were pedestrians and cyclists.

The cause is speeding and lack of separation, not lack of light.

Let’s follow the data and the law.

Protected lanes, lighting only at intersections, and context-sensitive sidewalks are the path to safety that respects Malibu’s natural character.

Malibu deserves real safety, not symbolic paint, unnecessary lights, or suburban sidewalks.
783
Let’s build a PCH that protects its people while preserving our wildlife, dark skies, and coastal heritage.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Drummond
for the Malibu Township Council
784
785
From: Leon Gu -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:45:40 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan

Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Leon Gu
786
From:

To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: item 4A 11-3-25 updated Cal trans comments Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 2:28:17 PM
Attachments: ---pc street lights 11-3-25 meeting f (1).docx Commissioners here are Slow Growth's up dated comments on the proposed Cal Trans project. 787
1 To: Members of the Planning Commission
From: Malibu CoaliƟon for Slow Growth
Re. Cal Trans item 4A
Date: November 3, 2025
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
AŌer driving the highway and stopping to look at the various issues on which there was not consensus the following are our comments regarding the Cal Trans Proposal:

STREET LIGHTS
Street Lights – IntersecƟons Only
We support Skylar Peaks posiƟon of puƫng Cal Trans proposed street lights at intersecƟons but not elsewhere on the highway. A moƟon should be made to this effect.

Street Lights - At Collusions Sites
Cal trans choose to propose street lights where there were collusions during the last 5 years.

The streetlight sites were chosen based on collusions occurring at a parƟcular locaƟon which is not a credible premise unless the lack of a street light at this locaƟon was the actual cause of the accident.

There are many causes of collusions such as Speeding, Drunk Driving, TexƟng , Falling Asleep at the Wheel, Brake Failure to name a few. Cal Trans has failed to prove lack of lighƟng at the proposed street light locaƟons were the actual cause of the Accident or how they will prevent future collusions.

Street Lights – Contrary to General Plan and Prohibited in ESHA Western Malibu is to remain rural. Street lights urbanize Western Malibu and are prohibited under the General Plan.

LighƟng of ESHA not allowed. Beaches and streams are ESHA and are to remain Dark to protect wildlife.

Besides not being needed across from Malibu Seafood, an addiƟonal reason not to put in street lights is that they are along beach which is ESHA.

Any street light proposed at a stream which is necessary for safety , should be placed as far away from the ESHA as possible unless at the specifically proposed locaƟon it is proven to prevent collusions.
788
2 Street Lights - Not Dark Sky Compliant -Light glow.

To be dark Sky Compliant, 3000 k is not enough. The lights must be fully shielded and facing downward. A moƟon should be made to this effect.

LighƟng of highway only should be allowed. There should be no Light Tresspass, i.e. any illuminaƟon, including light glow created by street lights off of the highway must be prevented.

A moƟon should be made to this effect.

Street Lights – A safer highway ?
Most of the accidents occur in eastern Malibu where PCH street lights exist up and down the highway and these street lights do not prevent the many night Ɵme accidents that occur in eastern Malibu. Street lights, except in excepƟonal case, do not prevent accidents.

BIKE PATHS
Bike Path - Not Protected
If the Commission votes for non- conƟnuous bike lanes there are ways to make them protected or at the very least more protecƟve. Cal Trans argued at the October meeƟng that protected bike lanes can’t always be safe if they are designed with wheel stops which could prevent vehicles from veering off the road if necessary.

But there are opƟons other than wheel stops that should be considered. The following can make the bike lanes safer than just painƟng lanes. Bollards if they don’t prevent parking and rumble strips which willnot prevent parking between the bike lane and the car lane can make bike lanes safer. Please see the Malibu Township Council suggesƟons and photos and consider these alternaƟves.

SIDEWALKS
Sidewalks -Pepperdine
We support Pepperdine in their opposiƟon to sidewalks along their campus. If they thought sidewalks would make it safer, they wouldn’t be opposing them.

Malibu Canyon Road is where rural Western Malibu begins. If you are going to support sidewalks at this proposed locaƟon, they should be made and maintained of decomposed granite like thy are on Point Dume and Malibu Park.

Sidewalks - Dan Blocker Beach
We don’t understand the purpose of puƫng 6 Ō. wide sidewalks along this beach strip. Zuma Beach doesn’t have side walks so why are they needed here. Sidewalks promote the 789
3 urbanizaƟon of this area in western Malibu. Also, where people park now varies in width and we are concerned that sidewalks might result in loss of beach parking.

Sidewalk MoƟon
A moƟon should be made to not have sidewalks at the 2 aabove 2 locaƟons Vehicle Lanes – Narrowing Lanes
Ryan Embree has submiƩed a study in his correspondence to the commission staƟng that narrowing vehicle lanes from 12 feet in width to 11 feet creates a safety hazard. If bike lanes and side walks result in the narrowing of lanes, it is not making PCH safer and this should be taken into account in making your decision.

Thank you for considering the above comments.
790
From: Lois Remely -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:47:42 PM
Dear City,
I am in favor of Caltrans Safety upgrades to PCH. This has become a very dangerous stretch of our beautiful coast causing deadly accidents for bicyclists motorists and pedestrians.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Lois Remely
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FMm6b6-2FluS24s2BAu3zY0Cw3aQc8od7d5MoumIAP5sDFjhpMq6iKbzPMT0OWruCRbMMtjLERgbsg122yt1uH2nFco7n1zBj7atXJn9vgpbMMErWqRXcdXA6s2RdCtu82DsvUkeidyUE8EfVj2F8q56b4xnGGvuTho6eIjKCO-2F41VWs-3D&c=E,1,JnwDcZO4cFkUCEziarveEZ9jkbcEtIV05156kt7spHaW4yienA7oIPwBfI7YHJck6BlYQ2IKUS08n7s1VxxTP7yWtEvGmcqqfStPIbd&typo=1> 791
From: Leslie Ridings -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:14 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.”
Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Leslie Ridings
792
From: Lindsay Russell
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:58:38 PM
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

And when the next person dies on PCH, will you be able to sleep comfortably knowing that your decision could have saved their life? Please approve the Caltrans plan and give Malibu the safe highway it deserves.

Sincerely,
Lindsay Russell
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2Fb2-2B5KBsgjEoVyehJvuhLefYZsYMIZINGIJuZ1StYRhkVZYkaT-2BOSPgQdhJB2B0AfnQHHSOmRuKVmjTyOVKAEJkk7LP2U25ZjOd0z3UaSLyckfgkMvYCDnCWXpfCcZaSWsP6sVMKE7vfT3Q6zJ6ewyeZLCQeZK-2FSabstuHyAhcWps3D&c=E,1,y0LEXVmM7aMn7TUw-i_yS6CljGyN9LHdM3rbbuLIwhXMTD35AXIY06M10BxiNoaulUIxkD32ll17uvzojfObbEztRp8juGGNcWikOgGg&typo=1> 793
From: Lily Preis -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:28:37 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Lily Preis
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FMzPph0ZMhO1BQUVbD8zbzShzU0PCSF5Lvnooqy0zHg7fDQaRHhrAy4uiJMLkBraYvDu0wmJyZZtidjScvKMmF0DPGE0j-2F5GrM4xGdd4xzEYX-2F2FjKW1FMtYxTGt98YQuA-2BVLOnNi-2FbU6pGvEzrQ7xoUKOuTGd0fC6Z5VfKYLt1jA-3D&c=E,1,lIhTTipscn90Zt7FubAB0jpgJ7FtUsnl52NQL9tMC8x70ejgrJENRA5iUtFb_dJYhBPhChweNETgKclHYo9B9A8K4PdxUMqia2RtyN5wA,,&typo=1> 794
From: Lonnie Gordon -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:37:53 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now

Dear City,
Please reclassify PCH as a "main street" roadway and prioritize lives over delays and say YES to rebuilding PCH safely, responsibly, and collaboratively.

Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Lonnie Gordon
795
From: Bill Sampson
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Marni Kamins; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; Skylar Peak; Malibu Township Council
Cc: Rebecca Evans; Judy Villablanca; Patt Healy; Lonnie Gordon; Michel Shane; Damian Kevitt; Gail Duncan; Charlotte Frieze
Subject: Re: Item 4A - Caltrans proposal for western Malibu Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 8:33:35 AM
Attachments: EXHIBIt D.png
As President of the Malibu Township Council I
concur in and endorse Jo Drummond's remarks. I
intend to speak by Zoom.

Bill Sampson, President, Malibu Township Council
On Sunday, November 2, 2025 at 10:00:58 PM PST, Malibu Township Council <[email protected]> wrote:

Attention Planning Commission,
Since 1947, the Malibu Township Council (MTC) has stood for responsible development, environmental protection, and public safety along Pacific Coast Highway.

That is not just a statistic—it is a mandate for smarter design.

The greatest danger lies with those outside their cars.

PCH is not a mono-use highway. It is a multi-use corridor serving:

Pedestrians — residents, beachgoers, and visitors
Cyclists — commuters, weekend athletes, and tourists
Motorists — residents, commerce, tourists, and joy riders Because residents are only a fraction of total users, safety design must prioritize the most vulnerable—pedestrians and cyclists.
796

2. The Real Cause of Crashes
Caltrans’ analysis overemphasizes lighting while ignoring the true cause of most collisions: reckless speeding.

Experience proves this: since the Palisades Fires, Eastern Malibu has had no major crashes or fatalities, as the speed limit and lanes have been greatly reduced.

The problem is speed and lack of separation, not darkness.

Real safety comes from designing for lower speeds and physical bike lane protection, not increased illumination.

3. Painted Lanes Are Not Protection
Caltrans proposes 15.4 miles of Class II painted bike lanes, directly beside 50-60 mph traffic.

Paint is not protection.

According to research cited by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) and supported by federal guidance:

Protected lanes reduce crashes by 40–53%.

Federal law (23 U.S.C. §217) requires “safe accommodation” for cyclists and pedestrians.

California SB 960 and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act require separated Complete Streets on high-speed corridors.

Federal programs can fund up to 80% of the cost of protected lanes.

Choosing paint over protection is neither safe, legal, nor fiscally responsible

4. Protection Must Be a Condition of Approval
Caltrans proposes narrowing vehicle lanes from 12 to 10.5 feet to “fit” painted bike lanes—without barriers.

That combination is unsafe on a corridor that carries trucks, RVs, buses, and emergency vehicles at high speeds.

If lanes are narrowed, the reclaimed width must be used to create protected, physically separated bike lanes—consistent with the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide, and Caltrans Director’s Policy 37 (DP-37): Complete Streets. This can be accomplished within the same dimensions.

Both FHWA and NACTO are clear: on high-speed, high-volume corridors like PCH, painted lanes are not enough. Physically separated lanes are a “Proven Safety Countermeasure”, reducing serious crashes and fatalities by more than 40%.

Low-cost, quick-build protection is achievable immediately under existing Caltrans budgets and maintenance authority.

The Emily Shane Foundation’s “Transforming PCH Malibu” proposal details exactly how—through a 3- mile pilot program from Pepperdine to the Pier costing under $500,000, eligible for up to 80% federal 797
reimbursement through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A). This might be a fantastic solution to incorporate the "blue highway" with nearby bike rentals to explore the Civic Center and Pepperdine area.

These safety upgrades can and should be incorporated now without delaying the project’s approval.

Achievable protection strategies include:

Flexible delineator posts or mountable curbs spaced every 20–40 feet for visual and physical separation.

Parking-buffered bike lanes, where parked cars provide a continuous shield between cyclists and moving traffic (Exhibit A).

Breakaway or retractable bollards at driveways and emergency access points, allowing quick passage for fire and medical vehicles.

Green conflict-zone markings and reflective elements at intersections to increase visibility.

The attached photos Exhibits A–D show how each of these solutions can fit within Malibu’s constrained right-of-way:

Exhibit A: Protected Bike Lane with Parking Buffer (Cycle Track Configuration) Exhibit B: Narrow Protected Lane Using Flexible Posts
Exhibit C: Contraflow Protected Bike Lane for Constrained Corridors Exhibit D: Buffered Narrow Lane with Low-Profile Mountable Curbs These designs align with FHWA, NACTO, and Caltrans standards and can be implemented rapidly using existing funding mechanisms.

Therefore, MTC urges that approval of this project explicitly include conditions requiring the addition of physical protection wherever feasible.

These improvements should be integrated during final design and construction—not postponed for later phases.

Malibu and Caltrans share the same goal: to make PCH safer now.

We support this project’s approval and ask only that it meets the modern, data-driven standards our community deserves.

Safety will come from speed control and bike lane physical separation, not urban illumination.

5. Lighting and Rural Character
The plan adds 42 new streetlights, including six between Zumirez and Zuma View Place where lights already exist at intersections.

Lighting should be limited only to intersections or street outlets, with fixtures that are:
798
3000 Kelvin or lower,
fully shielded, and
designed to minimize glare and sky glow.

Adding a single light at Zuma View may be acceptable, but no additional mid-block lighting between Zumirez and Zuma View Place is warranted.

6. Sidewalks — Heathercliff & PCH
We strongly support the proposed sidewalk at Heathercliff Road, where 13-year-old Emily Shane was killed in 2010.

It must be continuous, ADA-compliant, and connected across both sides of the intersection.

This is the kind of data-driven, life-saving improvement Malibu needs.

7. Sidewalks — Pepperdine and Western Malibu
We also support Pepperdine University’s opposition to sidewalks along their campus.

If Pepperdine believed sidewalks would improve safety, they would not oppose them.

Malibu Canyon Road is the transition point where rural Western Malibu begins.

If sidewalks are approved in this area, they should be constructed and maintained of decomposed granite (DG)—as seen in Point Dume Preserve and Malibu Park—preserving the rural aesthetic while providing walkable surfaces.

8. Sidewalks — Dan Blocker Beach
We also question the purpose of adding six-foot-wide concrete sidewalks along Dan Blocker Beach.

Such sidewalks would promote urbanization in a rural coastal stretch and could reduce beach parking, as informal parking widths vary along this segment.

This design must be reconsidered to preserve public access and coastal character.

9. A Better Path Forward
MTC urges the City and Caltrans to:

Replace Class II stripes with Class IV protected lanes integrated with parking buffers per NACTO guidance.

Make physical protected bike lanes a condition of approval.

Limit lighting to intersections and street outlets only (3000K or lower, fully shaded).

Prohibit lighting of beaches, streams, and other ESHA.

Reject mid-block lights between Zumirez and Zuma View Place, and opposite Malibu Seafood etc..

Follow recommendations for sidewalks at Heathercliff & PCH.

Pursue federal safety funding for protection—not paint or urban lighting.

Conclusion
799
Thirty-two lives—more than half of all fatalities since 2012—were pedestrians and cyclists.

The cause is speeding and lack of separation, not lack of light.

Let’s follow the data and the law.

Protected lanes, lighting only at intersections, and context-sensitive sidewalks are the path to safety that respects Malibu’s natural character.

Malibu deserves real safety, not symbolic paint, unnecessary lights, or suburban sidewalks.

Let’s build a PCH that protects its people while preserving our wildlife, dark skies, and coastal heritage.

Respectfully submitted,
Jo Drummond
for the Malibu Township Council
800
801
From: Mireya Galacgac -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 6:10 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
As a friend and sorority sister of the 4 girls who lost their lives in October 2023, I urge you to please make PCH safer, not only for the students who call Malibu home but for everyone who passes through our beautiful town. Their deaths were preventable and there are so many more measures that can be taken to ensure this won’t happen again. I have so much love for Malibu and PCH but I don’t have anymore room in my heart for more tragedies to strike. Please protect our people and enact the necessary change.

Eighty percent of this Caltrans project is repaving — the road will be torn up anyway. Adding safety improvements during reconstruction costs almost nothing. Doing it later would cost tens of millions. Is the City of Malibu prepared to provide that money? Rejecting or delaying this plan wastes money and will cost lives.

