Agenda packet, second session — Malibu City Council, March 18, 2026 (part 3 of 3)

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

LIP Conformance Analysis
The proposed pilot project has been reviewed by the Planning Division, City Biologist and City Public Works Department (Attachment 4). The project, as proposed and conditioned, has been found to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals and policies.

Zoning (LIP Chapter 3)
The project is located entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and within the existing roadway prism. It does not include structures or development outside of the public rightof-way for which standards of LIP Chapter 3 would apply. LIP Chapter 3 does not have standards for the public right-of-way. Therefore, review under this chapter is not applicable to the project.

Grading (LIP Chapter 8)
The project is located entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and within the existing roadway prism. The project does not propose or will be required to include any significant landform alteration or grading for which the grading standards of LIP Chapter 8 would apply. Therefore, review under this chapter is not applicable to the project.

Archaeological / Cultural Resources (LIP Chapter 11)
LIP Chapter 11 requires certain procedures be followed to determine potential impacts on archaeological resources. Roadway improvements, existing development, and other vehicle parking improvements have already taken place within the existing roadway prism and the proposed highway improvements are superficial. The project area has been previously graded and disturbed and archaeological resource impacts are not anticipated.

Nevertheless, a condition of approval is included in the resolution, which states that in the event that potentially important cultural resources are found during construction, work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature 2 The ESHA, Native Tree Protection, Transfer of Development Credits, Hazards, Shoreline and Bluff Development, Public Access, and Land Division findings are neither applicable nor required for the proposed pilot project.

Page 8 of 14 ends

and significance of the resources, and until the Community Development Director can review the information.

Water Quality (LIP Chapter 17)
The project is located entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and within the existing roadway prism for which the water quality protection standards would apply. The City Public Works Department reviewed and approved the proposed pilot project for conformance to LIP Chapter 17 requirements for water quality protection and requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), because the property is located in an Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS). The ocean between Latigo Point and the west city limits has been established by the SWRCB as an ASBS as part of the California Ocean Plan. Standard conditions of approval include the implementation of approved storm water management plans during construction activities and to manage runoff from the development, including recordation of a water quality mitigation plan, and best management practices in compliance with ASBS standards. With the implementation of these conditions, the proposed pilot project conforms to the water quality protection standards of LIP Chapter 17.

Wastewater Treatment System Standards (LIP Chapter 18)
The project does not include development associated with the provisions in LIP Chapter

18. Therefore, review under this chapter is not applicable to the project.

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

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

The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP and MMC by the Planning Division, City Biologist, and City Public Works Department. The pilot project involves improvements to an existing public road and is consistent with the policies of LUP Chapter 7 (Public Works) by improving public safety and multimodal access to and between visitorserving and recreation areas. As discussed herein, based on submitted documents, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed pilot project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable development standards.

Page 9 of 14 ends

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

The project is located along the first public road and the sea and would be in conformance with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, as the project would not inhibit public access opportunities. As part of the proposed highway improvements, vehicular and bicycle access will be maintained and improved for safety purposes along PCH within the project area. The roundabouts would also provide safer access to El Matador State Beach and Encinal Canyon Road and would not impede existing or future access to the beach or parks. On-street parking will be provided along southbound PCH with designated striping. The project is temporary and intended to provide for safety improvements along a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH. As depicted on the LCP Park Lands Map, the closest mapped trail is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site and existing recreation in the project area would not be impacted by the proposed improvements. Therefore, the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Section 30200 of the Public Resources Code).

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

The project is located entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and within the existing roadway prism. It does not include structures or development outside of the public rightof-way or require any offsite grading or other offsite improvements outside of the existing disturbed public right-of-way. The project would improve safety conditions by reducing vehicular speeds, enabling safer pedestrian crossing and bicycle travel, and improving visibility. The temporary highway improvements, including two roundabouts and safety lighting, are limited to a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH between La Piedra State Beach and Broad Beach Road. There are no impacts to coastal access, scenic resources, or environmental resources that are not otherwise permitted and/or exempted in the LCP. As proposed, the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

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

Page 10 of 14 ends

buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle, and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP. Therefore, this finding is not applicable.

C. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area Overlay (LIP Chapter 4) The development will not be located within any mapped ESHA pursuant to the LCP and the improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an EHSA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”.

The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP. Therefore, the findings of LIP Section 4.7.6 are not applicable.

D. Native Tree Protection (LIP Chapter 5)
The project is located entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and within the existing roadway prism. The project will not impact any protected trees as identified in LIP Chapter

5. Therefore, the findings of this chapter do not apply.

E. Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection (LIP Chapter 6) The Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection Chapter governs those CDP applications concerning any parcel of land that is located along, within, provides views to, or is visible from any scenic area, scenic road, or public viewing area. The proposed pilot project is entirely within the PCH public right-of-way, which is an LCP-designated scenic road and would be visible from scenic resources. Therefore, the Scenic, Visual and Hillside Resource Protection Ordinance applies, and the five findings set forth in LIP Section 6.4 are hereby made as follows.

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

Page 11 of 14 ends

The project is proposed along on a designated scenic road pursuant to LUP Policy 6.5 and would be visible from scenic areas, such as trails and parkland in the vicinity.

However, the medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed, except for necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed a width of 48 inches. The proposed lighting is not subject to the exterior lighting requirements in LIP Section 6.5(G) since they are for purposes of safety and navigation lighting. The proposed lighting is not subject to the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance pursuant to the MMC as it is considered street lighting. However, the proposed lighting specifications indicate the fixtures would be downward directed, utilize 40-watt and 4000 Kelvin LED fixtures, and mounted on a 25-foot pole with four-foot arm.

Each pole would include a solar panel for system charging during the day. The poles would be constructed on portable three-foot-tall foundations for a total height of 28 feet. Based on the allowances in the LIP, as well as a review of the project plans and the nature of the surrounding area, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards.

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

As conditioned, the project would be limited to a maximum of 18 months. Conditions of approval are included to ensure that the light poles blend in as much as feasible with the surrounding environment through the use of materials, colors, and the prohibition of highly reflective materials except for solar panels, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible. As conditioned, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards.

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

Page 12 of 14 ends

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

As proposed and conditioned, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact on scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards. The project has already been designed for location entirely within the PCH public right-of-way and within the existing roadway prism. The medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed, except for necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed a width of 48 inches. The proposed lighting is not subject to the exterior lighting requirements in LIP Section 6.5(G) since they are for purposes of safety and navigation lighting.

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

The development will not be located within any mapped ESHA pursuant to the LCP and the improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle, and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP. Therefore, the pilot project will have no significant scenic and visual impacts nor contribute adversely to sensitive resource protection policies.

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

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

G. Hazards (LIP Chapter 9)
Pursuant to LIP Section 9.3, written findings of fact, analysis and conclusions addressing geologic, flood and fire hazards, structural integrity or other potential hazards listed in LIP

Page 13 of 14 ends

Sections 9.2(A)(1-7) must be included in support of all approvals, denials or conditional approvals of development located on a site or in an area where it is determined that the proposed pilot project causes the potential to create adverse impacts upon site stability or structural integrity. The project will not alter landforms and the proposed improvements are superficial and would occur within the existing right-of-way. Due to the lack of potential hazards increased by the project in relation to geologic, flood, or fire hazards, the findings of the chapter are not applicable.

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

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

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

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

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

D. New development on any site where a trail, bluff top access or other recreational access is necessary to mitigate impacts of the development on public access where there is no feasible, less environmentally damaging, project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.

As described herein, the proposed pilot project does not meet any of these criteria, except for being located within the first public road and the sea. No trails are mapped within the project area as identified on the LCP Park Lands Map. The project proposes improvements to west-east bicycle access along PCH between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, and new protected crosswalks at the intersections of PCH/El Matador Beach Road and PCH/Encinal Canyon Road. On-street parking will be provided for along southbound PCH via striping. The project is temporary and intended to provide for safety improvements along a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH. No adverse effects to existing recreational areas are anticipated as a result of the project. Therefore, the requirement for public access of LIP Section 12.4 does not apply and further findings are not required.

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

Page 14 of 14 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Community Development Director has analyzed the proposed pilot project. The Community Development Director found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the proposed pilot project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(c) – Existing Facilities along Highways and 15303(d) – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The Community Development Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

CORRESPONDENCE: Since the Public Works Department submitted the project application, staff have received correspondence primarily concerning potential impacts to the westbound evacuation route toward Ventura County. Public Comment Form Submissions gathered from community information sessions have been provided in Attachment 5. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department submitted correspondence in support of the project (Attachment 6).

PUBLIC NOTICE: On December 4, 2025, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and the notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject project area (Attachment 7).

SUMMARY: The required findings can be made that the proposed pilot project complies with the LCP and MMC. Further, the Planning Division’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Based on the analysis contained in this report and the accompanying resolution, staff recommends approval of this project, subject to the conditions of approval contained in Section 5 (Conditions of Approval) of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-78. The proposed pilot project has been reviewed and conditionally approved for conformance with the LCP by Planning Division staff and appropriate City departments.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-78

2. Project Plans

3. Lighting Plan

4. Department Review Sheets

5. Public Comment Form Submissions

6. Correspondence from Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department

7. Public Hearing Notice

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 25—78

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF

MALIBU DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND
APPROVING COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 25—041 FOR A PILOT

PROJECT FOR TEMPORARY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PACIFIC
COAST HIGHWAY PUBLIC RIGHT—OF-WAY BETWEEN BROAD BEACH

ROAD AND LA PIEDRA BEACH ROAD, INCLUDING LANE REDUCTIONS,

SIGNAGE, AND THE INSTALLATION OF TWO ROUNDABOUTS WITH

SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTIONS OF EL MATADOR BEACH ROAD AND ENCINAL CANYON ROADI BETWEEN POST MILE 58.4 AND

59.9, AS RECOMMENDED IN THE 2015 PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

SAFETY STUDY CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF MALIBU IN

PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS)
The Planning Commission of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION l. Recitals.

A. On June 22, 2015, the Malibu’s City Council adopted the Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) Safety Study, developed in partnership with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which authorized recommendations for measures to improve safety along the PCH corridor to reduce vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts.

B. On September 9, 2025, an application for a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 25—041 was submitted to the Planning Division by the City of Malibu Public Wor§ Department to request authorizat1on for improvements on a l.2—mile stretch of PCH between Broad Beach Road and La Pietra Beach Road, between Post Mile (PM) 58.4 and 59.9, as recommended in the 2015 PCH Safety Study.

C. On October 3, 2025, Notices of Coastal Development Permit Application were posted along PCH at the intersections of E1 Matador State Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road.

D. On October 22, 2025, the City Public Works Department held a virtual town hall meeting to gain community insight on the proposed proj ect.

E. On December 2, 2025, the City Public Works Department held a second town hall meeting to gain community insight on the proposed project.

F. On December 4, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and a notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500—foot radius of the subject project area.

G. On December 16, 2025. the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report. reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78

Page 2 of 10 ends

Pursuant t0 the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Commission has analyzed the proposed project. The Planning Commission found that this project is listed among the classes of proj ects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301 (c) Existing Facilities and 15303(d) New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. The Planning Commission has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

SECTION 3. Coastal Development Permit Findings.

Based on substantial evidence contained within the record. including the public hearing on December 16, 2025, and pursuant to Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Sections 13.7(B) and 13.9, the Planning Commission adopts the analysis in the agenda report. incorporated herein, the findings of fact below. and approves Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 25-041 for a pilot project for temporary improvements within the PCH public right-ofway between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, as recommended in the 201 5 PCH Safety Study.

As applicable, the project is consistent with the LCP’s zoning, grading, cultural resources, water quality, and wastewater treatment system standards requirements. The project, as proposed and conditioned, has been determined to be consistent with all applicable LCP codes, standards, goals, and policies. The required findings are made herein.

A. General Coastal Development Permit (LIP Chapter 13)
l. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the LCP and the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) by the Planning Division, City Biologist, and City Public Works Department. The pilot project involves improvements to an existing public road and is consistent with the policies of LUP Chapter 7 (Public Works) by improving public safety and multimodal access to and between visitor—serving and recreation areas. As discussed herein, based on submitted documents, project plans, visual analysis and site investigation, the proposed pilot project, as conditioned, conforms to the LCP in that it meets all applicable development standards.

2. The project is located along the first public road and the sea and would be in conformance with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, as the project would not inhibit public access opportunities. As part of the proposed highway improvements, vehicular and bicycle access will be maintained and improved for safety purposes along PCH within the proj ect area. The roundabouts would also provide safer access to El Matador State Beach and Encinal Canyon Road and would not impede existing or future access to the beach or parks. On-street parking will be provided along southbound PCH with designated striping. The project is temporary and intended to provide for safety improvements along a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH. As depicted on the LCP Park Lands Map, the closest mapped trail is approximately 1,500 feet from the project site and existing recreation in the project area would not be impacted by the proposed improvements. Therefore, the proj ect is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Section 30200 of the Public Resources Code.

DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78

Page 3 of 10 ends

3.3. The project is located entirely within the PCH public right—of—way and within the existing roadway prism. It does not include structures or development outside ofthe public right— of—way or require any offsite grading or other offsite improvements outside of the existing disturbed public right—of—way’ The project would improve safety conditions by reducing vehicular speeds, enabling safer pedestrian crossing and bicycle travel, and improving visibility. The temporary highway improvements, including two roundabouts and safety lighting‘ are limited to a 1.2-mile stretch of PCH between La Piedra State Beach and Broad Beach Road. There are no impacts to coastal access, scenic resources, or environmental resources that are not otherwise permitted and/or exempted in the LCP. As proposed, the project is the least environmentally damaging altemative.

4. The development will not be located within any mapped environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) pursuant to the LCP and the improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion ofthe existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP and the finding is not applicable.

B. Scenic, Visual, and Hillside Resource Protection Findings (LIP Section 6.4) l. The project is proposed along on a designated scenic road pursuant to LUP Policy

6.5 and would be visible from scenic areas, such as trails and parkland in the vicinity. However, the medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed. except for necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed a width of 48 inches. The proposed lighting is not subject to the exterior lighting requirements in LIP Section 6.5(G) since they are for purposes of safety and navigation lighting.

The proposed lighting is not subject to the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance pursuant to the MMC as it is considered street lighting. However, the proposed lighting specifications indicate the fixtures would be downward directed, utilize 40-watt and 4000 Kelvin LED fixtures, and mounted on a 25—foot pole with four-foot arm. Each pole would include a solar panel for system charging during the day. The poles would be constructed on portable three—foot-tall foundations for a total height of 28 feet. Based on the allowances in the LIP. as well as a review of the project plans and the nature of the surrounding area, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards.

2. As conditioned, the project would be limited to a maximum of 18 months.

Conditions ofapproval are included to ensure that the light poles blend in as much as feasible with the surrounding environment through the use of materials, colors, and the prohibition of highly reflective materials except for solar panels. which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible. As conditioned. the proposed DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78
Pag€ 4 of 10
improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards.
”J. The project is located entirely within the PCH public right-of—way and within the existing roadway prism. lt does not include structures or development outside of the public right— of-way or require any offsite grading or other offsite improvements outside of the existing disturbed public right-of—way. The proj ect would improve safety conditions by reducing vehicular speeds, enabling safer pedestrian crossing and bicycle travel, and improving visibility. The temporary highway improvements, including two roundabouts and safety lighting, are limited to a l.2—mile stretch of PCH between La Piedra State Beach and Broad Beach Road. There are no impacts to coastal access, scenic resources, or environmental resources that are not otherwise permitted and/or exempted in the LCP. As proposed, the project is the least environmentally damaging altemative.

4. As proposed and conditioned, the proposed improvements are not considered to have a significant adverse impact to scenic resources and/or are considered exempt from LIP standards. The project has already been designed for location entirely within the PCH public rightof-way and within the existing roadway prism. The medians and roundabouts would not exceed a height of one foot above grade, and the street signs and light poles will blend in with the environment as designed, except for necessary colors and signage required by law to attract the attention of drivers for safety purposes. Signage would not exceed a width of 48 inches. The proposed lighting is not subject to the exterior lighting requirements in LIP Section 6.5(G’) since they are for purposes of safety and navigation lighting.