Please approve the Caltrans project, and let’s make PCH safer for everyone who uses it, including the cyclists.

Sincerely,
Mireya Galacgac
802
From: Michael Hannagan -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:23 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Dear City,
This is an extremely important matter to everyone who spends time with friends and family as well as significant amounts of money in Malibu.

If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Michael Hannagan
803
From: Madison Mc Loughlin
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:58:40 PM
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Madison Mc Loughlin
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FAalx-2BZpsJsiVixqMk08vbHs9JePzEfDLnZ9REPcfdLA8H2- 2Bzql2Ypxo7El4DhINnFXGWkwfx6Bsd9OBhdkbOYxotMhtgMqZ6MVfw15ZMAqz2TgkcKZVoofeZlVk5yCVuZDa5i2NCdNIpw9ucFCO4K9CtRfwDzMMsUdPeW8eXa9w3D&c=E,1,S9qVHZ-Z8xQJ33uiGypesieWvPmXgX6YCUZ0_ShEV0zTAGJn0nClipTMvAbr4qzP3QH7VFaIBKncsi0Ka764KFGAQxzEieSemz3xbjO-ECvcSw,,&typo=1> 804
From: Madeline Helland
To: Planning Commission
Subject: PCH Rebuild
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 9:30:04 PM
Dear Members of the Malibu Planning Commission,
As a local cyclist who regularly rides on PCH, I’m urging you to approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Project at your November 3 meeting.

Every time I ride on PCH, I feel in danger. There’s little room for error, and too often, we read about another preventable crash or fatality. The improvements in this plan — protected bike lanes, new sidewalks, lighting, and guardrails — aren’t just “nice to haves” they are ESSENTIAL to keeping people alive, whether biking, walking, or driving.

This project represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to make PCH safer for everyone who uses it. If we lose this funding, Malibu could wait years, even decades, for another chance like this.

Please choose action over delay. Approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan and help make PCH a safer, more responsible road for all who live, work, and travel along it. Please care about those that want to live active, full lives and enjoy this incredibly beautiful city and state we live in.

Thank you for your time.

Madeline Helland
805
From: Michael Goodman -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 1:45 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Dear City,
It's unclear to me how saving the lives of pedestrians, cyclists, and frankly even motorists could be less important than preserving the rural character of Malibu. While I don't think that this plan damages Malibu's character, saving lives seems more important. It is inconceivable to me that anyone could be so indifferent to the lives of the people who use PCH that they would put their stylistic vision for Malibu over and above that. Please do the only humane thing and approve these safety improvements.

The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Michael Goodman
806
From: Madeline Joe
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:19:08 PM
Dear City,
We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Madeline Joe
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FYJ8hIfjjRvm2-2BGVJogZe3WkFfAYShwuIod0pNQg1FBlsoVw-2F4FccQX6AJ0itlnRJL-2FegSyqpBrYvKJfi-2F2Bc24fslEkqsECRZdsCiqOIrroxFnQqcpBf0bo6eLxuUXsYqjo6ZiRh5KRW8VGremNSfG9FNkvEQOqcr1cmVkN8aRLU3D&c=E,1,mI0wWinR9QQRD3e9U56WMNdceRnz5ZtQ4wOrLVN3SGwvaCyQnO7zs0LunfLl466dfdt9gW8gXQtW27Rcq2sgz7PEOzy7tEM7gUIL1SzVPrjTGImR35LOS0xJ&typo=1> 807
From: Michael Carey -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:52:59 PM
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Michael Carey
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FvysDnUDVohKmUCzpHhv2YsfGhRJgeZRAYG-2FpZlS-2F6qAq2FHgEYbOk4xt9xSAs5MFzT7BvD0cgsbPjIOLGvTrV72AEPtysZvWI8VgJRSI3JzU5owrEfVmNM5zwtlP-2F0EiXJulwk1fAP4vxlJf2BVRypr6V9b2i2bekvL4h2FucvG90- 3D&c=E,1,g1cZBzl8P1VmvJRTweAzCB16TpiRhtjnx91P2IfS4duQMogRyzTbTnjj5PT7z9af_T7B2IiUTrsZsUTJ5AlvvRwJvk3loNT2U9WOMrdrBHs,&typo=1> 808
From: Mariella Chmaj -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:32:59 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Mariella Chmaj
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2F5j1wcB5sN9pWFbeG96KiN20AFzvLhJJQI4vNOxD4AztPKg-2FsRrOsz-2FYdceV9n2VucfrrdeoWc9shjsB4wi1FsRYp5B1boi5e2FpzSURtbcvNHhTOmvWIROPp1Z4WfGyZs-2BZ-2BrEMCSeUPJI-2BEpjFuW7cBz9W5bkxbA3hK36wf390lDr9vdLOyp6np2FUA0qFRDb&c=E,1,UyZRzIpQsqFOs50Ey0Hdv36XVd6bmca8v3rZwZTsVtknUONSMoNIbLgFFAUBOPQu1ykOx8IO0DdPdLjhpMOvlfEi4NnlvYeNYZbP7MOi&typo=1> 809
From: Marvin Davis -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 7:30 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Dear City,
The life you save may be mine.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Marvin Davis
810
From: Maddie Area
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:05:26 PM
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Maddie Area
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F3XvqqUtP94f8NzAGHT3eYBlIed9APL8-2BWDyM4s-2BKppahPyabH9qLD2FxUCLfm3E7NeoaDNRMcixAq7vdJNPhuAHV5nqTx84ADWHJJClcc2GiuUqbTgg6CZ2BzczBnilTDwGPAZKwBIRQWOoSdfyGcpgwcG123FCR13MhbbTu10wqg-3D&c=E,1,n3fcwvJMpt_xl0YMh0AI4LQfWWSz5GOB9UraqGY6- i0LlzbVRuS6jHU5tYiF5lXJ54j_FcHeKl7Iwe7RMGkBmQhu1HSL_7uJtTrY2vFzBaM,&typo=1> 811
From: Michael Fletcher -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:00:27 PM
Dear City,
Please consider every life valuable and not a statistic. Malibu is a wonderful place for recreation and I believe it can remain that way with your approval.

If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Michael Fletcher
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FrH-2BzlnrXKLgv2YWL2yfuyN346LPUMvZp3xrPAZ1LNOM96Npf-2By-2FluJFmomqrTQd74yQcv1DIRO9UaG2FgxBjLCH6RCsiT0wBaQ68skFYYajwEHdl4LcQ4y-2BYWSs-2FZLVnWHS55wEARTwTWXh9Dq3-2Bz-2Bw771eiMn3DkEYYBmNGMjz8- 3D&c=E,1,uOwZ5XJckWyEfXd215ZsaSagPvU2rwzOGMpWNYCcR72xGNkvy_u1E28WisEHUX1rWeClxnWXhA9dZgsUflZaGhuUa4uhh7mEkNjIiohipOQVTLDx2um&typo=1> 812
From: Michael Samuel -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 6:03 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Michael Samuel
813
From: Mari Stanley
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Public Comment - Item 4A - 11/3/25 meeting
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:51:47 PM
Dear Commissioners,
I am adamantly AGAINST the Caltrans proposal before you this evening as I recognize it was crafted by people in a closed environment that do not experience the multiple issues of PCH dangers much less live in Malibu.

For a blast of a start - the plan to install lights is idiotic and flat out insane as it defies and deflates the very reason we became a City. We seek a rural community and to have a strong focus on the open spaces surrounding us as well as the various species of wildlife and marine life that have no voice in this discussion tonight. I abhor the idea of so many lights along PCH and question the sanity of those that pursued such an idea for this length of time. They are utterly out of step with the Mission and Value Statements that the individuals who appointed you to the commission all supported in their campaigns to be elected and who also strive to present support in their own votes.

I would also touch on the plan for bike lanes - I see it as creating more confusion and action for drivers of vehicles and only see recreational use of PCH. I have yet to hear of any resident or local worker that claims to solely use a bicycle as means of transportation. I understand that we do have some who prefer a bike and I happen to be one with an e-bike but I use it for local runs to Pt Dume shopping center. Cannot reach the level of fortitude to go to Civic Center yet I have been riding bikes for the majority of my life including along 101 stretch that has a wide area with multiple lanes that afford fast passing vehicles the opportunity to switch lanes if a bicyclist falls or swerves due to impediments on the shoulder or a vehicle failure requiring a fast stop on the shoulder. PCH does not have that luxury, just this past Sunday I encountered a pack of bicyclists riding PCH taking the entire slow lane and I suspect they began in the fire zone area.

As it stands now, many meet at Bluffs Park and consume parking at that public area. We will need to have Caltrans - at the very least - use their own property to craft parking zones for bicyclists as any new bike lanes will increase the desire of more bicyclists and create more headaches for the City of Malibu. We must push for Caltrans to purchase land or use existing resources NOT OWNED BY MALIBU to provide the parking that they create by adding bicycling amenities. I expect that each of you will speak tonight as to how often you are at Bluffs Park or driving thru it to calculate the parking of bicyclists vs. the people that are actively using Bluffs Park amenities or attending courses/events at the Landon building.

Tell me you are there on weekend mornings - early morning - and for a span of time to see the 'theft' of our parking that is intended for the programs and sporting use of our park. Pls consider that a time limit for parking will likely be required if this is approved and then it will be the City 814
that is pushed to provide parking for the use of a road we do not own or have rights to! I do not seek for our City to be pushed to use one of the properties we own to be utilized by people that are not residents. It would likely be a project completed long before any real amenity for our community is realized so you will indeed be held responsible for poor planning in that aspect.

Why is Eastern Malibu simply ignored, no such plan should be accepted without a component provided for Eastern portion of Malibu, period. We either have a bike route for the entire length of PCH or we have none. Let Caltrans present a comprehensive statewide plan for every inch of PCH that all communities embrace or can unite to reject as a whole. It will be viewed as favoritism by other communities, more so their residents, to solely install bike lanes in Malibu, don't ignore how Malibu is too often trashed for such ideas as the one before you this evening yet we lacked engagement in development up to this point.

Sorry, this needs to be punted right into the trash receptacles out front of City Hall or sent immediately to the Wishtoyo site to be burned with sage in hopes for brighter minds at Caltrans.

Mari Stanley
Pt Dume resident
Final question to ask: what pushed Caltrans to do this plan? Did they receive lobbyist pressure as the bicycling community is very, very strong and well financed as evidenced in Malibu years ago. One Public Safety commissioner was dragged hard and their personal residence address widely shared with real threats made against their live and livelihood.

That was real and it was awful to witness for the hatred displayed so openly and targeting one individual. I smell grant funding and lobbyists, their stink is all over this plan.
815
From: Maanas Singhal -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 7:38 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Maanas Singhal
816
From: Molly Skorobohaty -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 5:56 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Molly Skorobohaty
817
From: M T -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:42:40 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill

Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
M T
818
From: Morgan Mc Loughlin -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:17:27 PM
Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Morgan Mc Loughlin
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2Fi4LZU-2Bf-2FNryaKVAgMpEtusoMspCJv185xyLN3aOKny3LqMBXKsZzn9XbMPnPYAx-2FUtggqdqfn-2BqPWCpF3EmQ8sZjULFiLH2FzWwqWkLYWoWxvZwMBwhO0XWqQXAy1zHyybanxyVLrSityYrqJhEcK2h-2B42XZyiavTlVm3oibHtck3D&c=E,1,5unFK3j5W5UAmd6MuwgyZ7d_K8wJjPOBeHNLeVl6GQ8lscK72tols6Y-zpW433cLpt3QvkTXTBZllXMDqhrj463Gs4c165SH68SDIGPPboTd8MSGGBT7ra2en8J&typo=1> 819
From: Michael Kehrberg
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 25-009 - Vote Yes Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 6:39:14 AM
Hello Planning Commission,
I am a resident of Santa Monica who frequently travels the PCH through Malibu by bike and car. I urge you to vote yes on Coastal Development Permit No 25-009. The PCH is a dangerous roadway with multiple different user groups. Unfortunately, it is the only option to get through the area. This proposal will help make it safer for everyone and I strongly urge you to vote yes.

Thank you,
Michael Kehrberg
820
From: Mark Mench -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:59:23 PM
Dear City,
This is badly needed to allow safe multi-use activity and keep Malibu true to its origins.

If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Mark Mench
821
From: Mariah Macias
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:59:51 PM
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

And when the next person dies on PCH, will you be able to sleep comfortably knowing that your decision could have saved their life? Please approve the Caltrans plan and give Malibu the safe highway it deserves.

Sincerely,
Mariah Macias
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F-2B7I3DZ-2BZWcaaFjFvdzbrIIw5A8QrVlA8Siff3ACDautz0s1KQ7HQhBpBSq-2BCmPLoBU96O2zDHyUr5vNmaiPhtSfIOaXJsXWlOuf8DF2B1un81f2fneZOWloWR52frpkfG-2FSGeYRjf4Inx6gjG51ryd-2F4ZC7j0RKF0muQEkBX3Yhs-3D&c=E,1,TIMagKMb1r-jx2iaE6eRNQDqaCwpTyjYGecZ17SX144rnzs0ZtINezQXSj_Dw7phvGu9M7YSN4_K0odAlWNVahO2YF2ZHNMfGY_QOe-x6qDFqoR&typo=1> 822
From: Mariah Moncalian -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:43 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan

Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Mariah Moncalian
823
From: Mph
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 12:21 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Dear City,
How many more people need to die?
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Matthew Ruscigno, Mph, Rd
824
From: Michelle Powers -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Michelle Powers
825
From: Nicolle Taylor
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Richard Eldridge; Megan Shillington; Kelsey Pettijohn; Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Haylynn Conrad; Doug Stewart; Steve Uhring
Subject: Pepperdine | Request for Discussion | Caltrans’ Proposed Sidewalk Fronting Campus Date: Monday, October 27, 2025 1:55:57 PM
Attachments: [Executed] Pepperdine University - Comment Letter - PC Item 4.A.pdf Dear Planning Commission,
For those of you I have not yet met, my name is Nicolle Taylor, and I serve as the Chief Operating Officer of Pepperdine University. First, on behalf of Pepperdine, I’d like to emphasize our gratitude and appreciation for your service to our shared community, especially as it pertains to the City’s extensive efforts to enhance PCH safety. The University remains strongly committed to continuing to support PCH safety initiatives.

As you know, before the last Planning Commission meeting, Pepperdine submitted a comment letter regarding the specific portion of Caltrans’ CDP application contemplating a sidewalk fronting our campus between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive, requesting that limited portion of the project not be approved (letter re-attached here for ease of reference). Since that meeting, Pepperdine has continued to assess this item, met again with Caltrans, and spoke with our neighboring Malibu Country Estates HOA, and we would greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide an update, discuss this item generally, and layer in additional context.

Drew, Elizabeth, Marni, John, and Skylar, if you have a few minutes this afternoon or over the next day or so (?), we’d greatly appreciate the opportunity to connect with each of you regarding this item. If you are available, Megan Shillington from my office, copied here, will be more than happy to coordinate.

The University is also preparing written comments for the upcoming Planning Commission meeting that we intend to finalize and submit later this week. We have been meeting with Caltrans, City staff, LASD, and others for many months regarding this item and want to be aligned, excellent partners.

Thank you again for your service and attention to this important matter, Nicolle
Nicolle Taylor
Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
o:
826

October 20, 2025
Chair Drew Leonard and Members of the Malibu Planning Commission City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: PC Item 4.A.: Coastal Development Permit No. 25-009 – Pacific Coast Highway Infrastructure Upgrades; Segment Fronting Pepperdine University Malibu Canyon Road to John Tyler Drive)
Dear Chair Leonard and Honorable Commissioners:

On behalf of Pepperdine University, I extend our gratitude for your continued dedication to enhancing safety along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH). The University remains committed to supporting PCH safety initiatives and appreciates the significant efforts of the State of California, including Caltrans, the County of Los Angeles, the City of Malibu, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in improving the safety of our shared community.