5. The development will not be located within any mapped ESHA pursuant to the LCP and the improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle. bicycle and on—foot. and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway. Moreover, LIP Section 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP. Therefore, the pilot project will have no significant scenic and visual impacts nor contribute adversely to sensitive resource protection policies.

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record. the Planning Commission hereby approves CDP No. 25-041 subject to the following conditions.

DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78

Page 5 ends

SECTION 5. Conditions ofApproval.

The proporty owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions conceming this project, including (without limitation) any award of litigation expenses in favor of any person or entity who seeks to challenge the validity of any of the City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions conceming this project.

The approved scope authorizes the installation of temporary improvements, for a period not to exceed a maximum of 18 months once operational, within the PCH public right-of— way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, medians, striping for bicycle lanes and on—street parking, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting, crosswalks and associated improvements at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road.

LJa The authorized improvements are considered temporary and to be utilized for a minimum of fifteen months once operational, up to a maximum of l 8 months. This period is intended to allow Caltrans and the City’s Public Works Department to gather enough data to determine if the roundabouts provide significant safety enhancements on PCH within the project area. At the conclusion ofthe authorized period, the improvements would need to be removed and the PCH travel lanes restored to pre-condition. Should the City and/or Caltrans request to retain the improvements permanently as designed, authorization shall be subject to an approved CDP.

Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Planning Division date stamped November 20, 2025. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. ln the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

U1 Pursuant to LIP Section 13.182, this permit and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owner signs. notarizes and returns the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions of approval set forth herein. The applicant shall file this form with the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any development permits.

The applicant shall digitally submit a complete set of plans to the Planning Division for consistency review and approval prior to plan check (as applicable) and again prior to the issuance of any building or development permits, if necessary.

The CDP shall expire ifthe proj ect has not commenced within three (3) years after issuance of the permit. unless a time extension has been granted. Extension of the permit may be granted by the approving authority for due cause. Extensions shall be requested in writing by the applicant or authorized agent prior to expiration of the three-year period and shall DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78

Page 6 ends

set forth the reasons for the request. In the event of an appealr the CDP shall expire ifthe project has not commenced within three years from the date the appeal is decided by the decision—making body or withdrawn by the appellant.

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

Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Community Development Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the MMC and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required. lO. Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20, development pursuant to an approved CDP shall not commence until the CDP is effective. The CDP is not effective until all appeals, including those to the Califomia Coastal Commission (CCC). have been exhausted. In the event that the CCC denies the permit or issues the permit on appeal, the CDP approved by the City is void.

Cultural Resources
ll. In the event that potentially important cultural resources are found in the course of geologic testing or during constructionr work shall immediately cease until a qualified archaeologist can provide an evaluation of the nature and significance of the resources and until the Community Development Director can review this information. Thereafter, the procedures contained in LIP Chapter 11 and those in MMC Section 17.54.040(D)(4)(b) shall be followed.

If human bone is discovered during geologic testing or during construction, work shall immediately cease and the procedures described in Section 7050.5 ofthe California Health and Safety Code shall be followed. Section 7050.5 requires notification of the coroner. If the coroner determines that the remains are those of a Native American, the applicant shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission by phone within 24 hours. Following notification of the Native American Heritage Commission, the procedures described in Section 5097.94 and Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code shall be followed.

Biology
l3. No new landscaping is proposed with this project. Therefore, none is approved. A detailed landscaping plan must be submitted to the Planning Division for review by the City Biologist and approval by the Planning Division prior to any planting. Should the applicant intend to plant any new or altered vegetation with a potential to grow over six feet in height at full maturity for an area of 500 square feet or more of landscaping for a new residence. or 2.500 square feet or more of landscaping for an existing residence. a detailed Landscape Documentation Package is required.
l4. Any site preparation activities. including removal of vegetation, between February l and September 15 will require nesting bird surveys by a qualified biologist at least five days prior to initiation of site preparation activities. Should active nests be identified. a buffer DRAFT
CO [0 rs
Resolution NO 25-78

Page 7 ends

area n0 less than 150 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be fenced offuntil it is determined by a qualified biologist that the nest is no longer active. A report discussing the results of nesting bird surveys shall be submitted to the City within two business days of completing the surveys.
and Materials
The project is visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas and shall incorporate colors and materials that are compatible with the surrounding landscape. a. Acceptable colors shall be limited to colors compatible with the surrounding environment (earth tones) including shades of green, brown and gray, with no white or light shades and no bright tones. Colors shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director and clearly indicated on the building plans. b. The use ofhighly reflective materials shall be prohibited except for solar energy panels or cells, reflective paint, bollards, and other safety devices as needed, which shall be placed to minimize significant adverse impacts to public views to the maximum extent feasible.
c. Necessary safety signage is not subject to these requirements if required by federal, State, or local law.

Public Works
l6.
l7.
l8.

The City of Malibu has completed installation of communication conduits along Pacific Coast Highway from Topanga Canyon to John Tyler Road for the traffic signal system in this region. lt will be the responsibility of the applicant and contractor to properly identify. locate, and protect the utilities in place, especially those of the signal system. 1t will be the responsibility of the applicant and contractor to repair and replace any potential damage caused to the infrastructure as a result of this proposed scope of work.

The City of Malibu, Public Works Superintendent shall be invited to the preconstruction meeting prior to any construction activity taking place.

If applicable, 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 limitations that will be created by the construction at least 72 hours in advance of construction.

19. Access to the driveways to all properties in the vicinity of the construction activity shall be maintained at all times, unless otherwise coordinated with property owners for restricted access.
lf 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.

A Caltrans encroachment permit shall be obtained for any work proposed within the State's right—of—way.

DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78

Page 8 ends

I)\ K) Ifapplicable, a traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and shall be approved by Caltrans prior to construction.

IQ b) If applicable, no signs shall be placed within Caltrans right of way or City right of way unless all required encroachment permits are first obtained from Caltrans and/or City of Malibu.

If applicable, 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 ofthe area to be restricted.

I)x U1 The applicant shall maintain signs through the duration of construction from the time of placement to time ofcompletion and is responsible for replacement ofmissing or damaged Signs.

Construction

26. Prior to the commencement of work, the applicant shall provide a copy of their Construction Management Plan. The Construction Management Plan shall include a dedicated parking location for construction workers, not within the public right of way.

Construction management techniques. including minimizing the amount ofequipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. ln addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

All new development, including construction (and when applicable, grading and landscaping) shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non—structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter l7, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. If included, grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site. e. Construction is prohibited between Memorial day and Labor Day.

Prior to Final Sign-Off

29. The applicant shall request a final Planning Division inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Building Safety Division. A final approval shall not be issued until the Planning Division has determined that the project complies with this CDP.

DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78

Page 9 ends

30. Any construction trailer, storage equipment or similar temporary equipment not permitted as part of the approved scope of work shall be removed prior to final inspection and approval, and if applicable, the issuance ofthe certificate of occupancy.

Jl. Caltrans shall utilize light fixtures that are Dark Sky compliant to the maximum extent feasible. The light fixtures shall be fully shielded, 3,000 kelvin in color temperature, directed downward, and must not exceed the light trespass limits onto adjacent properties listed in MMC Section l7.4l.050(G) unless necessary for adequate ingress/egress as reasonably determined by the Community Development Director. City staff shall inspect the installed lights at the cost of Caltrans and confirm compliance with this condition.

Fixed C0na’iti0ns
month test period, detailing the impact of the temporary improvements.

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

PASSED. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16m day
W
of December 2025.

ELIZABETH RIDDICK, Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:

GAIL DUNCAN, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL — Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.] (Local Appeals). a Planning Commission decision may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and a filing fee. as determined by the City Council. Please note that City Hall will be closed from December 24. 2025 through January 2. 2026. due to the winter closure. As such. the appeal period for this decision will be tolled until City Hall re—opens. For every day that City Hall is closed during the appeal period. an additional day will be added to the appeal period to ensure that members of the public are afforded the ability to obtain information before filing an appeal. The appeal period for this decision is from December 17. 2025 through January 7. 2026, 5:30 PM. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningfonns. For questions about the appeal process. please contact the

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

33. Violation of any 0f the conditions of this approval may be cause for revocation of this permit and termination ofall rights granted there under.

34. The applicant must submit a report to the Planning Commission at the conclusion of the 15 DRAFT
Resolution NO 25—78

Page 10 ends

Planning Division at (3 10) 456-24891 ext. 309
COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL An aggrieved person may appeal the Planning Commission’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling (805) 585—1 800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 ofthe MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 25-78 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Malibu at the adjourned regular meeting held on the 16‘“ day of December 2025 by the following vote:
2/2 GAIL DUNGqgN, Recording Secretary
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Leonard. Peak, Riddick NOES: 2 Commissioners: Kamins, Mazza ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: O
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT 2
Received
Pla
nning Div.
11/20/25

GENERAL NOTES
PC: 61+21.67
PC: 19+79.98
PC: 83+88.52
PT: 63+56.94
PT: 38+17.42
PT: 86+63.47
Δ PROJECT CONTROLPC-01
STATE ROUTE 01 EL MATADOR ROAD AND STATE ROUTE 01 ROUNDABOUT TYPICAL CROSS SECTION X-1 STATE ROUTE 01 EL MATADOR ROAD X-2 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION STATE ROUTE 01 X-3 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
STATE ROUTE 01 ENCINAL CANYON ROAD AND STATE ROUTE 01 ROUNDABOUT X-4 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION STATE ROUTE 01 ENCINAL CANYON ROAD X-5 TYPICAL CROSS SECTION LAYOUT L-01
LAYOUT L-02
LAYOUT L-03
LAYOUT L-04
LAYOUT L-05
LAYOUT L-06
Δ RAISED MEDIAN 1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-1
Δ RAISED MEDIAN 2 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-2
Δ RAISED MEDIAN 3 CENTER ISLAND 1 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-3 Δ CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-4 SPLITTER ISLAND 1
Δ CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-5 SPLITTER ISLAND 2
Sta x
Δ CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-6 RAISED MEDIAN 4
Δ RAISED MEDIAN 6 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-7 CENTER ISLAND 2 RAISED MEDIAN 5 Δ Sta xx
SPLITTER ISLAND 3 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-8
Δ SPLITTER ISLAND 4 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-9
CURB CUT DETAIL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS C-10 WEDGE DETAIL
DRAINAGE PLAN D-1
DRAINAGE PLAN D-2
PD-1 R1-1(CA) R2-4P(MOD) R26K(CA) SG28(CA) W9-1(CA) 55 MAXIMUM SPEED RIGHT LANE ENDS W4-2(CA) SPEED LIMIT 40 SPEED LIMIT W3-5 (40 MPH) 40 R2-1 (40 MPH) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN PD-2 R26K(CA) R26 MOD(CA) SG28(CA) PARKING ANY TIME PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN PD-3 R26F(CA) R26K(CA) R28A(CA) PARKING FIRE LANE W11-2(CA) W16-4P(CA) NEXT 1000 FT OM2-1V(CA) R4-7(CA) SPEED LIMIT W3-5(25 MPH) 25 PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN R26 MOD(CA) PARKING ANY TIME PD-4 G72(CA) R26K(CA) W11-1(CA) W16-1P(CA) EL MATADOR STATE BEACH SHARE THE ROAD OM2-1V(CA) R4-7(CA) 15MPH W2-6(CA) W13-1P(15)(CA) ROUNDABOUT R2-1(40 MPH) W16-17P(CA) SPEED LIMIT 40 PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN BIKE LANE R81 (CA) PAVEMENT DELINEATION PLAN PD-5
PD-6 OM2-1V(CA) R1-1(CA) R1-2(CA) R4-7(CA) R6-5(CA) R26K(CA) W11-2(CA) W16-7P(L) W16-7P(R) FULL LANE MAY USE R4-11(CA) W11-1(CA) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN BIKE LANE R81 (CA) PD-7 R26K(CA) W13-1P(15)(CA) 15MPH W2-6(CA) ROUNDABOUT W16-17P(CA) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN SPEED LIMIT 35 R2-1 (35MPH) BIKE LANE R81 (CA) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN PD-8 R26K(CA) W11-2(CA) W16-1P(CA) SHARE THE ROAD NEXT 1000 FT D9-1(CA) D9-21(CA) SG25(CA) W11-1 W16-4P(CA) SPEED LIMIT 35 R2-1 (35MPH) BIKE LANE R81 (CA) PD-9 R26K(CA) W11-8(CA) W16-2aP(CA) W16-9P(CA) 500 FT AHEAD PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN SPEED LIMIT 35 R2-1(35 MPH) SPEED LIMIT 35 R2-1 (35MPH) PD-10 G8-22(CA) OM2-1V(CA) RIGHT LANE TURN RIGHT MUST R3-7(CA) R4-7(CA) R26K(CA) W2-6(CA) 15MPH W13-1P(15)(CA) ROUNDABOUT W16-17P(CA) Encinal Canyon W11-1(CA) FULL LANE MAY USE R4-11(CA) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN SPEED LIMIT 35 R2-1 (35MPH) BIKE LANE R81 (CA) PD-11 PAVEMENT DELINEATION PLAN
PD-12 OM2-1V(CA) OXNARD SANTA MONICA 23 19 G1-7(CA)(MOD) R26K(CA) W11-2(CA) W16-7P(L) W16-7P(R) D11-1(CA) PACIFIC COAST G7-1(CA)(MOD) R1-1(CA) R4-7(CA) R1-2(CA) W2-6 W13-1P(15)(CA) 15MPH R28A(CA) W2-2(L) W3-1 FULL LANE MAY USE R4-11(CA) NOPASSING ZONE SPEED LIMIT 25 W3-5(25 MPH) W14-3(CA) R2-1(25 MPH) SPEED LIMIT 25 ROUNDABOUT W11-1 W16-17P PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN PD-13 D9-1(CA) D9-21(CA) SG25(CA) R1-1(CA) R26K(CA) W11-2(CA) W16-4P(CA) NEXT 1000 FT W16-1P(CA) SHARE THE ROAD SPEED LIMIT 25 R2-1(25 MPH) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN PD-14 G72(CA) R26K(CA) EL PESCADOR STATE BEACH W11-2(CA) SPEED LIMIT 25 W3-5(25 MPH) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN R26 MOD(CA) PARKING ANY TIME PD-15 G8-1(CA) R26K(CA) DECKER CYN RD SPEED LIMIT 40 R1-1(CA) R2-1(CA) RADAR ENFORCED R48-1(CA) NEXT RIGHT TRACTOR-SEMIS OVER FEET KINGPIN TO REAR AXLE NOT ADVISED 30 SW28(CA) SW48-1(CA) G28-1(CA)(23) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN PD-16 R26K(CA) THOUSAND OAKS OXNARD 21 14 G1-7(CA)(MOD) RIGHT LANE ENDS W4-2(CA) W9-1(CA) SPEED LIMIT 40 W3-5(40 MPH) PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN PAVEMENT DELINEATION DETAILS PDD-1 DETAIL 1 DETAIL 2 DETAIL 3 PLACING RPM ON TYPE E DIKE PLACING RPM ON TYPE D DIKE RPM OFFSET FROM STRIPE DETAIL 4 SIGN QUANTITIESSQ-1
PAVEMENT DELINEATION QUANTITIES PDQ-1
SIGN QUANTITIESSQ-2
SQ-3 SIGN QUANTITIES
SUMMARY OF QUANTITIES Q-1
TEMPORARY LIGHTING SYSTEMS E-1
TEMPORARY LIGHTING SYSTEMS E-2
E-4 W11-2(CA) W16-7P(L) W16-7P(R) W2-6 W13-1P(15)(CA) 15MPH R2-1(25 MPH) W2-2(L) W3-1 SPEED LIMIT 25 ROUNDABOUT W16-17P FLASHING BEACON SYSTEM W11-2(CA) W16-7P(L) FLASHING BEACON SYSTEME-3
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM QUANTITIES EQ-1
Our technical proposal
PV panel power rating
Battery capacity
(Must be NiMH)
Lighting power
LED light unit specification
Pole Height / Arm Length
Base Type
25’ / 6’
3’ Raised Anchor Base
40 W nominal
3000K - 204 Lm/w
1248 Wh
190 Wp
POWER 365: SMART STORAGE

AND MANAGEMENT

LED LIGHT UNIT

POLE & CROSSPIECE

PHOTOVOLTAIC MODULE

SMARTLIGHT SYSTEM CONFIGURATION
PV panel tilt angle 10°
100%
All Night
Light intensity
Chosen lighting profile for your project
Non pro-rated
Fonroche Lighting America - Design Office
Project-Specific System Specifications
Protective treatment Powder Coated
ATTACHMENT 3
Recycling our components
Eco-friendly lighting
Photometric survey results
Choose Fonroche — and we will reduce your environmental footprint.