We are writing today to provide comments on the sections of Caltrans’ proposed project to install new infrastructure along PCH (Project) that front our campus between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive. As outlined below, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission defer approval of these Project aspects to ensure any unintended consequences are identified and appropriately addressed.

Background
For several months, we have been coordinating with, among other groups, Caltrans, the City of Malibu Department of Public Works, and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD) regarding Caltrans’ proposed sidewalk and other improvements adjacent to our campus. During these discussions, we have expressed several concerns with Caltrans’ proposal and requested additional information to better understand the potential safety benefits and risks of the improvements.

Given this coordination and our requests, we were surprised to learn the Planning Commission would be considering the complete Project, including the portions between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive, as this was not communicated to us by Caltrans. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the University remains committed to ongoing coordination and collaboration with all stakeholders to advance improvements that will enhance regional safety.

Potential Concerns and Challenges
As summarized above, in the context of our discussions with Caltrans, we have raised certain concerns with the proposed installation of sidewalks and other improvements between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive.

Principally, our concerns include:
• Based on our review of the plans pending before the Commission, there do not appear to be any current plans to extend the sidewalk beyond the Malibu Canyon Road to John Tyler Drive segment to other stretches of existing sidewalk or sidewalks that will be installed pursuant to the Project. Discussions with law enforcement personnel have raised concerns that the non-contiguous stretch of sidewalk along our campus could exacerbate safety challenges by encouraging more pedestrians to walk onto PCH once they realize the sidewalk segment does not continue.
827

• Pepperdine’s “Alumni Park” along PCH has long served as a critical emergency resource for first responders, including (1) regional wildfire air suppression efforts supported by Pepperdine’s open-air recycled water reservoirs; (2) medivacs from the University's associated emergency helipad; and (3) emergency ingress and egress for sensitive and timely emergency response and public safety efforts. Given the proposed segment’s proximity to the University’s recycled water reservoir and emergency landing pad, Pepperdine is concerned the Project may conflict with wildfire and medical helicopter operations and limit emergency access for first responder vehicles.

Areas of Support
Pepperdine supports Caltrans’ proposed installation of ADA-compatible curb ramps at Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive. We are ready to collaborate with Caltrans to facilitate this work, which may include providing temporary construction easements and coordinating with Caltrans on any approvals, as ultimately deemed necessary, from Los Angeles County and the California Coastal Commission for work in unincorporated Los Angeles County.

Current Request of the Planning Commission
Given the outstanding safety-driven questions, Pepperdine respectfully requests the Planning Commission to defer approval of the portion of the Project involving sidewalk installation between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive.

Conclusion
Again, Pepperdine fully supports the extensive efforts and partnerships of Caltrans, the City, and other agencies working together to enhance PCH safety for the collective benefit of our community. We stand ready to coordinate on a refined, evidence-based approach for the proposed Project segment fronting the campus that will support enhanced safety for all PCH users while preserving campus safety and emergency access.

Sincerely,
Nicolle Taylor, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer cc: Ricky W. Eldridge, Pepperdine University, Associate Vice President John C. Heintz, Latham & Watkins LLP, Partner
828
From: Paweł Książek -
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 2:20 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Paweł Książek
829
From: Olivia Mastalerz -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:34 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
Hello, as someone who saw the effects of what happened on PCH to the four girls in Malibu I believe we need to make PCH safer as it is a dangerous road. Please take the time to make this safer for everyone!!
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Olivia Mastalerz
830
From: Peyton Hunley
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:13:51 PM
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Peyton Hunley
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FW8SFMaEp5eVcraJqpYupNqCsoCtMevnMaMEFbSH2lMD5nZASq2Ujf4ajgieXk1AFIcuBh2IhnV6PFFZS2uzZjIbphstUzf06-2Fy6JGFee6rEOKfV9s3V0FKg2By0kx-2FJiQIsaq71Tds-2Bg283HKs996VJtuCN3sQ6kEZPlRRYO2vBA3D&c=E,1,1PBSC6wszHPqqwmcm0deABqdCv1iX3gBvdKOxVY4uTakA9yDeNFfYE2H75pcQMCW5ozh1htQAugpG6ooP9h55xBwo7GbufbbBjpaHJmqLIK3hJMuIEMljOOLao_&typo=1> 831
From: Neil Bernstein -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 4:00:33 PM
Dear City,
I am on PCH often both as a cyclist and a driver. These upgrades will keep everyone safer, pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers. I wonder what the parents of the young women who were killed would think if the much needed upgrades were voted down. Thank you for your consideration.

We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Neil Bernstein
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2F2coGQKSW3QcrzBTuNkhAqQtenpHSSqDS0z5gDkuqJg-2Bc4vtWjxCyOlcW-2FB-2FJ7tAtF-2FTxNhcfjCdCevw3Q8271NQKz5HvO94JH-2BCzHP2FL9qG-2FUz5bbzYCGAk5gOltcfckCKd71InRnVjkQiL-2FjApj2Hatyoz9zbTV7QWcpPTFPj8- 3D&c=E,1,mtsjpxfaARFONlnHjnTLOr4gj7KMOUlJMHPnF2JTztAltjy5vukxMQ-GQJbfSL05uIqIp5DohlOk4tAqD8dRsBVsao41f3qVx9_nMAG5mQrF4EKrS_JiB1Rg4yQ&typo=1> 832
From: Paige Porter
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:22:51 PM
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Paige Porter
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2F5la2TYYdPZvxCwoh4QoPsHPHoS5NPjoC3apKuMxmcWVRENHCLtIaAumIK-2FwQGe7iwK0f7GSa0v4N0KR2z7FLlE1-2F0c8J2BndQdfoR7faTTUcsQrjDBPalTN8wtL6pebfZd6WZ-2BxT8ecTjwXtxnhY-2F5irE1XO0-2FR28VGgARpb93P4- 3D&c=E,1,zsvDp28e17wqdRNFlXdU8FEiJFk6vYFQzJ8SKAnmADKGwPFPuctTEkfF7DHaimtVU4MGhGb1fSIg6Xsm7i0jYYeNbkIE60Mqaa9n6rmdBCJjeN_hgla0JpqCE5A,&typo=1> 833
From: Noelle Crosby
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Supporting PCH Rebuild
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 9:27:49 AM
Hi there,
I’m writing in to share my deep support for the PCH rebuild.

As a cyclist and as the cycling community continues to grow, this will increase our chances of safety significantly.

The PCH is the avenue to so many famous climbs and roads that make riding in LA the absolute best and right now, riding along it, is unsafe and flat out scary.

With that said, please say yes to approving the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan.

Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Noelle Crosby
834
From: Nicole Moy
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:23:35 PM
Dear City,
Enough carnage on PCH! Action needs to be taken to make this a safer road! If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Nicole Moy
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FbHigmQLY6gMtETr53y4qgjcqQEUtMq0ulZ-2FKJtG-2Br18sMIUlUCYjIroaD7WTURxCglMKM2BteMcs5IyYjGGxZH1vEiX7Vd36Lx4FEpKqK5rnkS8LZKQS5WoYgkjw6mVLGLwnWW-2Fd8cmrx7BgKyl2y6tH1iD51LunO-2B-2BAskAmhDxw3D&c=E,1,8HqzjMAOiW6L3JizkJOTWF9H3S9wzxP6bdCZKO2LlEjbVbnoVQZRVKvdPnZVRTpo3RkQWj0nfWAHZVWKX_23AjRbvjhlmQ4GzzROfDKrmA,,&typo=1> 835
From: Nik Venet -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 2:27 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Dear City,
I grew up in Topanga, travelling PCH many many times. It's less safe than it's ever been. I travel it these days by car and by bicycle and have worked on hundreds of shoots on the coast there. There are more people and cars are made bigger and faster than they've every been. I understand the concern of aesthetics, but it is not a binary choice, one must not be deceived that to have safety, it must be an eye-sore, or that to be aestheic, it must be a death trap. Please approve the project, save lives, nobody cares how beautiful the coast is when they're concerned about locals driving 400 horsepower vehicles at 100 mph within an inch of them.