A standard streetlight consumes in average 80 W during 4200 h per year which represents 0.08x4200 x number of solar streetlight = X kWh of energy saving.

Once installed, solar lighting reduces
CO2emissions by 1kWh = 0.99 lbs CO2
compared to a grid-connected installation. (https://www.eia.gov/) Long product service life and component recyclability are key aspects of Fonroche Lighting’s environmental commitments.

Our solar streetlights are over 90% recyclable.

Unlike lead-acid batteries, NiMH batteries do not contain any toxic chemicals. They are 98% recyclable — the nickel is extracted and used to make various materials, mostly stainless steel.

The solar panels have an extremely long service life. Even after 25 years, they will still be producing at least 80% of their initial peak power. So they can continue to be used. Alternatively, about 96% of their component materials can be recycled to make new panels.

Fonroche Lighting America Design Office
Spacing Quantity Uniformity
(Avg/Min) Minimum Average lighting level (fc) Zone
Roundabout 1 1.12 0.5 2.24 Per specs 4
Roundabout 2 1.08 0.4 2.70 Per specs 4
TOTAL 8
Design Goals: ≥1 Fc Avg, ≥0.4 Fc Min

PHOTOMETRIC
STUDY
*Note: these results are only valid if the Smartlight PV panel is at an azimuth angle of zero degrees and is completely free of shadow.
**These results are subject to change due to technological or regulatory advances. This technical report is valid for 60 days from the date you receive it.

Fonroche Lighting America Design Office
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth, TX 76140
Phone Number: (339) 225 4530
www.fonrochesolarlighting.com
By: Nathan Boyles
[email protected]
Date:10/1/2025
Malibu CA - Roundabout Lighting
Project Number: G10057
Lighting Plan Rev C
Luminaire Schedule
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement Total Lamp Lumens
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
Roundabout Illuminance
4 GEN3-CK16B-3000K-31W
Fc 1.08 1.5
Single 6324

0.4 2.70 3.75
.5
.5
.5
.5

0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.4

1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8

1.2 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.3

1.3 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.4

0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.2 1.0 0.9 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.7

0.9 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.9 0.7

1.1 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.0 1.3 1.1 1.3 1.1 0.8

1.1 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.2

1.2 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.3 1.3 1.1
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth, TX 76140
Phone Number: (339) 225 4530
www.fonrochesolarlighting.com
By: Nathan Boyles
[email protected]
Date:10/1/2025
Malibu CA - Roundabout Lighting
Project Number: G10057
Lighting Plan Rev C
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth, TX 76140
Phone Number: (339) 225 4530
www.fonrochesolarlighting.com
By: Nathan Boyles
[email protected]
Date:10/1/2025
Malibu, CA - Roundabout Lighting
Project Number: G10057
Lighting Plan Rev C
Luminaire Schedule
Symbol Qty
Calculation Summary
Label CalcType
Label Arrangement Total Lamp Lumens
Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
Roundabout Illuminance Fc
4 GEN3-CK16B-3000K-31W

1.12 Single 6324

1.8 0.5 2.24 3.60
.5
.5
.5
.5
2224 SE Loop 820, Building C
Fort Worth, TX 76140
Phone Number: (339) 225 4530
www.fonrochesolarlighting.com
By: Nathan Boyles
[email protected]
Date:10/1/2025
Malibu, CA - Roundabout Lighting
Project Number: G10057
Lighting Plan Rev C
A. THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IS GOVERNED BY THE "FLORIDA BUILDING CODE (FBC)", 2020 EDITION, HEREAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE GOVERNING CODE. THIS INCLUDES ADOPTED AND MODIFIED BY THE LOCAL BUILDING DEPARTMENT WITH AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION. 1. REFER TO CHAPTER 35 OF FBC FOR ALL CURRENT REFERENCE STANDARDS BASED ON THE GOVERNING CODE. WHERE OTHER STANDARDS ARE NOTED IN THE DRAWINGS, USE THE LATEST EDITION OF THE STANDARD UNLESS A SPECIFIC DATE IS INDICATED. REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC SECTION IN A CODE DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENTIRE STANDARD. ALL SPECIFICATIONS AND CODES NOTED SHALL BE THE LATEST APPROVED EDITIONS AND REVISIONS BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT. 2. RISK CATEGORY: II A. EARTHQUAKE DESIGN DATA

1. MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACC. FOR SHORT PERIOD, (Ss): 0.065 G

2. MAPPED SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACC. FOR 1-SEC PERIOD, (S1): 0.048 G

3. DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACC. FOR SHORT PERIOD, (Sds): 0.070 G

4. DESIGN SPECTRAL RESPONSE ACC. FOR 1-SEC PERIOD, (Sd1): 0.078 G

5. SITE CLASS: D

6. SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY: C

7. SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR, (Ie): 1.5

8. SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT(S), (Cs): N/A

9. RESPONSE MODIFICATION COEFFICIENT(S), (R): 1.5

10. BASIC SEISMIC-FORCE-RESISTING-SYSTEM(S): N/A

11. DESIGN BASE SHEAR(S): N/A

12. ANALYSIS PROCEDURE USED: ASCE 7-16 13.3: SEISMIC DEMAND ON NON STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS B. WIND DESIGN DATA

1. ULTIMATE DESIGN WIND SPEED (VULT): 145 MPH

2. NOMINAL DESIGN WIND SPEED (VASD): 112.3 MPH

3. WIND IMPORTANCE FACTOR, Iw: 1.0

4. WIND EXPOSURE: C

5. INTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT(S): N/A

6. UNFACTORED COMPONENTS & CLADDING ROOF PRESSURE: N/A

7. UNFACTORED COMPONENTS & CLADDING WALL PRESSURE: N/A
C. SOILS DESIGN DATA

1. ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE: 1500 PSF 2. MINIMUM FROST/BEARING DEPTH: N/A

3. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY, (REPORT #): N/A D. SPECIAL DESIGN DATA

1. SEE PLANS FOR ALL EQUIPMENT DESIGN WEIGHTS. NOTE: REFER TO CHAPTER 35 OF GOVERNING CODE FOR ALL CURRENT REFERENCE STANDARDS BASED ON THE GOVERNING CODE. WHERE OTHER STANDARDS ARE NOTED IN THE DRAWINGS, USE THE LATEST EDITION OF THE STANDARD UNLESS A SPECIFIC DATE IS INDICATED. REFERENCE TO A SPECIFIC SECTION IN A CODE DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR FROM COMPLIANCE WITH THE ENTIRE STANDARD. ALL SPECIFICATIONS AND CODES NOTED SHALL BE THE LATEST APPROVED EDITIONS AND REVISIONS BY THE AUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT.

A. ALL FOOTING AND FOUNDATION DESIGNS ARE BASED ON AN ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING CAPACITY OF 1,500 PSF. IF THE SITE HAS A LOWER BEARING CAPACITY THAN LISTED, THEN FOUNDATION PLAN WILL NEED TO BE REDESIGNED. B. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE FOUNDED ON COMPETENT NATIVE SOIL OR STRUCTURAL FILL PLACED PER THE GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS. C. ALL STRUCTURAL FILL BELOW FOOTINGS SHALL EXTEND OUT PAST FOOTINGS AS A SLOPE OF 1 HORIZONTAL TO 2 VERTICAL TO COMPETENT SOILS.

A. ALL CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN ACI 318, “BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE”, AND ACI 301, “SPECIFICATIONS FOR STRUCTURAL CONCRETE”. B. CAST-IN-PLACE AND PRECAST CONSTRUCTION TOLERANCES FOR MEMBER SIZE AND LOCATION SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ACI 117 AND ACI ITG-7, RESPECTIVELY. C. NORMAL WEIGHT CONCRETE SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ASTM C33 WITH A NOMINAL MAXIMUM AGGREGATE SIZE OF ¾”. D. LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE SHALL BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH ASTM C330 AND RESULTS OF ASTM C330 SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO E.O.R. FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. THE VOLUMETRIC FRACTIONS OF THE AGGREGATE SHALL ALSO BE SUBMITTED TO E.O.R. FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. E. PORTLAND CEMENT SHALL BE TYPE I/II IN CONFORMANCE WITH ASTM C150. F. OTHER CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. BLENDED HYDRAULIC CEMENTS: ASTM C595

2. EXPANSIVE HYDRAULIC CEMENT: ASTM C845

3. HYDRAULIC CEMENT: ASTM C1157

4. FLY ASH AND NATURAL POZZOLAN: ASTM C618

5. SLAG CEMENT: ASTM C989

6. SILICA FUME: ASTM C1240 G. MIXING WATER SHALL CONFORM TO ASTM C1602. H. ADMIXTURES MAY BE USED TO INCREASE WORKABILITY OF THE CONCRETE UPON WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE CONCRETE MANUFACTURER OR THE PROJECT TESTING LABORATORY. TESTING ON CONCRETE SHALL BE DONE PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF ADMIXTURES.

I. ADMIXTURES SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. WATER REDUCTION AND SETTING TIME MODIFICATION: ASTM C494

2. PRODUCING FLOWING CONCRETE: ASTM C1017

3. AIR ENTRAINMENT: ASTM C260

4. INHIBITING CHLORIDE-INDUCED CORROSION: ASTM C1528
J. CONCRETE MIXTURE PROPORTIONS SHALL CONFORM WITH ARTICLE 4.2.3 OF ACI 301 AND ESTABLISHED SO CONCRETE CAN BE PLACED READILY WITHOUT SEGREGATION INTO FORMS AND AROUND REINFORCEMENT. K. DOCUMENTATION OF CONCRETE MIXTURE CHARACTERISTICS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO E.O.R. FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO USING THE MIXTURE AND PRIOR TO MAKING CHANGES TO MIXTURES ALREADY IN USE.

L. ALL CONCRETE MIXING AND TRANSPORTATION OF CONCRETE SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF ATM C94 AND ASTM C685. M. STAIN AND TEXTURE OF EXPOSED CONCRETE SURFACES PER OWNER’S DIRECTION, IF APPLICABLE. N. THE SLUMP OF THE CONCRETE SHALL BE BETWEEN: 1. BEAMS/COLUMNS: 3” ± 1” 2. WALLS/FOUNDATIONS: 5” ± 1” 3. SLABS-ON-GRADE: 4” ± 1” O. THE CONCRETE SHALL MEET THE MOST STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS FROM THE FOLLOWING EXPOSURE CLASSES: 1. PORTABLE FOUNDATION: F0, S0, W0, C1 P. CONCRETE EXPOSURE CLASSES AND REQUIREMENTS:

Q. TEMPERATURE REQUIREMENTS: 1. CONCRETE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT A TEMPERATURE MINIMUM OF 50°F AND IN A MOIST CONDITION FOR AT LEAST THE FIRST 7 DAYS AFTER PLACEMENT. 2. ADEQUATE EQUIPMENT SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR HEATING CONCRETE MATERIALS AND PROTECTING CONCRETE DURING FREEZING OR NEAR-FREEZING WEATHER. 3. FROZEN MATERIALS OR MATERIALS CONTAINING ICE SHALL NOT BE USED. 4. FORMS, FILLERS, AND GROUND WITH WHICH CONCRETE IS TO COME IN CONTACT SHALL BE FREE FROM FROST AND ICE. 5. CONCRETE SHALL NOT EXCEED A TEMPERATURE MAXIMUM OF 95°F AT THE TIME OF PLACEMENT. 6. HANDLING, PLACING, PROTECTION, AND CURING PROCEDURES SHALL LIMIT CONCRETE TEMPERATURES OR WATER EVAPORATION THAT COULD REDUCE STRENGTH SERVICEABILITY, AND DURABILITY OF THE MEMBER OR STRUCTURE. 7. HOT WEATHER AND COLD WEATHER CONCRETING SHALL BE DONE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF ACI 305.1 AND ACI 306.1, RESPECTIVELY. 8. CONCRETE MATERIALS AND PRODUCTION METHODS SHALL BE SELECTED SO THAT THE CONCRETE TEMPERATURE AT DELIVERY COMPLIES WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TEMPERATURE LIMITS. R. THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT PROTECT CONCRETE AGAINST CHEMICALLY AGGRESSIVE SOLUTIONS, CONTACT E.O.R. IF SUCH CONDITIONS APPLY.

EXPOSURE CLASS MAXIMUM
w/cm MINIMUMfC’ (psi)
AIR

CONTENT
(%)

LIMITS ON MAXIMUM PERCENT OF TOTAL CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS BY MASS EXPOSURE CATEGORY: F
F0
F1
F2
ASTM
C618
ASTM
C989
ASTM
C1240
TOTAL OF ASTM C618 &
ASTM C1240
TOTAL OF ASTM C618 & ASTM C989 & ASTM C1240
EXPOSURE CATEGORY: S

EXPOSURE CLASS MAXIMUM
w/cm MINIMUMfC’ (psi) ASTM C150 ASTM C595 ASTM C1157

CALCIUM

CHLORIDE ADMIXTURE

CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS
EXPOSURE CATEGORY: W
EXPOSURE CLASS MAXIMUM w/cm MINIMUM fC’ (psi)
EXPOSURE CATEGORY: C

EXPOSURE CLASS MAXIMUM
w/cm MINIMUMfC’ (psi)
W0 W1N/A

0.50 2500
4000
C0C1C2N/A N/A

0.40 2500
2500
5000

1.00 0.30

0.15 MAXIMUM WATER-SOLUBLE CHLORIDE ION (Cl-1) CONTENT IN

NONPRESTRESSED CONCRETE, PERCENT BY WEIGHT OF CEMENT
S0
S1
S2
S3
N/A 2500 N/A N/A N/A N/A

0.50*

0.45 0.45
4000
4500
4500
II
V
V + POZZOLAN OR

SLAG CEMENT

IP(MS), IS(MS), OR
IT(MS)

IP(HS), IS(HS), OR
IT(HS) + POZZOLAN OR SLAG CEMENT
MS
HS
HS + POZZOLAN OR SLAG CEMENT
N/A

NOT PERMITTED

IP(HS), IS(HS), OR
IT(HS)

NOT PERMITTED
N/A 2500 N/A

0.55 3500 5

0.45 4500 6

N/A N/A N/A
F3 0.40 5000 6
25% 50% 10% 35% 50%
*FOR SEAWATER EXPOSURE THE MAXIMUM w/cm RATIO SHALL BE 0.40.

S. CONCRETE PLACEMENT: 1. STANDING WATER SHALL BE REMOVED FROM PLACE OF DEPOSIT BEFORE CONCRETE IS PLACED UNLESS A TREMIE IS USED. 2. MASONRY FILLER UNITS THAT WILL BE IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE SHALL BE PRE-WETTED PRIOR TO PLACING CONCRETE. 3. CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE CONVEYED WITH PIPES, TREMIES, OR CHUTES MADE OF ALUMINUM OR ALUMINUM ALLOYS. 4. CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED: a. AT A RATE SO CONCRETE AT ALL TIMES HAS SUFFICIENT WORKABILITY TO BE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATELY. b. WITHOUT SEGREGATION OR LOSS OF MATERIALS. c. WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS TO MAINTAIN WORKABILITY BETWEEN SUCCESSIVE PLACEMENTS TO PREVENT AN UNINTENTIONAL COLD JOINT. d. DEPOSITED AS NEAR TO ITS FINAL LOCATION AS PRACTICABLE TO AVOID SEGREGATION DUE TO REHANDLING OR FLOWING. 5. CONCRETE THAT HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED OR HAS LOST ITS INITIAL WORKABILITY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN NO LONGER BE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATELY SHALL NOT BE USED. 6. RETEMPERING CONCRETE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C94 SHALL BE PERMITTED AS LONG AS THE LIMITS ON MAXIMUM MIXING TIME AND w/cm ARE NOT VIOLATED. 7. AFTER STARTING, CONCRETING SHALL BE A CONTINUOUS OPERATION UNTIL THE COMPLETION OF A PANEL OR SECTION, AS DEFINED BY ITS BOUNDARIES OR PREDETERMINED JOINTS. 8. CONCRETE SHALL BE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATELY DURING PLACEMENT AND SHALL BE WORKED AROUND REINFORCEMENT AND EMBEDMENTS AND INTO CORNERS OF FORMS. 9. TOP SURFACES OF VERTICALLY FORMED LIFTS SHALL BE GENERALLY LEVEL. 10. JOINT LOCATIONS OR JOINT DETAILS NOT SHOWN OR THAT DIFFER FROM THOSE INDICATED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW BY THE E.O.R. 11. CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE CLEANED AND LAITANCE REMOVED BEFORE NEW CONCRETE IS PLACED. 12. SURFACE OF CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE INTENTIONALLY ROUGHENED. 13. IMMEDIATELY BEFORE NEW CONCRETE IS PLACED, CONSTRUCTION JOINTS SHALL BE PRE-WETTED AND STANDING WATER REMOVED. 14. BEAMS, GIRDERS, OR SLABS SUPPORTED BY COLUMNS OR WALLS SHALL NOT BE CAST UNTIL CONCRETE IN THE VERTICAL SUPPORT MEMBERS IS NO LONGER WORKABLE AND SOFT. 15. BEAMS, GIRDERS, HAUNCHES, DROP PANELS, SHEAR CAPS, AND CAPITALS SHALL BE PLACED MONOLITHICALLY AS PART OF A SLAB SYSTEM, U.N.O. 16. SAW CUTTING IN SLABS-ON-GRADE IDENTIFIED IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AS STRUCTURAL DIAPHRAGMS OR PART OF THE SEISMIC-FORCE-RESISTING SYSTEM SHALL NOT BE PERMITTED U.N.O. 17. ALUMINUM EMBEDMENTS SHALL BE COATED OR COVERED TO PREVENT ALUMINUM-CONCRETE REACTION AND ELECTROLYTIC ACTION BETWEEN ALUMINUM AND STEEL. 18. IN SOLID SLABS, PIPING, EXCEPT FOR RADIANT HEATING OR SNOW MELTING, SHALL BE PLACED BETWEEN TOP AND BOTTOM REINFORCEMENT. 19. CONDUIT AND PIPING SHALL BE FABRICATED AND INSTALLED SO THAT CUTTING, BENDING, OR DISPLACEMENT OF REINFORCEMENT FROM ITS SPECIFIED LOCATION IS NOT REQUIRED. T. FORMWORK: 1. FORMWORK SHALL BE DESIGNED, FABRICATED, INSTALLED, AND REMOVED BY CONTRACTOR. 2. DESIGN OF FORMWORK SHALL TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION: a. METHOD OF CONCRETE PLACEMENT. b. RATE OF CONCRETE PLACEMENT. c. CONSTRUCTION LOADS, INCLUDING VERTICAL, HORIZONTAL, AND IMPACT. d. AVOIDANCE OF DAMAGE TO PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED MEMBERS. 3. FORMWORK FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION SHALL RESULT IN A FINAL STRUCTURE THAT CONFORMS TO SHAPES, LINES, AND DIMENSIONS OF THE MEMBERS AS REQUIRED BY THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. 4. FORMWORK SHALL BE SUFFICIENTLY TIGHT TO INHIBIT LEAKAGE OF PASTE OR MORTAR. 5. FORMWORK SHALL BE BRACED OR TIED TOGETHER TO MAINTAIN POSITION AND SHAPE. 6. PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEVELOP A PROCEDURE AND SCHEDULE FOR REMOVAL OF FORMWORK AND INSTALLATION OF RESHORES AND SHALL CALCULATE THE LOADS TRANSFERRED TO THE STRUCTURE DURING THIS PROCESS. 7. STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS AND CONCRETE STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS USED IN PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING THE FORMWORK REMOVAL AND RESHORE INSTALLATION SHALL BE GIVEN BY THE CONTRACTOR TO THE E.O.R. AND TO THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHEN REQUESTED. 8. NO CONSTRUCTION LOADS SHALL BE PLACED ON, NOR ANY FORMWORK REMOVED FROM, ANY PART OF THE STRUCTURE UNDER CONSTRUCTION EXCEPT WHEN THAT PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE IN COMBINATION WITH REMAINING FORMWORK HAS SUFFICIENT STRENGTH TO SUPPORT ITS WEIGHT AND LOADS PLACED ON IT SAFELY AND WITHOUT IMPAIRING SERVICEABILITY. 9. NO CONSTRUCTION LOADS EXCEEDING THE COMBINATION OF SUPERIMPOSED DEAD LOAD PLUS LIVE LOAD

INCLUDING REDUCTION SHALL BE PLACED ON ANY UNSHORED PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, UNLESS ANALYSIS INDICATES ADEQUATE STRENGTH TO SUPPORT SUCH ADDITIONAL LOADS AND WITHOUT IMPAIRING SERVICEABILITY.

A. ALL ARRANGEMENT AND DETAILING OF REINFORCING STEEL, INCLUDING BAR SUPPORTS AND SPACERS, SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LATEST ACI 315 DETAILING MANUAL. B. ASTM A615, GRADE 40 (#3 REBAR OR SMALLER), ASTM A615, GRADE 60 (#4 REBAR OR LARGER), ASTM A185, GRADE 65 (WELDED WIRE FABRIC SHEETS). BARS TO BE WELDED SHALL BE ASTM A706, GRADE 60. C. DIMENSIONS OF REINFORCING ARE TO BAR CENTERLINES U.N.O. IN DRAWINGS. D. MINIMUM CLEAR PROTECTION FOR REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: 1. CONCRETE PLACED DIRECTLY AGAINST EARTH: = 3" 2. FORMED SURFACES AND EXPOSED TO EXTERIOR (#5 BARS OR SMALLER): = 2" 3. INTERIOR FACE OF WALLS: = 1 1/2" 4. STRUCTURAL SLABS: = 1" 5. ELEVATED SLABS, BEAMS & COLUMNS: = 1 1/2" E. MINIMUM REINFORCING LAP SPLICES/DEVELOPMENT LENGTHS (F'C = 3,000 PSI): BAR SIZE HOOK LENGTH (IN) DEVL./SPLICE LENGTH (IN) 3 6 21 4 8 28
5 10 36
6 12 43
F. STAGGER SPLICES IN WALLS SO THAT NO TWO ADJACENT BARS ARE SPLICED IN THE SAME LOCATION. G. REINFORCING SHALL BE CONTINUOUS THROUGH ALL COLD JOINTS. H. PROVIDE CORNER BARS w/ 18" LEGS AT CORNERS AND INTERSECTING WALLS AND FOOTINGS, SIZE AND PLACEMENT TO MATCH HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT.

I. ALL REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE COLD BENT, UNLESS OTHERWISE PERMITTED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND ENGINEER OF RECORD. REINFORCEMENT PARTIALLY EMBEDDED IN CONCRETE OR MASONRY SHALL NOT BE FIELD BENT, UNLESS PERMITTED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL AND ENGINEER OF RECORD.

J. PROVIDE FOUNDATION HOLDOWNS AT ALL SHEAR WALL LOCATIONS PER PLAN, IF APPLICABLE, RE: SHEARWALL PLAN. K. WET SETTING OF REINFORCING BARS IN FOOTINGS AND WALLS IS NOT ALLOWED.

ABBREVIATIONS
℄ INCH

INSULATION

INTERIOR

JOINT KNOCKOUT

CENTERLINE DIAMETER OR ROUND

RENOVATE NEW
FUTURE

EXISTING

HEATING VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING

LINEAL FEET OR FOOT

LAMINATE

LOW POINT

MACHINE BOLT

POUNDS MANHOLE
SQUARE

MECHANICAL MAXIMUM

METAL MANUFACTURER MISCELLANEOUS MINIMUM

BOTTOM OF

BETWEEN

BOTTOM OF CONCRETE

ARCHITECTURAL

ALTERNATIVE

ADJUSTABLE

ALUMINUM

AGGREGATE
ABOVE

APPROXIMATE

NUMBER OR POUND

ATANCHOR BOLT ABOVE FINISH FLOOR

NOT IN CONTRACT

MATERIAL NORTH

NOT TO SCALE NUMBER NOMINAL

NEAR SIDE

OVER OVER ALL

OVERHEAD

OUTSIDE DIAMETER OPPOSITE HAND OPENING

ON CENTER

NEAR SIDE
BOTTOM
COLUMN

CONCRETE OPENING

CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT

CAST IRON

CAST IN PLACE

CENTER TO CENTER
CLEAR

COUNTERSUNK

CEILING
BEAM

BLOCK BUILDING
BOARD

BUILT-UP

MOUNTED

LAMINATED VENEER LUMBER

LONG LEG VERTICAL

LONG LEG HORIZONTAL

MASONRY OPENING

PERPENDICULAR

PROPERTY LINE

PARTICLE

OPPOSITE OUNCE
POINT

PLATE PLYWOOD

RADIUS OR RISER

ROOF DRAIN

REINFORCE(D) REQUIRED

ROUGH OPENING

CORRIDOR

ECCENTRICALLY BRACED FRAME
EACH

DRAWING
DOWN

DIMENSION

EXPANSION JOINT

EXPANSION BOLT

DEFORMED BAR ANCHOR
DETAIL
DEEP

DIAGONAL DIAMETER

COORDINATE WITH

CONTINUOUS

STAINLESS STEEL

SOLID CORE

SECTION
SHEET

SCHEDULE

STRUCTURAL
SQUARE

STANDARD

SYMMETRICAL

TOP OF BEAM

SUSPENDED

SPECIFICATIONS

FACE OF MASONRY

FACE OF TREAD

FACE OF STUDS

ELEVATOR

FACE OF CURB/CONCRETE

FACE OF

FLAT BAR

EXTERIOR

EXPANSION

EQUIPMENT

FACE OF FINISH

FLOOR DRAIN
EQUAL

ELECTRICAL

ELEVATION
ROOM

SQUARE FEET OR FOOT

REFERENCE (CW/)

TONGUE & GROOVE

SIMILAR OR SIMILAR TO

PRE-ENGINEERED METAL BUILDING

PARALLEL STRAND LUMBER

TOP OF DECK

TOP OF SLAB

TOP OF MASONRY

TYPICAL

THICKNESS

TOP OF WALL

VERIFY IN FIELD

VERTICAL WITHOUT WIDE WOOD

WITH HIGH

HEADED CONCRETE ANCHOR

HORIZONTAL HIGH POINT

GALVANIZED

FURRING

GAUGE OR GAGE

FIRE TREATED WOOD
GYPSUM

FLOOR(ING)

FOOTING

FLASHING
FINISH

FAR SIDE

FOOT OR FEET

WORK POINT
HEIGHT

INSIDE DIAMETER

HOUR WELDED WIRE FABRIC

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

UNIFORM BUILDING CODE

FOUNDATION TOP OF CURB/CONCRETE

CONCRETE
PART.

CORR.

U.B.C.

U.N.O. U.O.N.

P.S.L.

PRE-ENG.

W/ H.

HR.

HT.

I.D.

H.C.A.

HORIZ. H.P.

W.W.F.

WD. W.P. W.

W/O
F.O.M.

GALV.

FURR. GA.

FTW.

GYP.

FL.

FTG.

FLASH.

FDN. FIN.

F.S. FT.

F.O.T.

F.O.S.

ELEV.

F.O.C.

F.O.

F.B.

EXT.

EXP.

EQUIP.

F.O.F.

F.D.

EQ.

E.B.E.

ELEC.

EL.

EA.

DWG. DN. DIM.

E.J.

E.B
D.B.A.

DET.

DIAG. DIA.

CW/
SIM.

T.O.M. T.O.S.

V.I.F.

TYP.

THK.

T.O.W.

VERT.

SYM. T&G
T.O.C. T.O.D.

T.O.B.

SUSP.

STRUC.

STD.

SQ.

SPECS.

RE:

S.F. S.S.

S.C.

RM. REQ'D. REINF.

SHT.

SECT.

SCHED.

PLYWD.

PL.

P/L
R.O. R.D. R.

PT.

HVAC
LVL
BOT.

COL.

CONT.

CONC.

C.O.

CMU
C.I. C.I.P.

C.C.

CLR. CNTRSK.

CLG.
#
B.O.

B/T
BM. BLK. BLDG. BD. B.U.

B.O.C.

ARCH.
@
ALT.

ADJ.

ALUM.

AGG.

ABV.

APPROX.

A.F.F. A.B.
(R)
(N)
(F)
(E)
MIN.

N.S.

O.A. O/ O/H
OZ. OPP. OPNG. O.H. O.D. O.C.

NOM. NO.

MISC.

N.T.S.

N.I.C. NMTRL
N.S.

MT'D
L.P.

LAM.

MFR. MET. MECH. MAX. M.O. M.H. M.B.

LBS.

L.F.

K.O.

JT.

INT.

INSUL.

IN.

L.L.H.

L.L.V.

TJI TRUSS JOIST I-JOIST
E.N. EDGE NAIL(ING)
D.F. DOUGLAS FIR
B.N. BOUNDARY NAIL(ING)

LSL LAMINATED STRAND LUMBER
∅
□
T
H.S.S. HOLLOW STRUCTURAL STEEL

GSN GENERAL STRUCTURAL NOTES

EOR ENGINEER OF RECORD
E.S. EDGE SCREW(ING)
R.T.U. ROOF TOP UNIT
sheet title:

Drawn By:

Dwg Date:

Checked By:

Job No:

The drawings and plans set forth on this
set as instrument of service are, and
shall remain, the property of Tamarack Grove Engineering. Use of this drawing is limited to a specified project for persons named hereon. Any use or reuse of said drawings is strictly prohibited without written permission of Tamarack Grove Engineering. 812 S. La Cassia Drive Boise, ID 83705
Firm No. M14000009249
www.tamarackgrove.com
(208) 345-8941

STRUCTURAL NOTES
TYNDELL AFB, FL32403

PORTABLE

LIGHT POLE

FOUNDATION
S0.0
DDH
TSR
5-16-22
TGE22-19420
1 STRUCTURAL DESIGN CRITERIA
2 FOUNDATIONS AND SLABS
3 CONCRETE
4 REINFORCING STEEL

SHEET LIST

SHEET NUMBER SHEET NAME
S0.0 STRUCTURAL NOTES
S1.0 LIGHT POLE BASE
Delta Revision Date
4' - 0"
4' - 0"
#5 BARS, TOT 5
EW
2 S1.0
_______
BASE PLATE, RE: 3 / S1.0 NOTE: USE f'c=4000 PSI CONCRETE 4' - 0"
3' - 0"
9" 5"
(2) #4 TIES
(5) #5
(5) #5
#5 BARS, TOT 5 EW
1/2" CHAMFER
1/2" CHAMFER

COMPACTED EARTH
1'-0" MIN.
(4) 1" DIA. 8NC GLAV. STL. L-ANCHOR BOLTS AASTHO M314-90 GRADE 55 w/ 25" MIN. EMBED., 10" OF THREADED END GALV. PER ASTM A153 11x11x1" BASE PLATE
MAX. SLOPE
R=4D FOR #8 BARS & SMALLER
4 7/8"
D
R
4D (2 1/2" MIIN.)
D
(1" MIN.)
12D U.N.O.

R=4D
6 1
D
R=2D
45°

CMU COLUMN)
(4"
10D MIN. AT
45°
10D
10D
D
D
45°
D
(1 1/2" M NI .)
1 1/2"D
(2'-0" MIN.)
36D
(2'-0" MIN.)
48D

SPACED SPLICE - CONCRETE

CONTACT SPLICE - MASONRY
OFFSET

BEAM STIRRUPS

COLUMN BEAM TIE
NOTE: USE OFFSET ONLY WHERE SPECIFICALLY DETAILED & @ COLUMNS

SPLICE CONDITIONS

TYPICAL HOOKS
11"
11"
8 1/8"
8 1/8"
NOTE: REFER TO MANUFACTURER
INSTALLATION NOTES.
11x11x1" BASE PLATE
11 1/2" DIA.
sheet title:

Drawn By:

Dwg Date:

Checked By:

Job No:

LIGHT POLE BASE
TYNDELL AFB, FL32403

PORTABLE

LIGHT POLE

FOUNDATION
S1.0
DH
TSR
5-16-22
TGE22-19420
1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 PORTABLE FOUNDATION (PLAN) 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 2 PORTABLE FOUNDATION (SECTION) Delta Revision Date
1" = 1'-0" 4 REINFORCING BAR BENDS
3" = 1'-0" 3 BOLT LAYOUT
NOTE: IT IS RECOMENDED TO PUT REFLECTIVE STRAP ON THE FOUNDATION. IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED TO PUT STENCILS ON THE PORTABLE FOUNDATION SAYING. 1. DO NOT MOVE ON WINDY DAYS. 2. STRAP THE FOUNDATION WHILE LIFTING FOR TRANSPORTATION.