In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Nik Venet
836
From: Nicholas Ratinaud -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 9:19 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
Safe streets for all users!
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Nicholas Ratinaud
837
From: Richard Eldridge
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Haylynn Conrad; Doug Stewart; Steve Uhring; Yolanda Bundy; Tyler Eaton; Trevor Rusin; Kellan Martz; [email protected]; Phil Phillips; Nicolle Taylor; John Heintz Subject: Pepperdine University | Comment Letter | Planning Commission Item 4.A. (November 3, 2025, Meeting) Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:45:01 PM
Attachments: [Executed] Pepperdine Comment Letter - November 3, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item 4A (PCH).pdf
All,
On behalf of Pepperdine University, please see attached for a comment letter pertaining to Item 4.A. (CDP No. 25-009) on the November 3, 2025, Planning Commission agenda.

Thank you,
Ricky Eldridge
Associate Vice President
Governmental and Regulatory Affairs
Department of Public Safety
Center for Sustainability
o: 310.506.4702
838
October 30, 2025
Chair Drew Leonard and Members of the Malibu Planning Commission City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MESSAGE
Re: PC Item 4.A — Coastal Development Permit No. 25-009; Pacific Coast Highway Infrastructure Upgrades; Segment Fronting Pepperdine University (Malibu Canyon Road to John Tyler Drive)
Dear Chair Leonard and Honorable Commissioners:

On behalf of Pepperdine University, thank you to the Planning Commission and City staff for the steadfast leadership to improve safety along Pacific Coast Highway.

While we strongly support PCH safety, for the reasons outlined in our October 20, 2025, letter to the Commission and further summarized below, Pepperdine is concerned that the specific portion of Caltrans’ project now before the Commission proposing a sidewalk and retaining wall on the northbound side of PCH between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive fronting Pepperdine’s Alumni Park will not increase safety and could have numerous unintended consequences.

Notwithstanding these unresolved concerns, we do not wish to compromise the larger project or its funding.

Pepperdine understands the project can move forward without the construction of this sidewalk segment if Caltrans simply removes this element from the project’s scope that the Commission will consider on November 3. We have requested Caltrans take this action. We sincerely hope Caltrans honors this request, which, based on the information provided to date, we believe is in the best interest of PCH safety.1 If Caltrans is unwilling to remove this element from the project, we respectfully request the Commission impose narrowly tailored conditions to ensure the portion of concern—the proposed sidewalk segment and retaining wall on the northbound side of PCH between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive fronting Pepperdine’s Alumni Park—advances PCH safety without compromising our campus safety or interfering with emergency response efforts.

We offer additional information and proposed conditions for the Commission’s consideration below.

Support for Caltrans’ Proposed ADA-Upgrades at Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive As we previously shared, Pepperdine supports Caltrans’ proposed installation of ADA-compatible curb ramps at Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive and is ready to collaborate with Caltrans and the City to facilitate this work.

Unresolved Concerns with the Proposed Malibu Canyon Road to John Tyler Drive Sidewalk To date, we have still not received the information from Caltrans demonstrating why this sidewalk is needed to improve safety in this vicinity, how it achieves safety benefits, and how Caltrans can be confident it will not interfere with campus or regional emergency response. 1 Importantly, this approach will also leave open the opportunity for Caltrans to return to the Planning Commission for approval in the future once the identified concerns have been addressed. 839
2 As we previously shared with the Commission, for several months we have coordinated with Caltrans, the City of Malibu Department of Public Works, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and others regarding the proposed sidewalk and associated work along this segment of PCH. During these discussions, we have repeatedly raised specific safety concerns and requested materials from Caltrans necessary to understand the foundational reasons on which Caltrans bases the need for this segment and its potential safety benefits and risks. We also requested an understanding of how many people would use this sidewalk segment to allow for an informed assessment of the need for and potential impacts of such use on the campus and emergency operations. Unfortunately, we still have not received this requested analysis.

For the Commission’s benefit, we summarize our primary concerns raised with Caltrans.

Potential Interference with Alumni Park Emergency Response Functions and Campus Safety First, Alumni Park is a critical regional public safety asset. It functions as an established staging and access area for wildfire response (including the use of Pepperdine’s reservoirs for regional fire suppression),2 emergency medical and fire suppression helicopter operations, staging during regional emergencies, and first responder ingress/egress to campus. The University recognizes the importance of maintaining emergency functionality, and the potential to inadvertently compromise operations, including by way of ensuring ready first-responder access and its Department of Public Safety physically effectuating appropriate clearances for air operations, must be appropriately analyzed and resolved before construction for the benefit of our region, including the greater Malibu community.

Concerns with a Discontinuous Sidewalk Segment
Second, this proposed sidewalk would be discontinuous and unconnected to any sidewalk system along PCH west of John Tyler Drive or east of Malibu Canyon Road. Based on input from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, we understand a discontinuous sidewalk segment can induce pedestrians to transition off the facility and into the highway environment once the sidewalk terminates. Without an existing PCH sidewalk connection to the west or east of our campus, we are concerned the segment risks degrading, not improving, pedestrian safety outcomes along this portion of PCH. Moreover, we are further concerned that the presence of this discontinuous sidewalk segment will increase pedestrians inappropriately accessing our campus via Alumni Park, which, in addition to other safety and security challenges for the University, has the potential to impact emergency operations in Alumni Park.

Pepperdine’s Commitment to PCH Safety and Proposed Path to Move CDP No. 25-009 Forward While Pepperdine continues to have unresolved concerns regarding the Malibu Canyon Road–to–John Tyler Drive sidewalk segment, we do not wish to compromise the larger project or its funding. Despite the challenges with Caltrans’ process to date, the University recognizes and appreciates the efforts of Caltrans, the City, the Sheriff’s Department, and other community stakeholders to develop this important public safety project and to secure its funding.

To reconcile these imperatives, advance near-term safety investments, and avoid unintended consequences, if Caltrans does not remove the Malibu Canyon Road–to–John Tyler Drive sidewalk segment from its application, we respectfully request the Commission, at a minimum, condition approval of this segment as follows:
2 As shared with Caltrans, as part of Pepperdine’s longstanding commitment to sustainability, the University maintains a comprehensive, environmentally-driven, tertiary-treated recycled water program that provides for campus-wide irrigation and the maintenance of our recycled water reservoirs for fire suppression purposes. Removing the segment from the project at this time would also allow the University to continue assessing its potential impacts on this important campus function.
840
3 _________________________________________________________ XX. To avoid the risks of a disconnected sidewalk, installation of the sidewalk segment between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive on the northbound side of PCH shall be phased to occur only when there is a constructed and operational, continuous pedestrian sidewalk along PCH connecting the new segment to a logical terminus west of John Tyler Drive and a logical terminus east of Malibu Canyon Road. Caltrans shall coordinate with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department when establishing the logical terminus to the west of John Tyler Drive and to the east of Malibu Canyon Road, and such terminus shall be approved by the Planning Commission at a publicly noticed hearing.

Moreover, prior to the installation of the sidewalk and/or retaining wall between Malibu Canyon Road and John Tyler Drive (northbound side of PCH), Caltrans shall, following (1) a public information meeting before the Planning Commission and (2) coordination with the City Public Works Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, and Pepperdine University, submit the following materials and obtain written approval from the Public Works Director:

A Caltrans report and concurrence letters from the Los Angeles County Fire Department, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, and the Pepperdine Department of Public Safety, confirming first‑responder ingress/egress to and from Pepperdine’s Alumni Park and ability to conduct fire suppression and medical air operations will be fully maintained and not impeded under routine and emergency conditions.
____________________________________________________________ Conclusion
Thank you for your consideration and for your service to the Malibu community. We stand ready to work with the City, Caltrans, and our public safety partners.