PRELIMINARY ROUNDABOUT LAYOUT
SR 1 - EL MATADOR BEACH RD TO ENCINAL
NORTH
NORTH
NORTH

PARKING EXHIBIT

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 DATE: 09/09/2025
JOB ADDRESS: CITYWIDE PROJECT
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Nadia Fahoum, City of Malibu Public Works Depart PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Temporary roundabout at the intersection of El Matador and Encinal
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 25-041
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: To Be Assigned
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 $ Rev 05/29/2018
X
9/25/25
ATTACHMENT 4
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 2 ends

Recycled Paper

BIOLOGY REVIEW SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
(name and email)
Nadia Fahoum, City of Malibu Public Works Depart
[email protected]
Project Address: CITYWIDE PROJECT
Malibu, CA 90265
Planning Case No.: CDP 25-041
Project Description: Temporary roundabout at the intersection of El Matador and Encinal
Date of Review: September 25, 2025
Reviewer:

Courtney McCammon Signature:

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

SUBMITTAL INFORMATION
Site Plan: 9/9/25
Site Survey: 9/9/25
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:

Previous Reviews:

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 City of Malibu Biology Review Sheet
CDP 25-041

CITYWIDE PROJECT
September 25, 2025

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION:

1. Although Malibu LCP’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) requires that new development provides a 100-foot buffer from ESHA, LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within ESHA buffers. The project will take place outside of the ESHA but within ESHA buffer, and within the disturbed paved roadway, will aid the general public, and does not expand the already developed accessway

2. Malibu LIP 4.6.2 states that “Exterior lighting (except traffic lights, navigational lights, and other similar safety lighting) shall be minimized, restricted to low intensity features, shielded, and directed away from ESHA to minimize impacts on wildlife”. The proposed project has a lighting component that will be “navigational” or “other similar safety lighting” and is therefore exempt from the lighting standards within Chapter 4 of the LIP.

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. No grading/excavation/vegetation removal is proposed; therefore, none is approved. However, work 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. -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

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: 09/09/2025
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Nadia Fahoum, City of Malibu Public Works Depart PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Temporary roundabout at the intersection of El Matador and Encinal
PROJECT NUMBER: CDP 25-041
JOB ADDRESS: CITYWIDE PROJECT
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
X
X
9/23/2025
1 City of Malibu

M E M O R A N D U M
To:

From:

Date:

Re:

Planning Department
Nathaniel McLean, Assistant Engineer
September 22, 2025
CITYWIDE PROJECT– CDP 25-0041 (PCH Quick Build Roundabouts 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 has completed installation of communication conduits along Pacific Coast Highway from Topanga Canyon to John Tyler Road for the traffic signal system in this region. It will be the responsibility of the applicant and contractor to properly identify, locate, and protect the utilities in place, especially those of the signal system. It will be the responsibility of the applicant and contractor to repair and replace any potential damage caused to the infrastructure should this proposed scope of work have any impact on it.

2. The City of Malibu, Public Works Superintendent shall be invited to the preconstruction meeting prior to any construction activity taking place.

3. If applicable, 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 limitations that will be created by the construction at least 72 hours in advance of construction.

4. Access to the driveways to all properties in the vicinity of the construction activity shall be maintained at all times, unless otherwise coordinated with property owners for restricted access.

5. 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.

6. A Caltrans encroachment permit shall be obtained for any work proposed within the State's right-of-way.

7. If applicable, a traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and shall be approved by Caltrans prior to.

8. If applicable, no signs shall be placed within Caltrans right of way or City right of way unless all required encroachment permits are first obtained from Caltrans and/or City of Malibu.

9. If applicable, 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.

10. 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.

ATTACHMENT 5
If other, please specify
Former Director of
Transportation for the Malibu
Township Council

Other
If other, please specify

If other, please specify

Other
If other, please specify

If other, please specify
When our family would travel
down to Paradise Cove or
Zuma beach it was from Santa
Monica it was scary how fast
vehicles travelled!

If other, please specify

Other
If other, please specify

If other, please specify

Other
If other, please specify

If other, please specify
Santa Monica resident

Other
If other, please specify

If other, please specify

Student
Other
If other, please specify
second home resident

If other, please specify

Other
If other, please specify

If other, please specify

Other
If other, please specify

If other, please specify

Other
If other, please specify

Resident
Visitor
Employee
Student
Other
If other, please specify

Other
If other, please specify
Someone experiencing the
horror of roundabouts and has
seen the fallacy.

QP1TE riiii
COUNTY OF Los ANGELES
ROBERT G. Lux, SI-IRRIFF
(818) 878-1808
November 24, 2025STATEMENT FROM TIlE LOS ANGELES CO1INTY SRERIFF’S DEPARTh[EN] IN

STIPPORT OF PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY SAFETY
The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department fully supports a culture of public safety for PacificCoast Highway. These vital efforts are aimed at enhancing public safety and reducing trafficrelated accidents and injuries on the highway.

Traffic safety is public safety. The primary goal of the Sheriff’s Department is to ensure the highest quality public safety for all residents and visitors of Malibu. Far too many lives are tragically impacted by preventable traffic collisions, and these efforts represent a proactive approach to addressing these challenges head-on.We are committed to working with our community partners and stakeholders on comprehensivestrategies that focus on increasing the safety of motorists on our local roadways.

The Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department encourages all members of our community to prioritize safety in their daily choices and help us foster a strong culture of road safety.

Together, we can make a significant impact and save lives.

Sincerely,
ROBERT G. LUNA, SHERIFF
ritniXrr, CaptainMalibujLost Hills Station
211 WEST TEIPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CxuFoIA 90012
eøI Yac//1/-i?- eJi(Ct?
Js;o
ATTACHMENT 6
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 Tuesday, December 16, 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. 25-041 - An application for temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, as recommended in the 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study conducted by the City in partnership with the California Department of Transportation LOCATION / APN / ZONING: Citywide Project; along Pacific Coast Highway within the public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road
APPLICANT / OWNER: City of Malibu Public Works Department / California Department of Transportation APPEALABLE TO: City Council and California Coastal Commission ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(d) and 15301(c) APPLICATION FILED: September 9, 2025
CASE PLANNER: Courtney Brown, Associate Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 268
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Commission regarding these matters 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: December 4, 2025 ATTACHMENT 7
Received
Planning Div. 12/16/25 12/16/25 10:51 a.m. 12/16/25 5A1 Exhibit D
From: Blake
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Western Malibu - ANTI ROUNDABOUTS
Date: Sunday, December 14, 2025 11:26:06 AM
Hi Ryan,
Im against the roundabouts in Western Malibu. An abrupt roundabout in that section of road is bound to cause accidents for drivers unfamiliar with the area - the same cars that are prone to speeding. We need the sheriff to ticket cars with officers, or, big lights, signs and speed cameras. Roundabouts are big cement blocks in the middle of the road. It will not be pretty for cars going 55+. My family is in Decker. This will cost lives.

Blake
12/15/25 7:30 a.m. 12/16/25 5A1
Received
Planning Div. 12/15/25
Received
Planning Div. 12/10/25 12/10/25 1:45 p.m. 12/16/25 5A1
From: Anne Hoffman
To: Planning Commission; Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Haylynn Conrad; [email protected]; Steve Uhring
Subject: Notice and Preservation of Remedies RE Agenda Item 5.A Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041 Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 2:05:02 PM
Notice and Preservation of Remedies RE Agenda Item 5.A Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041
Thank you for your sincere efforts to improve safety on Pacific Coast Highway [PCH].However, approval of 12/16/25 Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.A Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041 – An application for temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road [etc.] [“The Plan”] will likely create significant City and Caltrans liabilities, without correction of major design defects.

I. THE PLAN ILLEGALLY PURPORTS TO EXPAND THE CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY INTO THE FEE LAND OF PROPERTY OWNERS ON PCH.

The City of Malibu approved our Parcel Map 20549 in 1994 with the southern border of our parcel at 31905 Pacific Coast Highway, adjacent to a 100-foot wide Pacific Coast Highway. This Map has been recorded in County Records for over 30 years and is physically demarcated in part by a chain link fence.

The Plan erroneously shows a Caltrans right of way with a width of 106 feet, including a 6-foot extension into our property. (The Plan p.52 - PAVEMENT DELINEATION AND SIGN PLAN Sheet PD-2). The distance from the pavement to our property line is erroneously shown in The Plan as 14 feet but it is actually 7 feet in width.

Additionally, the California Coastal Commission is the owner of an Open Space Deed Restriction (LACOR #93 552463) recorded with Parcel Map 20549. It extends inland from PCH along Encinal Creek, prohibits “road construction” and identified as ESHA by a marker on PCH and is not an ESHA buffer.

Please refer to the October 20, 2025 Planning Commission Application for Coastal Development Permit No. 25-009 - pages 41-101 (sheets L1-L61) and inquire of City and Caltrans staff, for an explanation of why Caltrans’ purported right of way saws through hundreds of front yards, stone walls, fences, gates and other improvements along the northern side and in many cases, the southern side of Pacific Coast Highway. Private improvements were removed from the PD Sheets on The Plan, but the effects would be the same.

On December 8, 2025, the City Council authorized Mr. Duboux and Ms. Bond to execute Right-of-Way Certifications for transportation projects that receive State and/or Federal funding. Any such certifications are absent from the Plan. You have a duty to require them under Malibu LIP 13.6.2 Proof of Ownership or Owner's Consent. (“A. In addition to other information required to be submitted with an application, applicants must prove that they own the property which is the subject of the application or provide the City with written consent from the owner for the proposed development for the City to file the application.”).

Caltrans and the City of Malibu cannot demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use of our property, beyond Caltrans’ recorded right of way on Parcel Map 20549, nor may it perform construction within the Open Space Deed Restriction. Additionally, Caltrans has no right to transfer any portion of the right of way on properties on the south side of Pacific Coast Highway to our property on the north side of the road. Further the City will be liable for any damages resulting from its deliberate rendering of hundreds of parcels and or setbacks, etc. as nonconforming. Received Planning Div. 12/12/2025 12/12/25 2:05pm 12/16/25 5A4
Exacerbating this defect, The Plan’s construction “within the PCH public right-of-way and existing roadway prism (i.e., completely within the disturbed and paved area along PCH)” is hopelessly vague and ambiguous.

It would be negligent to approve The Plan without proof of certification, and notice to the property owners of the surveys upon which they are based. Failure to correct this defect represents a dereliction of duty and will likely result in a taking in violation of TITLE 7. Eminent Domain Law [1230.010 - 1273.050] of the California Code of Civil Procedure, Amendment V of the U.S. Constitution and the California Constitution in relevant parts.

II. THE PLAN'S SINGLE LANE UNDER CAPACITY DESIGN, 4” CURBS and 3’ QWIKCURBS to “RESTRICT DRIVERS” on MALIBU'S #1 EVACUATION ROUTE CREATES A DEATH TRAP AND IS RECKLESS.

The Plan Unsafely Reduces PCH Capacity during Peak Periods The City’s contractor, Sean Hoek of Kimberly Horne estimated average daily traffic for the roundabout: “At a high level, a single lane roundabout such as what we’re proposing has a rough capacity of 18,000 to 20,000 cars”, the average daily volume in the area of the proposed roundabout is 14,000 day,and “I don’t know what the volumes are on the holidays.”(12/2/25 Community Meeting at 1:46 of video).

The City and Caltrans would be recklessly negligent approving the Plan which omits consideration of: 1) peak traffic periods, 2) the effect of shared bicycle/vehicle roundabout entry approach and in-roundabout passage (The Plan p. 55 PD-5), (Tatiana Holden Assistant Public Works Director 2/2/25 Community Meeting at 2:23 of video “There is no physical separation between bicyclists and cars within the roundabout”, and 3) Encinal Canyon Average Daily Traffic, an essential element of capacity calculation. In essence, The Plan removes two road lanes in the approach to, and within the roundabouts by converting them to shared bike lanes. State law requiring bike lanes where feasible does not provide jurisdiction to remove all lanes on a state highway and replace them with an unfeasible shared bike lane.

We know firsthand that PCH was burning on both sides of the highway during the 2018 Woolsey Fire and the 2003 Trancas Fire evacuation. The peak capacity of PCH and any roundabouts is the critical factor in whether residents of Malibu will live or die during an evacuation.

It is obvious to any observer that peak travel during evacuation and summer visitor periods are multiples of average annual daily volume using a metric of 24 hour/365 days per year and that reduction to a single lane and bicycle roundabout will exceed vehicular capacity of PCH on a regular basis and result in gridlock for miles regularly and during critical life safety events.

The curbed single lane will also trap drivers so they can neither pass nor pull over in the event of an electric vehicle fire, or a head-on out-of-control vehicle, a not rare occurrence on PCH. Referring to the 4” curbs (dykes on the Plan), 4” medians and 3-4 foot high QuikCurbs that channel the single lane drivers, Caltrans officials have stated they are a “physical construction” “designed to “restrict” drivers (12/2/25 Community Meeting at 1:08 and 2:26 of video). Although large trucks may be able to drive sideways over 4” curbs, it is physically impossible for most passenger vehicles thereby creating a 1.3 mile death trap. It is well known that evacuees burned alive in their vehicles during the Maui and Paradise Fires and dozens of lives were lost during this year’s fire due to inability to evacuate. Approval of curbing and/or medians on both sides of a single lane to restrict drivers on the City’s primary evacuation route would recklessly and forseeably endanger motorists.

III. THE PLAN VIOLATES THE GOALS AND POLICIES of the MALIBU SAFETY ELEMENT APPROVED JUST DAYS AGO BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN COMPLIANCE WITH GOV. CODE 65302(g)(5).

Approved by the City Council on 11 -24-25 Agenda Item 7.B., the Draft Transportation Study Malibu Safety Element Update (prepared October 25, 2025) states “The primary evacuation route through Malibu consists of the Caltrans-maintained Pacific Coast Highway (PCH)”and several north-south routes that originate at PCH ...

During previous wildfire evacuations in Malibu, PCH was essential as both an evacuation route and for emergency vehicle access. “ (P.7., 3.1 Traffic and Roadway Challenges Evacuation Route Blockages and Congestion). “State Route 1 (PCH) is the principal evacuation route for residents of Malibu” (Ibid., p. 114).

Citing GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION: 65302(g)(5) - The Malibu Safety Element Evacuation, Goals S-5, Objectives S-5.1.1-3 requires the City to require new development to:

Minimize impact to the emergency evacuation capability of the City.

Ensure effective future evacuations during emergencies by supporting feasible enhancements to the City's evacuation network and facilities.

Maintain functionality, make improvements, and expand the capacity, where feasible, of the existing emergency evacuation routes within the City, taking into account current and future natural and humancaused hazards.

Ensure effective future evacuations during emergencies by supporting feasible enhancements to the City's evacuation network and facilities. (Safety Element Update p.151).

Neither the City nor Caltrans has jurisdiction to reduce, limit or block evacuation routes in the ways the Plan does under Senate Bill (SB) 1241 (wildfire), SB 379 (climate adaptation and resiliency), SB 99 (residential evacuation routes), Assembly Bill (AB) 747/1409 or Gov. Code 65302(g)(5) The history of recent fires in Malibu and Los Angeles demonstrate the inaccuracy of staff’s assurances that there will time for city and agency officials to coordinate a “one-way flush” during emergency. In all likelihood it will be physically impossible to remove the barriers for 1.3 miles when an incident begins and evacuation is necessary, even under the unlikely assumptions that all communications are operating, all resources are available and that all necessary personnel can access the 1.3 mile area of barricaded lanes in The Plan.

IV. INSTEAD OF CREATING A LIFE SAFETY HAZARD, THE PLAN AREA'S PCH SPEED LIMIT COULD SIMPLY BE REDUCED UNDER ASSEMBLY BILL 1014.

Assembly Bill 1014 amended Section 22358.6 of the Vehicle Code to read that local authorities or the Department of Transportation can lower speed limits rounded down to the nearest five miles per hour increment of the 85thpercentile speed, or by five miles per hour from the nearest five-mile-per-hour increment of the 85th-percentile speed, if the reasons for the lower speed limit are documented in an engineering and traffic survey.

It is negligent for the City to fail to consider implementation of AB 1014 in lieu of adoption of the Plan given the The Plan's obvious hazards. Whereas a traffic survey is required as justification of reduced speeds under AB1014, the City is bereft in failing to require a traffic study in justification of The Plan. The fact that additional time may be required for a traffic study to effectively evaluate PCH capacity is the only way to begin to mitigate the hazards the Plan would create.

V. THE PLANNED GRIDLOCK AND INACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIPTION APPEARS DESIGNED TO CREATE AREA FOR A FUTURE BUS LANE and SB 79 HIGH RISES IN

CONTRADICTION TO THE
MALIBU GENERAL PLAN AND PUBLIC OPINION.

The experience of the author of Comment Submission #42079 (12/16/25 Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.A Staff Report p. 146) supports a view that illegally widening PCH outside the Caltrans Right of Way and creating gridlock will allow extreme overdevelopment of the scenic expanses of western Malibu. This person’s experience must be considered by the Commission because residents of Malibu are adamantly opposed to increasing gridlock for the purpose of forcing an SB79 outcome. Excerpts of Submission #42079 follow:
“I saw what happened in Culver City and the same playbook is now happening in Malibu. In short, they intentionally created a problem so they can provide a "transit oriented" solution. 1. Intentionally misleading the public for lane reduction motivation. They told us it was for bikes, buffered parking, and pedestrians. None of this was relevant or necessary based on actual usage of the wide shouldered, open and free flowing Washington and Venice Boulevards. 2. Lane reductions predictably create gridlock traffic. There was outrage from residents and businesses who saw a decrease in revenue. 3. Manufactured gridlock is used as justification for PERMANENT bus lanes. 4. The bus lanes are used as an excuse to overdevelop without parking or necessary road bandwidth.

Ridership never offsets gridlock. ……traffic will just be backed up for miles in BOTH lanes prior to the lane reduction. You won't even see what's happening unless you get out of your car and walk miles up to the roundabout disaster. You have the opportunity now to prevent this tragedy. Malibu does not have the luxury of embracing anticar ideology. Due to the geography, it is physically impossible for Malibu to ever become a walkable London or Paris….There's limited escape routes for fires at short notice. With the passing of SB 79, Malibu and the Pacific Palisades will be permanently transformed with high rises. The only obstacle is getting BRT or Bus Rapid Transit lanes on Sunset and PCH. Deadly and irresponsible overdevelopment will be justified by "increasing affordability" through low income housing projects. The roundabouts and bus transit center at Sunset and PCH are putting us well on this path. You are being misled when they say this is "temporary." The new gridlock traffic will be celebrated as a "safety" Gridlock is not a solution. “
VI. THE PLAN DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE SCENIC HIGHWAY PROVISIONS OF THE LCP.

The Plan would result in approximately 126 street signs within a 1.3 mile area, when the signs proposed are added to the signs approved with the PCH Plan at the 10-20-25 Planning Commission Meeting. PCH is a Scenic Highway and this density of signage will negatively impact scenic views. Please require justification for what, in many cases, may be excessive signage and very distracting to drivers.

The potential injurious impacts of the Plan on our property and persons and other residents are serious, we reserve all rights and remedies in the event it is approved as written. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Anne Hoffman and Paul Hoffman
From: Anne Hoffman
To: Planning Commission; Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Haylynn Conrad; Doug Stewart; Steve Uhring Subject: resend w/o photos ITEM 5A: NOTICE RE INVALID INDEMNIFICATION AND NONCONFORMANCE WITH LIP Secs.

13.6.1, 13.6.2,13.6.413.18.1. and LIP Chapters 4 and 12.

Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 11:56:13 AM
ITEM 5A: NOTICE RE INVALID INDEMNIFICATION AND NONCONFORMANCE WITH LIP Secs. 13.6.1, 13.6.2,13.6.413.18.1. and LIP Chapters 4 and 12.

This project could bankrupt the City. Caltrans does not indemnify against the inverse condemnation and takings actions which will result from the 120+ foot wide “prism” the Department of Transportation appears to seek to acquire while transferring the costs and liability to the City.

Residents are understandably concerned that the project appears to expand the highway into their properties beyond the Applicant’s 100-foot Right of Way.

The LCP further does not give jurisdiction to the Commission to allow an applicant the unilateral right to change the Project Description in the future - in this case, making the project permanent after 18 months (Conditions of Approval Sec. 5.3 “Should the City and/or Caltrans request to retain the improvements permanently, authorization shall be subject to an approved permit.”[emphasis added]).

Whereas other applicants go to extreme length to provide every tool, including detailed surveys, aerials and parcel boundaries to show the location of their projects, this Staff Report improperly exempts Caltrans from provisions of the LCP regarding project description now and without authority extends a right to unilaterally modify the project in the future by converting a ‘temporary’ improvements into ‘permanent’ development.

At the very least, this Item should be continued until complete Plans per LIP 13.6.4 D are filed and the ‘Cooperative Agreement’ required under law for a “Local Partnership”, demonstrating responsibilities for liabilities and indemnification are posted and reviewed.

I. THE PLANNING COMMISSION LACKS AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE FUTURE LIABILITY ON THE CITY AND RESIDENTS.

The Project proposed under Permit 25-041 is an unusual ‘Caltrans Partnership Project’ and the issue of liability deserves greater scrutiny than typical CDP applications.The rights and responsibilities of Caltrans and the Local Project Agency (LPA) are specifically described the California Department of Transportation Right of Way Manual 2025 [“R/WM”]), pp. 2072- 2183, 17.04.01.01 Partnership Projects;“Either the Department or an LPA sponsors this type of project. There is a variety of funding sources, which may include tax measure proceeds, local, state or federal monies” and, “Roles, responsibilities, and funding obligations must be defined in one or more Cooperative Agreements, regardless of the amount contributed by the project sponsor or the Department. (For additional detail, see Section 17.07.00.00, 12/16/25 11:56 a.m. 12/16/25 5A7
Received
Planning Div. 12/16/25
“Cooperative Agreements.”)(R/WM, p.2089)
Notwithstanding the Indemnification (Condition 5.1 of proposed Resolution 25-78), the City’s and residents’ protections from future liabilities stemming from this Projectare limited by:

A) Caltrans’ documented policy to impose liability on the City for the City’s required Right of Way Certification in Local Partnerships.

B) the inaccurate depiction of the purported width of Caltrans' Right of Way on its Plans, to the extent that those Plans extend significantly wider than 100 feet, into fee land, and are based on inaccurate
Malibu City GPS (See Figs. 1 & 2 below).

C) the lack of authority of Caltrans to represent “owners” of parcels over which construction on a Right of Way is proposed.

A. CERTIFICATION REQUIRES THE CITY GUARANTEE THE LOCATION OF

THE RIGHT OF WAY PER THE PLANS AND TO INDEMNIFY CALTRANS FROM ALL LIABILITIES RESULTING THEREOF.

The City Council authorized the City of Malibu Public Works Director/City Engineer to execute Right-of-Way Certifications for transportation projects involving State and/or Federal funding, in compliance with operational and procedural standards included in the Caltrans Right of Way Manual (RESOLUTION NO. 25-56 adopted 12/8/25).

The Right of Way Certification must reflect the Plans. “At a minimum, each RW certification must be consistent with 100% design plans for construction and include all project RW parcels and involvements (including all utility and railroad involvements) as defined by the construction package (RFC). (R/WM p. 1776 - 14.01.11.03 R/W Certification Process for Design-Build Projects) As we informed the City on 12/15/25, the Plan erroneously shows a Caltrans right of way with a width of 106 feet, including a 6-foot extension into our property, and the City GPS shows an even wider extension into our property and others.

The purpose of the Right of Way Certification is to document that real property interests have been or are being secured, and physical obstructions, including buildings, utilities, and railroads, have been or will be removed, relocated, or protected as required for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project. (See R/WM P. 2156,

14.01.01.01 - “Definitions -R/W Certification is a written statement summarizing the status of all right of way related matters pertaining to a proposed construction project.” and p. 1769 “The purpose of the R/W Certification is to document the construction project is ready for advertising and states: • Real property interests have been, or are being, secured. • Physical obstructions including utilities and railroads have been or will be removed, relocated, or protected as required for construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project...” )
City has the ultimate liability. Public Works will likely require consultants to certify the Right of Way because of the rigorous technical requirements for certification in the R/WM. “LPAs should be reminded that, as noted above, they are responsible and accountable for the actions of their consultants in properly executing their duties and activities in accordance with the Uniform Act. The LPA retains the ultimate responsibility for signing the Right of Way Certifications and is accountable for the actions and performance of their consultantsL. (17.06.04.01 Local Public Agency Liability for Consultants R/WM, p.2141). “Caltrans requires that each Local Public Agency agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) from any and all liabilities which may result in the event the right-of-way for this project is not clear as certified.“ (See R/WM p. 2076 - 17.01.01.05 Identifying Projects with Right of Way Issues- “Any project can have right of way issues. Almost all transportation projects require some property rights and/or the relocation of utilities. …The Department has developed a comprehensive right of way checklist (see Exhibit 17-EX-01) to assist LPAs in determining whether real property or property rights issues are involved in their projects.”) Caltrans has the last say - “Caltrans’ Legal Division is responsible for providing all legal opinions in all matters relating to the need or right to acquire property for the project or to the valuation of any such property. The Region/District must coordinate with the LPA and Department’s Legal to ensure any required legal opinions are secured on a timely basis.

The cost of securing any legal opinions should be covered in the Cooperative or R/W Services Agreement and will be at expense of the LPA (see 17.08.11.12 Indemnification by Local Agency for On-System Projects, R/WM p.2148).
“The Department reviews and approves only those LPA Right of Way Certifications prepared for projects where Department advertises, awards, and administers the contract. As in the case with off-system projects, all other LPA-prepared Right of Way Certifications are “accepted” by the Department. It is, therefore, important that the LPA certify that any right of way acquired for a project which will subsequently be conveyed to the Department be acquired in accordance with our own policies and procedures. Use of this clause reaffirms that the LPA has overall responsibility and accountability for proper project certification. Use of the “Indemnification by Local Agency” clause is required in all LPA Right of Way Certifications and has been incorporated into the Certification exhibits.” ( see R/WM p.2148,

17.07.01.08 Legal Opinions).

B. THE CITY CANNOT CERTIFY THE INACCURATE DEPICTION OF THE PURPORTED WIDTH OF CALTRANS’ RIGHT OF WAY BASED ON APPLICANTS’ INCOMPLETE PLANS.

The plans filed in the staff report show an inaccurate depiction of the purported width of CaltransRight of Way to the extent the project area extends significantly wider than 100 feet, into fee land, and are based on inaccurate Malibu City GPS (See Figs. 1 & 2 below).The plans are incomplete because they lack a detailed survey identifying affected parcel lines and an adequate description including maps, plans, photographs, etc., of the proposed development (see Item II below).

C. CONDITION 5.1 FOR “INDEMNIFICATION” IS INEFFECTIVE AS IT

CONFLATES THE APPLICANT/OWNER WITH ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE PROJECT AREA.

Condition 5.1 of proposed Resolution 25-78 reads in part; “The property owners, and their successors in interest, shall indemnify and defend the City of Malibu and its officers, employees and agents from and against all liability and costs relating to the City's actions concerning this project,…” )[emphasis added],
There are over 100 property owners within the Project Area encumbered by a PCH Right of Way on their deeds. Within the context of the Staff Report and Plans, Caltrans is referred to as the “OWNER, and the term “OWNERS is used to refer to the owners of properties over which the Right of Way passes. We, as property owners of affected parcels, are not the Applicant/Owner, nor do we consent to indemnification of the City should our property be damaged or taken in Inverse Condemnation or otherwise. Further Caltrans has no authority to attest to an affidavit that we or other property owners in the project area indemnify the City against any of our, or other future claims.

The Condition lacks conformity with LIP Sec. 13.18.1 - FORMAT OF PERMITS which states” Permits shall be issued in a form signed by the planning manager, and shall include:

E. A statement that the permit runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property”, where Caltrans as one “owner” is conflated with over 100 property “owners”. The Commission lacks authority to impose conditions running with the lands and bind owners of properties who are not a party to the application.

For the reasons above, in approving the Application as submitted, the Commission would be acting outside of its jurisdiction which is limited to reviewing conformity with the Malibu LCP. Approval would invite future unknown liabilities resulting from the unique nature of the City/Caltrans Partnership which places liability on the City for Right of Way Certification, and the failure of the Applicant(s) to file sufficiently detailed property descriptions to ascertain the parcel by parcel location of the PCH right of way to create an accurate Certification.

II. THE APPLICATION LACKS CONFORMANCE WITH MALIBU LIP Sections.

13.6.1 , 13.6.2, 13.6.4, 13.18.1.

The application’s plans’ failure to identify parcels , ownership and improvements in the project locationover which it claims right of way rights, in nonconformance with LIP Sec(s).

13.6.1 , 13.6.2, 13.6.4, 13.18.1., for the project location over which it claims right of way rights.

Applicants’ Pavement Delineation Sheets provide no Parcel boundaries for parcels over which a right of way is claimed and proposed for development. There is no basis on which the Planning Commission or surrounding property owners can ascertain that an accurate presentation of the location of the Project is reviewable.

A. Nonconformance With LIP Sec. 13.6.1 Sec. B- Filing Procedures Complete Plans

13.6.1 B requires “Any application for a coastal development permit shall not be determined to be complete and shall not be filed until and unless the applicable requirements of sections.

13.6.2, 13.6.3 and 13.6.4of the Malibu LIP have been met.” The application fails the requirements of sections. 13.6.2, 13.6.3 and 13.6.4of the Malibu LIP (see II B-C below).

B. Nonconformance With LIP Sec. 13.6.2 Secs. A and C - Proof of Ownership or Owner's Consent
LIP Sec. 13.6.2 C requires the City to invite owners of interests outsidethe Right of Way of record as co-applicants and the City has failed to do so. The section states:
“C. Where the applicant for a Coastal Development Permit is not the owner of a fee interest in the property on which a proposed development is to be located, but can demonstrate a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to use the property for the proposed development, the City shall not require the holder or owner of any superior interest in the property to join as a coapplicant. All holders or owners of any other interest of record in the affected property shall be notified in writing of the permit application and invited to join as co-applicant.” Caltrans has not demonstrated a legal right, interest, or other entitlement to property greater than its 100-foot wide Right of Way for the proposed development. The deeds to the properties in the project area do not contain the term “roadway prism (i.e., completely within the disturbed and paved area along PCH” see Staff Report p. 2 of 14 Project Overview / Setting.)
No one is claiming a superior interest of the right of passage across Caltrans’ recorded Right of Way. Therefore, the City is required to invite the owners of parcels where the Plan shows a Right of Way wider than 100 feet, to join the Application, including but not limited to the owners of 31905 Pacific Coast Highway.

LIP Sec.13.6.2 A requires applicants to prove that they own the property which is the subject of the application or provide the City with written consent from the owner for the proposed development for the City to file the application. No proof of a right of way greater than 100 feet wide, and expanded a significant number of feet into. Undefined “disturbed roadway prism” areas, is provided.