Respectfully submitted,
Nicolle Taylor, Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer cc: Honorable Members of the Malibu City Council
Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director, City of Malibu Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director, City of Malibu Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney, City of Malibu
Kellan Martz, Assistant City Attorney, City of Malibu
Justin Orenstein, Transportation & Legislative Affairs Deputy, Los Angeles County Third District Supervisor’s Office
Phil E. Phillips, Executive Vice President, Pepperdine University Ricky W. Eldridge, Associate Vice President, Pepperdine University John C. Heintz, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP
841
From: Natalie Weston -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: No More Deaths on PCH
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Natalie Weston
842
From: Oona K
To: Planning Commission; Rebecca Evans
Cc: Oona K
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 2:15:36 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners:

The following is the Malibu Country Estates (MCE) Board position on the proposed sidewalk along PCH and the Pepperdine Lawn..

We do NOT consider the proposed sidewalk between Malibu Canyon Rd and John Tyler Dr as a wise investment in PCH-related safety.

Obviously, the sidewalk is meant to serve the pedestrian safety in this area. However, we just don’t see any sufficient pedestrian traffic or the potential thereof. What you need to bear in mind is that in the Malibu Country Estates, we have sidewalks throughout our community and no through traffic. So walking our dogs, for example, is much nicer within our neighborhood with little traffic. I would not dream of walking along a busy highway, especially since vehicular traffic coming down on PCH from Malibu Canyon Dr is speeding up (the limit changes from 45 to 50 about in the middle of that stretch).

The little foot traffic in and out of our area is mostly to and from the bus stop at the John Tyler intersection. In practice, for the vast majority of our residents, our subdivision is just too far away from the town center to make walking a viable option. Sure, there might be a few that embark on a hike up to the Bluffs Park, but most will prefer to take the car. And for the reverse direction, you might be able to count the daily pedestrians walking from Malibu Canyon Dr to our community on one hand. One of our directors called this stretch a “sidewalk to nowhere”, especially since it is proposed to end at John Tyler.

We appreciate the thought, but in the spirit of spending taxpayer money wisely, the funds for this portion of the project should be better used for other aspects of PCH safety (like more speed cameras, etc.)."
I will come comment tomorrow evening at the Planning Commission Meeting.

Thanks for thinking of us!
Sincerely,
Oona Khan
Vice President at MCE HOA Board of Directors
843
844
From: Renee Fox -
Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2025 8:44 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Renee Fox
845
From: Rodney Malloy -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:19:42 PM
Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Rodney Malloy
846
From: Rosiley Hannagan -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 6:33 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Rosiley Hannagan
847
From: RYAN JASON SCHMIDT
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 7:47:38 AM
I am writing in support of the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan.

Ryan Schmidt
848
From: Rachel Troyer -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:56 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Rachel Troyer
849
From: Rebecca Romac
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support for the Rebuild of the Pacific Coast Highway Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 7:38:31 AM
Dear Members of the Malibu Planning Commission,
My name is Rebecca Romac, and I am an avid cyclist in and around Los Angeles. I am writing to strongly encourage your approval of the Pacific Coast Highway rebuild. This project is essential to improving safety for both cyclists and drivers. Wider lanes would allow cyclists to ride safely without forcing drivers to swerve into opposing lanes or pass dangerously close, reducing the risk of collisions.

I have personally experienced a cycling crash on the PCH. It was terrifying—and I was incredibly lucky. I was not thrown into traffic, and no cars were nearby at the moment of impact. My friend, however, took the brunt of the crash. We still talk about how it could have been prevented—with wider bike lanes, the removal of potholes, and a smoother, more predictable road surface.

I urge you, please approve the PCH rebuild. Yes, I ask this as a cyclist who would benefit personally— but also as someone who believes deeply in the broader good this project would bring. It would make the highway safer and more accessible for everyone: pedestrians using the sky ramps, motorists driving at night with improved lighting, and local wildlife and residents who deserve safer, wellmaintained roads.

Thank you for your time and for prioritizing the safety and wellbeing of all who share the PCH.

Sincerely,
Rebecca Romac
850
From: Paige Scully -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 10:31 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Dear City,
The November 3rd Planning Commission meeting is our chance to make parts of PCH safer.

If you continue to delay or disapprove it, the $55 million in Caltrans funding is likely to disappear — permanently. The road will stay just as dangerous as it is today.

Sincerely,
Paige Scully
851
From: Rashid Bahati -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:02 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Dear City,
YES to rebuilding PCH safely, responsibly, and collaboratively.

In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Rashid Bahati
852
From: Planning Commission
To: Jason Ernst
Subject: FW: Pch
Date: Friday, October 31, 2025 3:16:59 PM
-----Original Message-----
From: Roberta
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 10:12 AM
To: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Pch
You are voting for 55 million to get pch safe planning commission will vote on million project that could finally make PCH safe for our families. If you don’t approve it, this opportunity will vanish forever—and we'll be left with the same deadly highway that has already claimed too many The road is getting completely rebuilt anyway
Safety improvements cost almost nothing extra during reconstruction Without this project, we will wait 20 years for safety changes We've lost the four Pepperdine students. We've lost over 700 homes to fires. How many more tragedies do we need before we act?
This planning commission meeting will determine people’s future. You can prevent future heart break please vote yes to this.

This is about our kids, our elderly neighbors, our daily commutes. Please choose progress and just don’t sit idly.

Roberta Bogie
853
From: Pamela Conley Ulich
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please approve Cal Trans application - Item 4a Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:43:39 PM
Dear Chair and Planning Commissioners:

I’m writing as a Malibu resident to urge you to approve Item 4A at tonight’s meeting. The decision before you carries immediate public-interest consequences for health, safety, and Malibu’s long-term resilience.

Why approval matters now:

Public Safety: Delaying or denying Item 4A increases the risk of preventable harm to residents and first responders. We have learned, through fire, flood, and evacuation events, that preparedness and infrastructure save lives.

Policy Compliance: Item 4A advances Malibu’s General Plan/LCP goals (public safety, environmental stewardship, community character). Approval tonight aligns Commission action with adopted policy rather than ad-hoc delay.

Environmental Responsibility: Acting now enables earlier mitigation and monitoring under CEQA best practices. Proactive measures reduce cumulative impacts and protect sensitive resources.

Equity & Access: The benefits of Item 4A—safety, clarity, and resilience—extend to families, seniors, workers, and small businesses who have the least margin for disruption.

Fiscal Prudence: Timely approval reduces redesign risk, avoids cost escalation, and keeps Malibu eligible for outside funding/partnerships.

Human stakes: My family and neighbors have lived through repeated emergencies. Each time, we’re reminded that process without action can leave people exposed. Please choose the path that minimizes foreseeable, preventable harm.

Respectfully, I ask you to vote YES on Item 4A and incorporate these comments into the record.

Thank you for your service and careful consideration.

Respectfully,
Pamela Conley Ulich
Malibu, CA
854
From: Ryan Brinkman
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 2:10:59 PM
Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Ryan Brinkman
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo-2B2FfMptA0pZtlcTL3CFGf6exiC8Ai7ViXs-2B1DEV7J-2F2FimSmdd5q1LjgY3L7hHDNw9kEt7bKcxCC8IAI5znEeli9ZZGZXONjhR8d8bpU0nMjEZAly9pWSuuybVIqpKEFGYcQaCNVQOeLtHwEhQQHLIdM3s938sc-2FgJk5GI2BYRt37pdQ3D&c=E,1,vXPnIvkHyzd5FzLANpPKgEI76_o1Q8P2fz8tViPeyuKddY0xYphbs_ufIqYd7Id3cOUN95zpetMAUl01aQj_iM2UKahzrJEuVuiCpapQiGljrgmt8Ia4_mo,&typo=1> 855
From: Suzanne Hutchinson -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 3:07:33 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH

Dear City,
Let’s not loose another avoidable life due to unsafe roadways Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Hutchinson
856
From: Sabrina Jimenez -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 8:58 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Sabrina Jimenez
857
From: Sebastian
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Support to rebuild PCH
Date: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:03:27 PM
As a frequent bike user of PCH I ask you
approve the Caltrans PCH Safety Plan. I ask you to prioritize lives over delays — to say YES to rebuilding PCH safely, responsibly, and collaboratively.