C. Nonconformance With LIP Secs. 13.6.4.A. 13.6.4 .C, 13.6.4 .D.1-1-4 - Application Form and Information Requirements.

The coastal development permit application form shall require submittal of at least the following items:

LIP 13.6.4 A (“A description and documentation of the applicant's legal interest in all the property upon which work would be performed, if the application were approved, e.g., ownership, leasehold, enforceable option, authority to acquire the specific property by eminent domain.”) and;
LIP 13.6.4 C (“An adequate description including maps, plans, photographs, etc., of the proposed development, project site and vicinity sufficient to determine whether the project complies with all relevant policies of the Malibu LCP, including sufficient information concerning land and water areas in the vicinity of the site of the proposed project, (whether or not owned or controlled by the applicant) so that the City will be adequately informed as to present uses and plans, both public and private.”), and; LIP 13.6.4 D (“A site plan, to scale, showing: 1. Existing and proposed property lines on the site, including all dedications,or recorded offers to dedicate easements, deed restrictions over or adjacent to the site and documentation for such recorded instruments. 2. Existing and proposed topography, at a contour interval appropriate to the size of the site to be developed;

3. All existing and proposed structures, roads, utilities lines, signs, fences and other improvements; and 4. Major natural and man-made landscape features, including location, type, size and quantification of acreage of any trees or other natural vegetation to be planted or to be removed or made subject to thinning, irrigation or other modification by the proposed project including building pad and road/driveway areas.”[emphasis added].

LIP 13.6.4 E (“Except on parcels within existing, developed neighborhoods where any new structures will be located over 200 feet from ESHA as mapped on the ESHA overlay map, an inventory of the plant and animal species present on the project site, or those known or expected to be present on the project site at other times of the year, prepared by a qualified biologist, or resource expert. The inventory shall include an identification of any species present that have been designated as rare, threatened, or endangered species under State or Federal law. Where the initial site inventory indicates the presence or potential for sensitive species or habitat on the project site, the submittal of a detailed biological assessment of the site is required, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP.” Applicants’ Plans lack proof of legal interest, a complete Site Plan showing existing and proposed property lines, water areas, including Encinal Creek, and a complete site plan showing existing and proposed property lines, existing and proposed topography for its raised bikeways and “prism” eg. new slope plans, and existing and proposed structures, eg. existing driveway aprons. gates, fencing, etc.

The Pavement Delineation Sheets provide no Parcel boundaries for parcels over which a right of way is claimed and proposed for development. There is no basis on which the Planning Commission or surrounding property owners can ascertain that an accurate presentation of the location of the Project is included.

Aerial Photographs with parcel lines delineations and existing and proposed development overlays and topography and ESHA maps are required at a minimum, to show where the claimed right of way lies in relation to property owners existing improvements, and whether their lots will be structurally impaired or their improvements rendered nonconforming as to setbacks whether the proposed Right of Way improvements intrude into ESHA.

D. Nonconformance With LIP Chapter 4 - ESHA OVERLAY
The staff report’s statement (p. 6 of 14 ), as to ESHA impacts is incomplete and inaccurate:
“The development will not be located within any LCP Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) as the physical improvements are proposed entirely within the existing PCH roadway prism and would not extend offsite. However, a portion of the existing PCH roadway is located within an EHSA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and 100 feet from a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. LIP Section 4.5.4(A) allows for public accessways as a permitted use within an ESHA buffer. The project will take place outside of ESHA but within ESHA buffer; however, the project occurs entirely within the existing roadway prism, will aid the general public with access via vehicle, bicycle and on-foot, and does not result in the expansion of the existing developed accessway.” According to the City’s GPS, the PCH Right of Way proposes development within ESHA on both sides of PCH over property containing Encinal Creek (see Fig. 2 below), a mapped ESHA in the Malibu LCP. As noted in our correspondence dated 12/12/25, Encinal Creek and the area surrounding this is encumbered by an Open Space Deed Restriction in favor of the Coastal Commission and that recorded document specifically prohibits road development. We are not required to indemnify the City for Project’s proposed damage to the Coastal Commission’s interest.

Encinal Creek is a very significant nesting area for falcons, eagles and other wildlife. The Commission does not have jurisdiction to exempt Caltrans from an initial site biological inventory to determine the presence or potential for sensitive species or habitat on the project site, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP, unless the Applicant provides the Commission with evidence that no work is proposed for the area bordering Encinal Creek and its banks and canopy.

E. Nonconformance With LIP Chapter 12 - Public Access
The Applicant has provided no evidence that a finding that “No adverse effects to existing recreational areas are anticipated as a result of the project.” cannot be made. There is substantial evidence of a public right of access to or along the sea.

There is substantial evidence that the Project will limit access to the recreation area because the capacity of motorists to enter and utilize the beaches will be impaired. (See our correspondence dated 12/12/25). The Applicant has provided no evidence that the project’s proposed replacement of four vehicle lanes, with a single shared bike/vehicle lane will not reduce the capacity of the PCH access way, especially during peak visitor periods when the capacity of the roundabouts is below average traffic densities. There is no evidence that enabling bicyclists, who are limited in quantity, nor that contemplated parking, will ameliorate the reduction in access resulting from the Project.

The finding as to no adverse effect nor required mitigation cannot be made unless evidence to support the is produced by a Traffic Study, which the Application lacks.

We urge you to continue the hearing and require the Applicant and Staff to produce the above identified items lacking from the Project Application. Thank you for your consideration.

Anne and Paul Hoffman
From: Anne Hoffman
To: Planning Commission; Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Haylynn Conrad; Doug Stewart; Steve Uhring Subject: Correction to Paragraph II E of email (Notice) to Planning Commissioners sent this morning Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 1:19:16 PM
Please note the sentence in paragraph II E of our earlier 12/16/25 email which stated.
"The Applicant has provided no evidence that a finding that “No adverse effects to existing recreational areas are anticipated as a result of the project.” cannot be made." should read and is replace by, "The Applicant has provided no evidence that a finding that “No adverse effects to existing recreational areas are anticipated as a result of the project.” can be made." 12/16/25 1:19 p.m. 12/16/25 5A1
Received
Planning Div. 12/16/25
From: Anne Hoffman
To: Planning Commission; Marianne Riggins; Bruce Silverstein; Doug Stewart; Haylynn Conrad; Steve Uhring Subject: Item 5A -Non-Comparable Safety Studies for Roundabouts Are Not Useful Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:48:23 PM
Dear Commissioners,
You may hear this evening that "safety studies show roundabouts are safer".

These studies are not comparable to the proposed project where four lanes of traffic are funneled into a single lane bike path where multiple vehicles each need to maintain 3 feet distance from the bikes, while entering, crossing and exiting each roundabout. This is particularly true on a State Highway where people do not have the expectation to drive as slowly as bicycles, regardless of signage.

Based on the lack of feasibility of two roundabouts consisting of shared bike lanes, it is possible the roundabouts as designed, will diminish safety. No study has been offered that contains the elements comparable to this project that would demonstrate the proposed design is safe for regular use, peak use, or for evacuation.

We apologize for any typos in our previous correspondence. Reading the 2,200 page Caltrans Right of Way Guide delayed completion of our summarization of objections.

Please note that references to Figures 1 & 2 in our previous email today refer to City of Malibu GPS or GIS (the photos we attempted to send were too large and we were unable to deliver them).

Thank you.

Anne and Paul Hoffman
Received
Planning Div. 12/16/25 12/16/25 3:48 p.m. 12/16/25 5A1
From: James Karhu
Sent: Tuesday, December 9, 2025 12:02 PM
To: Gail Duncan <[email protected]>
Cc: Nadia Fahoum <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Roundabout Workshop Video

Got it thank you! Were you able to receive my video I sent earlier this week?

Here is the download link (preferred for Dec 16th meeting):
https://vimeo.com/user4081665/download/1142619255/5cddb5ca8c

Here is a play link without downloading (may require vimeo login) https://vimeo.com/1142619255

-My primary concern is about evacuation safety.
-My other concern is that SB 79 is going to increase development and that the lane removals at the roundabouts are trials for bus lanes on PCH. These transit oriented development motivations are not being disclosed and we're being told these are solely for safety.
-Final concern is gridlock when there is none. It's a solution looking for a problem.

Received
Planning Div. 12/9/25 12/9/25 12:02 p.m. 12/16/25 5A1
From: James Schoenfield
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Proposed Round Abouts On PCH
Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 5:50:33 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am a decades-long resident of Malibu. The idea of putting roundabouts on PCH is not only foolish, but dangerous. Years ago, when Santa Monica put one on 26th Street, a close friend of mine, Rick, was riding his motorcycle up 26th after visiting his father at Santa Monica Hospital; Rick lived in the Palisades. The sun was in his eyes and he didn’t see the roundabout, and crashed into it.

Rick didn’t die immediately but was permanently brain damaged and never made it out of the rehab center. His family received millions in damages from the City of Santa Monica. 26th Street, if I recall correctly, has a speed limit of 25mph. Imagine what is likely to happen in the summers, in late afternoon, when there is a binding sun directly in the eyes of westerly/northerly bound drivers and traffic is moving at 50mph or faster, or late at night when it’s pitch black. It probably would be prudent to contract to have at least one ambulance stationed at the intersection, 24 hours a day.

If people decide to proceed with this folly, be sure to have CalTrans provide a permanent indemnity and hold harmless agreement to the City, as well as an agreement to keep the thing in good condition and repair, in perpetuity.

Regards,
Jim Schoenfield.

Sent from my iPhone
12/15/25 7:30 a.m. 12/16/25 5A1
Received
Planning Div. 12/15/25
From: E Olivier
To: Planning Commission
Subject: FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Date: Monday, December 15, 2025 10:39:30 AM

TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Because I’ve had further thoughts about the proposed Roundabouts, given my home’s close proximity to Encinal Canyon Rd., I am sending this additional document in the hopes that planning commissioners will have time to read yet one more plea to vote against the Roundabouts.

PROBLEMATIC LOCATION
As someone whose driveway opens onto PCH, it’s hard enough to turn onto PCH already when there are cars, vans and one of the many work vehicles, i.e, Spectrum, Edison, garbage trucks, etc., parked or stopped beside my driveway.

Given the addition of Roundabouts, we will be turning onto PCH by merging into traffic exactly where the bicycles are exiting the Roundabout, as indicated in the schematic.

IF CARS PULL INTO MY DRIVEWAY, HOWEVER, AND ARE NOT BUZZED THROUGH THE GATE, they will have to back out of the driveway around the parked cars and into the bicycles exiting the Roundabout. And that is, if the schematic is accurate.

If the schematic is not accurate, and the Roundabout ends up closer to my house, then cars will have to back up into the Roundabout’s one lane with all the cars, motorcycles, bicycles, etc.

RELATIVE SAFETY OF THE AREA
Please know that we applaud all the safety improvements that have been made on PCH in Malibu, especially those in east Malibu, where so many terrible accidents have occurred.

But we also feel that this amount of time, money and resources could be better spent where there is greater need, and on more effective solutions than Roundabouts in west Malibu.

LACK OF RECENT DATA FOR COMPARISON
Judging from the 2015 Safety Study, which contains the only accident statistics the City has made public, it is clear that this particular area in west Malibu is considerably safer than other areas, not just in east Malibu, but in west Malibu, too. I’d like to pass along more recent statistics for you, but despite my many requests, the Project Planners have not shared this information, which they surely have.

If not, how can they justify this expenditure; and how can they judge the Roundabout Project’s success or failure after the Roundabouts have been built? Back on Oct. 22, the date for the first Roundabouts meeting to which the public was 12/15/25 10:39 a.m. 12/16/25 5A2
Received
Planning Div. 12/15/25
invited, I asked for the accident statistics for Encinal Canyon Road vs other areas within the Roundabout Project. I was not given that information.

Since then, I’ve asked for current statistics for Encinal Canyon Rd vs other areas in west Malibu from Kanan to Decker. I didn’t get this information either. In fact, I was told that the City of Malibu “does not have or collect this information.” Up until last Friday, I’ve only been sent a Michelin flyer (no statistics); a map with a multiplicity of blue dots representing accidents on all of PCH, but without information to explain the blue dots, just eventually – after persisting – typewritten notes for seven of the blue dots.

As Project Planners no doubt have the data for the rest of the dots, my conclusion is that Project Planners do not want to share data showing that constructing these Roundabouts is not the best use of Malibu’s time, money and resources.

LACK OF INVESTIGATION & ANALYSIS
Last week’s news that the addition of landside parking has been dropped from the Roundabouts Project is very welcome. That said, this decision makes me wonder how well thought-out this Roundabouts Project actually has been. After all, everyone who lives near our beaches knows that landside parking would facilitate car vs pedestrian accidents.

So, now I also wonder how much investigation and analysis has really gone into the Roundabouts Project and the potential problems these Roundabouts will cause.

LOCATION & FIRES
Rather than repeat myself here, please also recall that my previous letter to the Planning Commission also notes thatTHE ACTUAL LOCATION THE 2015 SAFETY STUDY

RECOMMENDED FOR THE ENCINAL ROUNDABOUT IS NOT IN THE MIDST OF HOUSES AT ENCINAL CANYON ROAD AND PCH.

And, for just one more note about safety during evacuations, please remember that the Roundabouts won’t only hinder travel through them by west Malibu residents.

OUR FIRES ARE UNPREDICTABLE AND IF THE ONLY ESCAPE ROUTE REQUIRES ALL

MALIBU RESIDENTS TO ESCAPE TO THE NORTH (WEST), THE ROUNDABOUTS WILL PRESENT PROBLEMS.

Therefore, I ask you, along with my neighbors, to vote against the Roundabouts Project.

Ellen Olivier
From: E Olivier
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Roundabouts & what was actually recommended in 2015 Date: Wednesday, December 10, 2025 1:04:42 PM
TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION:

We are all in favor of making Pacific Coast Highway safer, but it is clear to those of us who live in west Malibu that the Roundabouts project is not the best way to accomplish this goal. Moreover, we believe that the project will make PCH less safe.

Here’s why…
By adding parking on the land side of PCH, the City and CalTrans are facilitating vehicle vs pedestrian collisions. As jaywalking is legal, people are not always likely to walk the extra distance from where they park on PCH to the crosswalks. This is especially true if people are parking closer to Encinal Canyon Road, yet going to Matador, which is usually the case, as Matador is by far the more popular beach.

No matter that the speed limit between the Roundabouts will be lower, people will still sustain injuries when they get hit by cars. Moreover, as the ordinance against drinking on the beach is not enforced, not everybody is operating at 100% when leaving the beach. (Judging from the empty beer bottles I regularly find on the beach, the anti-drinking ordinance hasn’t been enforced in more than 10 years.)
We are also concerned about bicycles, motorcycles, teenagers on E-bikes and automobiles merging into the same one lane in the Roundabouts. Aside from the resulting confusion, gridlock will surely result. Just picture the motorcyclists and bicyclists, who regularly travel in big groups, trying to merge with cars into the one vehicle lane.

Removing one vehicle lane from PCH also makes evacuations more difficult, as evidenced by the Woolsey Fire when it took people, myself included, 8 hours to get out of Malibu. No one helped direct traffic then and there is no reason to believe that there will be enough first responders available to direct traffic through this area in the future.

And, while we’d all like zero accidents, according to the 2015 statistics this area of west Malibu – and especially the intersection at Encinal Canyon Road - is relatively safe compared to other areas in west Malibu, let alone compared to areas in east Malibu, where accident statistics skyrocket. So, it is very likely that the millions of dollars this project will cost can be better utilized elsewhere.
(Please note that while I have asked the City for current accident statistics at Encinal Canyon Rd vs other, what I believe to be more dangerous areas in west Malibu, I have not received them and instead been told that the City does not have these statistics.) We are all in favor of making Pacific Coast Highway safer, but the Roundabouts project is not the best way to accomplish this goal. A traffic light would be a better solution at Encinal Canyon Rd & PCH, and that is exactly what was recommended in the 2015 PCH Safety Study.

For your reference, here is the link to the page in the May 15, 2015 PCH Safety Study, that shows the Study’s recommendations on page 3, Figure D-2 in Appendix D… https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/12646/Appendix-4D?bidId= As you’ll see, the Roundabout that is now proposed at Encinal Canyon Road & PCH is not 12/10/25 1:04 p.m. 12/16/25 5A2
Received
Planning Div. 12/16/25
as recommended in the 2015 PCH study, which suggested considering a Roundabout for a “newly aligned intersection,” which would be created by moving Encinal Canyon Road from its current location to a vacant area opposite the La Piedra Beach parking lot.

Instead, what is now being proposed is a Roundabout at Encinal Canyon Rd & PCH, which is surrounded by homes in close proximity all around. That’s a big difference.

What was actually recommended for Encinal Canyon Rd & PCH in the 2015 PCH Safety Study is to “install a street light at the intersection.” That actually makes the most sense.

Thank you for considering alternative solutions to making Pacific Coast Highway safer.