We can do better, and now is the chance to make it happen for a safer PCH for everyone!
Sebastian Linnemayr
Sent from my iPhone
858
From: Sam Auster -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 4:18 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Sam Auster
859
From: Shehani Jayaratna -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:11 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Shehani Jayaratna
860
From: Stella Bray -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:15 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Stella Bray
861
Dear Commissioners,
Re:4A - 3 November, 2025
The Caltrans proposal has many fundamental errors and, does not solve the problem of high speed drivers, and in many ways changes the character of Malibu without making anyone safer. This is what happens when you get a design from urban planners.

You must reject this proposal and come up with alternatives that will make PCH safer without sacrificing the rural character that we must steward for future generations. 862
Caltrans has lost their way. Their proposals in Western Malibu will change the character of our city forever. We are close to our speed cameras being operational. Should we not wait and see their impact on those traveling at excessive speeds. Instead of spending 42 million with stop-gap measures Caltrans should create a permanent plan which includes purchasing enough right of way to allow for continuous Class IV bike lanes and adequate parking for visitors without narrowing lanes.

Thank you,
Scott Dittrich
863
From: Sophia Garcia -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:40 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Sophia Garcia
864
From: Stephen Catzalco -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 8:41 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill Dear City,
Too many people have died.

We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Stephen Catzalco
865
From: Sofia De Belles
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Don’t Let Malibu Miss This Chance to Fix PCH
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 3:44:36 PM
Dear City,
I lost my childhood best friend Niamh Rolston in the car crash on Oct 17, 2023. I beg you to make this road safer for everyone.

We all want Malibu’s improvements to be perfect. But right now, we’re choosing between “good enough to save lives” and “nothing at all.” Approve the Caltrans plan now. If there are concerns, work WITH Caltrans to fine-tune the details.

Don’t let perfection be the enemy of progress — or safety.

Sincerely,
Sofia De Belles
<https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fu13947325.ct.sendgrid.net%2fwf%2fopen%3fupn%3du001.OldKSrfEdrMW5A4TEmVEZUIZAWIo0yMfIWBPv9egxHXL6ke31zmfZ4Vzqs8aVo2B-2FMhP7CI8ELrYHRFz378dzhSx-2BGdT-2FqiO-2BEH4ob-2FggjoJ-2Bib9QKO-2FLVaXgwYfNVTlPhhCk0wRNa6XITwvJkqoB6NY-2Fxu-2BGqNV2B4z0HB1BYb0QeDVAsMBgAx0omrI7Prn-2FQbEa6lkDo5GIxAUiWJZYVDTRfDiD5-2BDKNbsyvA8dhYEA-3D&c=E,1,e8sZAA9rz4vioRvuI7NOxWmYxQSGLyh5zyW7-dkZZ--fvN9MA9K4Md4TdmhWLlDsWc2z5lV_kerAX3u3UYTB53ieHpWtN7N_ML61XVmhn1lnA90&typo=1> 866
From: Shannon Martinez -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:49 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t
Dear City,
Be the leaders of change favoring healthy pedestrians and bikers over unhealthy and dangerous cars!
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Shannon Martinez
867
From: Samantha Firsht -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:38 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now
Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Samantha Firsht
868
From: Savannah Duplissea -
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2025 11:54 AM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Dear City,
The Caltrans safety plan doesn’t destroy Malibu’s character — it preserves it.

With rural-style sidewalks, dark-sky lighting, and thoughtful design, it keeps our community beautiful while making it safer.

Please approve this plan to invest in what will arguably be the largest road-safety initiative for PCH in decades, and show that Malibu can lead with both heart and vision.

Sincerely,
Savannah Duplissea
869
From: Sharon Paramo -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Date: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:25:41 PM
Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Sharon Paramo
870
From: Sophie Nenner -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:31 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Please End the Tragedies on PCH — Approve the Plan Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Sophie Nenner
871
From: Suzanne Sam
To: Planning Commission
Subject: The Malibu Our Children Deserve
Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:46:45 PM
Dear City,
I went to school at Pepperdine
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Sincerely,
Suzanne Sam
872
From: Steven Solomon
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Please Support Safety Improvements on November 3rd Date: Saturday, November 1, 2025 10:17:41 PM
Dear City,
Please do not think of minimizing people's safety and their very lives. Get this done.

After decades of preventable deaths, we finally have Caltrans working with us to fix Pacific Coast Highway. The $55 million Caltrans project will repave the entire corridor and allow critical safety improvements.

If this project isn’t approved, the funding disappears for years or even decades. That means no repaving, no safety upgrades, and no second chances.

Please approve the Caltrans plan now. Don’t let this opportunity slip away — lives depend on it.

Sincerely,
Steven Solomon
873
From: Sarah Tripp -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:19 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Perfect Can Wait — Safety Can’t

Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Sarah Tripp
874
From: Sawyer Rost -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 2:43:22 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan

Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Sawyer Rost
875
From: Summer Steinert -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:14 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now

Dear City,
After decades of preventable deaths, we finally have Caltrans working with us to fix Pacific Coast Highway. The $55 million Caltrans project will repave the entire corridor and allow critical safety improvements.

If this project isn’t approved, the funding disappears for years or even decades. That means no repaving, no safety upgrades, and no second chances.

Please approve the Caltrans plan now. Don’t let this opportunity slip away — lives depend on it.

Sincerely,
Summer Steinert
876
From: Sophia Maksoud -
Sent: Sunday, November 2, 2025 8:21:48 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Support Safety Improvements Now

Dear City,
Every delay means another life lost on PCH. The Caltrans plan is our one opportunity to make the highway safer — not perfect, but better and good enough to save lives.

We cannot afford another tragedy like the four Pepperdine students. And before them, there have been scores of others, including Emily Shane.

Please act now to protect Malibu and the millions who use PCH to visit this beautiful seaside community.

Sincerely,
Sophia Maksoud
877
From: Sophia Markle -
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:40 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Dear City,
Every Ghost Tire in the center of Malibu marks a story that should never have happened – another death along PCH, and since 1975, there are over 200 of these stories. We’ve already lost too many — parents, children, students, friends.

You have the power to stop future tragedies. Please approve the Caltrans plan to rebuild and protect life on PCH.

This can be done while still preserving the rural feel of Malibu, but what’s most important are the lives of the people who use PCH.

Sincerely,
Sophia Markle
878
From: Steve Messer -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:30 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Malibu Can Protect Its Beauty and Its People
Dear City,
In 20 years, our children will ask what we did when we had the chance to fix PCH. I hope we can tell them we acted.

Approving the Caltrans plan means choosing a safer, smarter Malibu — one where those who use PCH don’t die just trying to get home.

Please vote to support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer, don’t allow the status quo. The status quo on PCH means more deaths due to traffic collisions.

Sincerely,
Steve Messer
879
From: Siena Martinez -
Sent: Monday, November 3, 2025 1:20 PM
To: Mayor and City Council <[email protected]> Subject: Choose Life Over Delay — Approve the PCH Safety Plan Dear City,
If we don’t support the Caltrans plan to make PCH safer now, we’re choosing to keep PCH deadly.

Caltrans has given Malibu a chance — with funding, planning, and collaboration — to rebuild this road safely. Failure to approve this plan means living with the consequences of inaction.

Please approve the Caltrans project. After Monday, we might not have another chance for years or even decades.

Sincerely,
Siena Martinez
880
From: Soheila Mosbat -
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Every Future Death on PCH Will Be Blood We Chose to Spill Date: Thursday, October 30, 2025 4:22:20 PM
Dear City,
We’ve lost too many lives on this highway. The loss of our four Pepperdine students was a wake-up call.

The Caltrans reconstruction project is our one chance to follow through with what everyone pledged – to fix PCH once and for all! The funding is ready. The plans are ready. The community is ready. All we need is your approval.

Please vote to support Caltrans' plans to make PCH safer for everyone who lives in and loves Malibu.

Malibu City CouncilNovember 24, 2025

Malibu City Council
November 24, 2025