Ellen Olivier
From: Kristina Kropp
To: Planning Commission
Subject: RE: CDP25-041 - Dec. 16 PC Meeting Comment - Agenda Item 5A Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 3:26:48 PM
Attachments: PETITION AGAINST ROUNDABOUTS 12.16.25.pdf
Hi Rebecca,
Please also find attached a Petition against the proposed project dated today. Please forward to the Planning Commissioners.

Thank you!
Kristina
Kristina Kropp, Esq.

The Kropp Law Firm, A Professional Corporation
16501 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
Encino, California 91436
Telephone: 310-570-9373
=========================================
This email contains information from the Kropp Law Firm, A Professional Corporation which may be confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege and/or the work product doctrine. If you are not the intended recipient, any review, reliance, copying, disclosure, distribution or other use of information contained herein is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete the original, all copies, and any attachments.

Received
Planning Div. 12/16/25 12/16/25 3:26 p.m. 12/16/25 5A41

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

We stand united against the proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes during emergencies. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds/parking on the land side of PCH, increasing jaywalking concerns, require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone #
Vicki von Holzhausen
______________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

We stand united againstthe proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds/parking on the land side of PCH, increasing jaywalking concerns, require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone #
_____________________________________ ______
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Jyoti Drummond

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state; We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

We stand united againstthe proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds/parking on the land side of PCH, increasing jaywalking concerns, require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone # (print)
●jONATii A'*^ 'P

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

We stand united againstthe proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds/parking on the land side of PCH, increasing jaywalking concerns, require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone #
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

We stand united againstthe proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds/parking on the land side of PCH, increasing jaywalking concerns, require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone #
________________________________________ _____
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Jan Ravlich

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

We stand united againstthe proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes during emergencies. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds/parking on the land side of PCH, increasing jaywalking concerns, require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature ss E-mail and/or Phone #

___________________________________ _________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Linda Cohen

'
,
•
•
u--

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUTS
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City's Local Coastal Program.

We stand united against the proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway in West Malibu, which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City's Loc.Jl Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds, increasing jaywalking concerns; and require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone #
&alliket~. ~
CJ~~ ~ I,
•
::t:lo
~
~
Jf-.._' •
r
~ f
l

Valentina Palermo
Janus Cercone
Michael Manheim’
1 Kristina Kropp
From: Eduardo Castro-Wright
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 3:28 PM
To: Noelle Donfeld
Cc: Kristina Kropp
Subject: Re: Roundabouts on Broad Beach Road, Urgent petition attached Dear Noelle,
I confirm that you can use my name on the petition to strongly oppose the City of Malibu proposed plan to build a roundabout on PCH at West Broad Beach Road.

Eduardo Castro-Wright
CICI#4 Real Estate Holdings LP
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Noelle,
I confirm that you can use my name on the petition to
strongly oppose the City of Malibu’s proposed plan to
build a roundabout on PCH at West Broad Beach Road.

Eduardo Castro-Wright
CICI#4 Real Estate Holdings LP
1 Kristina Kropp
From: Tori Shuken
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 1:51 PM
To: Noelle Donfeld
Cc: Kristina Kropp
Subject: RE: Roundabouts on Broad Beach Road, Urgent petition attached Hi NoelleI am 100% opposed to the roundabouts so please include my name and address on the petition.

Victoria Shuken
Sea Level Dr
e-mail:
phone:

Thank you for your involvement.

Kindly,
Tori
Tori Shuken
President
Vista Ford Lincoln of Woodland Hills
21501 Ventura Blvd
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
(818)884-7600

1 Kristina Kropp
From: Andy Stern
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 2:20 PM
To: Kristina Kropp
Subject: WEST MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUTS
Hi there Kristina, I would like to add my name to the WEST MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUTS petition. I am a former eight year member of the Malibu City Council and former two term Mayor of Malibu. In that capacity I became aware of safety issues on PCH and am very confident the current suggestions of roundabouts will cause traffic and additional issues jeopardizing the health and safety of West Malibu residents. This is wrong and I am completely opposed. Thanks Andy Stern
1 Kristina Kropp
From: Stacey Murphy
Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 12:11 PM
To: Kristina Kropp
Subject: Round about petition
Hi.

You can add our names to the peƟƟon. (My printer is broken so can’t sign and scan the form. ). If you need our signatures I can try to print it elsewhere.

Thank you.

Stacey Murphy and Glenn Murphy
Sent from my iPhone
SR 1/PCH QuickBuild Roundabouts
Roundabouts
Why does Caltrans use roundabouts?
• Proven safety improvements
• Supports Complete Streets
design
• Reduces delay, emissions, and
fuel use
Swiss Cheese Model of Accident Causation
Transferable Kinetic Energy (Lateral) vs. Impact Angle and Travel Speed Changing an impact angle from 90° to 40°
reduces kinetic energy about the same as
if speeds were about 30kph (20 mph) less
Source: Zero Road Deaths and Serious Injuries, Leading a Paradigm Shift to a Safe System, ITF, 2016 https://www.itf-oecd.org/sites/default/files/docs/zero-road-deaths.pdf Humans Are Vulnerable
Designing safer roads is an exercise of
managing kinetic energy
Velocity is a Vector
• Speed
• Direction (angle of
impact)
Source: FHWA
Quick-Build Roundabouts
Mini & Modular Roundabouts
(Quick-Build Applications)
• Allow testing of safety
improvements in real-world
conditions
• Use modular materials for quick
installation and adjustment
• Provide lower-cost and faster
implementation compared to
permanent construction
• Inform future design decisions
through data and observation
Collaboration
City of Malibu & Caltrans District 7
Partnership
• Collaboration to improve
safety on PCH
• Pilot project at Encinal Canyon
& El Matador Beach Blvd.
• Permanent installation will be
based on evaluation and
performance

THANK YOU
From: Kristina Kropp
To: Planning Commission
Subject: CDP25-041 - Dec. 16 PC Meeting Comment - Agenda Item 5A Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 3:15:33 PM
Attachments: Letter to Planning Commission 12.12.25 (final).pdf Hi Rebecca –
Please find attached correspondence with regard to Agenda Item 5A on the December 16 Planning Commission Agenda for Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041 / Citywide along PCH from Broad Beach Rd to La Piedra Beach Rd (Roundabouts).

Please confirm receipt and that this correspondence will be distributed to the Planning Commissioners ahead of the December 16th meeting.

Thank you,
Kristina
Kristina Kropp, Esq.

Received
Planning Div. 12/12/25 12/12/25 3:15pm 12/16/25 5A27
16501 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 400
Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: 310-570-9373
December 12, 2025

VIA ELECTRONIC DELIVERY
City of Malibu Planning Commission
c/o Rebecca Evans, Recording Secretary
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041 – Improvements to Pacific Coast Highway Including Roundabouts
Honorable Commissioners:

This law firm represents a group of property owners and residents (the “Residents”) in the immediate vicinity of the proposed improvements to Pacific Coast Highway (“PCH”) between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with lighting at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road (the “Project”).

The Residents, as well as an overwhelming number1 Malibu residents in this area oppose the Project, as proposed, and, in particular, the roundabout at Encinal Canyon Road (“Encinal Canyon”) and PCH. [Exhibit 1 – Petition against the Project (more to be added prior to Dec. 16)].

For all the reasons discussed herein, this Commission should deny the Project.

I. Introduction
Preliminarily, it must be highlighted that both the Project applicant and City of Malibu (“City”) staff have and continue to erroneously label this project as something that was “recommended in the 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study conducted by the City in partnership with the California Department of Transportation.” [see Agenda Report, Subject Line].

This statement is simply and verifiably incorrect. The 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety (“2015 Safety Study”) did not recommend a roundabout at Encinal Canyon and PCH. 1 At one of the town hall meetings, a Public Works Commissioner commented that this was the first project he had been involved with where no support by any constituents had been heard, only opposition.

City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 2 ends

To the contrary, the 2015 Safety Study, which provides a list of over 130 recommended alternative improvements to PCH, recommended that the City consider a roundabout at a location north of Encinal Canyon Road, off of a newly created intersection to be located immediately across PCH and aligned with La Piedra Beach Road [see 2015 Safety Study, Appendix D to Appendix 4, page D.3 (Figure D-2):

As shown above, the 2015 Safety Study recommended that the City consider installation of a streetlight at the intersection of Encinal Canyon and PCH.

It is factually incorrect to state that a roundabout at the intersection of Encinal Canyon and PCH, as currently proposed, was in any way analyzed, reviewed or recommended by the 2015 Safety Study.

This Commission must ask itself, why? Why, after several years of studies and a list of over 130 recommended alternative improvements, did the 2015 Safety Study not recommend a roundabout at the intersection of Encinal Canyon and PCH, as currently proposed? To the Residents at least one of the reasons is glaring: the location is immediately abutting private, single-family lots, improved with existing residences. The proposed roundabout at Encinal Canyon/PCH would result in a roundabout with immediate frontage to these single-family residences and “openings” to allow vehicles to enter these private single-family lots, directly from the roundabout:

City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 3 ends

Notably, an aerial of photo of the Encinal Canyon/PCH intersection showing the existing homes and driveways was not included in the Commission Agenda Report.

Roundabout design with direct access to private driveways specifically conflicts with guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (“USDOT”), Federal Highway Administration (“FHA”) that provides:
“Driveways introduce conflicts into the circulatory roadway, including acceleration and deceleration. Traditional driveway designs do not discourage wrong way movements as a splitter island does.” [Exhibit 2, Excerpt from USDOT FHA National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Second Edition2].

The FHA recommends against roundabouts with direct driveway access unless “site constraints make it necessary” and only if certain criteria are met, including no alternative access, a low proportion of unfamiliar drivers and driveway design with hammerheads/vehicle turn around areas and proper sight distance. None of these criteria are met here.

The Encinal Canyon/PCH roundabout, as proposed, will include direct access to the driveways of the single-family lots at 32614 and 32636 PCH. Both driveways maintain gates along PCH that require vehicles, including deliveries, to park on PCH, sometimes in front of the driveway for access.
2 Full Report accessible: NCHRP Report 672 – Roundabouts: An Informational Guide, Second Edition
City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 4 ends

Neither of these private driveways were designed with USDOT FHA guidance in mind; both driveways are without publicly accessible hammerheads/vehicle turnaround areas or proper sight distance:

If this roundabout is installed, delivery vehicles and vehicles entering these private properties by mistake will have to figure out how to exit, including physically reversing, backwards, into the roundabout depending on their size/angle of entry.

There is also nothing in the City file to analyze how garbage trucks will be able to maneuver the roundabout and pick up garbage at 32614 and 32636 PCH. There is not enough space for them to park without stopping on PCH. They will stop traffic in the roundabout? There is a plethora of other locations for roundabouts and other, alternative, improvements to PCH that can be made to quell the speeding issues identified in this part of Malibu. The roundabout at Encinal Canyon/PCH is not “necessary.” PCH is a highway that is replete with City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 5 ends

unfamiliar drivers who will undoubtedly mistake the openings for private driveways introducing unnecessary conflicts.

The roundabout at Encinal Canyon/PCH runs afoul of USDOT FHA guidance. The City should not approve a Project that does not comply with federal guidance for roundabouts.

In addition to failing with regard to federal safety guidance, the Project’s proposal to reduce two lanes on PCH into one is also specifically against the recommendations of its own 2015 Safety Study, Phase I, which provides:
“Narrowing lanes reduces vehicle separation. Current conditions show that drivers are not responding to less safe conditions with safer driving behavior. Reducing vehicle separation would create less safe conditions with no guarantee that vehicle speeds would be lowered.” [Exhibit 3, Excerpt from LSA Report (Phase I)3].

There may also be additional reasons that the 2015 Safety Study did not recommend the Encinal Canyon/PCH roundabout, as currently proposed. We cannot know these reasons as staff insists on an alternative reality: that this Project was somehow analyzed and recommended in 2015.

At a town hall meeting, City Engineering staff argued that the 2015 Safety Study “generally” recommended roundabouts – it did not recommend specific projects. This statement is plainly contradicted by the study itself: “At the conclusion of the Phase I of the 2015 Safety Study, the City of Malibu reviewed the reports and determined that greater analysis was desirable to closely and precisely identify specific actions that could be undertaken at this time to improve safety and reduce the frequency of collisions. Such actions would include precise and constructible or implementable plans or programs that could be initiated in the near future.” [Final Report, p. 1 (emphasis added)]. The Final Result of the Phase I and Phase II studies provides “[o]ver 130 measures are specifically suggested in the Alternatives Analysis report.” [Final Report, p. 5 (emphasis added)].

It has further been asserted by City staff that there are newer, more relevant studies under the control of the Project applicant which purportedly show the appropriateness and/or safety of the Project, as proposed. These studies are “under review,” and are not available to the public or the City. This is akin to an applicant for a new single-family home coming to you asking for a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) while their biology study, geotechnical study, view impact analysis, etc., are “under review.” This Commission would tell such an applicant to come back when they could prove that their Project met all necessary criteria. In that circumstance, as here, the City cannot approve a Project without all of the studies, analyses and reports necessary to 3 “Starting in 2012, a previous firm, LSA Associates Inc., contracted with SCAG to produce a series of reports quantifying and analyzing the PCH corridor for potential safety improvements. These reports provide comprehensive documentation about existing traffic and safety conditions and provided a series of high level and programmatic recommendations for addressing safety issues in the corridor.” The 2015 Safety Study refers to these analyses Phase I. [Final Report, p. 1].

City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 6 ends

determine the safety and appropriateness of this Project, as currently proposed. The City should not take any action whatsoever until those studies are made available for review and comment.

II. The Findings for a Coastal Development Permit Are Not Supported by Substantial Supporting Evidence
City LCP Local Implementation Plan (“LIP”) Section 13.6.4 requires that that any applicant to a Coastal Development Permit (“CDP”) provide an “adequate description including maps, plans, photographs, etc., of the proposed development, project site and vicinity sufficient to determine whether the project complies with all relevant policies of the Malibu LCP, including sufficient information concerning land and water areas in the vicinity of the site of the proposed project, (whether or not owned or controlled by the applicant) so that the City will be adequately informed as to present uses and plans, both public and private.” Adequate information has not been provided. As discussed above, there are no transportation studies or analyses provided as part of this CDP application that in any way confirm the appropriateness or safety of the proposed roundabout at the Encinal Road/PCH location. On the contrary, the record before the City demonstrates only that the proposed roundabout runs afoul of USDOT FHA guidance and that the reduction of vehicle separation will create less safe conditions on PCH.

Additionally, the 2015 Safety Study, which, again, did not address the current proposed roundabout at Encinal Road/PCH, is over ten years old. The studies that it drew its conclusions from occurred between 2012 and 2014. Malibu has changed significantly since 2014. As City staff concedes, many improvements to PCH have already been made, or are already scheduled, particularly to the eastern side of PCH. It is completely without empirical data to state that the same issues which were identified on PCH in 2012-2015, all continue to apply to PCH today, after the installation of many safety improvements on the eastern end of Malibu, after over a decade of further urbanization and two major, life altering wildfires.

On December 11, 2025, City staff shared a 2024 PCH analysis conducted Michelin. The analysis shows that Western Malibu received the lowest severity score of any other location in Malibu and did not recommend any further improvements to the area.

The Project before you is not just the implementation of two proposed roundabouts – this Project includes a reduction of lanes on PCH starting at Broad Beach Road, two lanes merging into one in both directions, a component that has already been concluded by the City’s own studies to create less safe conditions on PCH. The proposal will require bicyclists and vehicles, including oversize vehicles, to merge into and share one lane without any physical separation, compounding these hazards. It will introduce conflicts at the existing driveways which will immediately front the roundabouts, in violation of federal guidelines. None of this is analyzed, studied or presented with any evidence regarding its appropriateness or safety. The Application before you fails to provide all information necessary for purposes of LIP Section 13.6.4.

City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 7 ends

LIP Section 13.9.A requires that a project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conform with the certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program.

In support of this finding, staff provides that the Project “is consistent with the policies of LUP Chapter 7 (Public Works) by improving public safety and multimodal access to and between visitor serving and recreation areas.”
As discussed herein, this statement is incorrect. To the contrary, the Project introduces the merging of two lanes into one, narrowing vehicle separation and creating less safe conditions; requires bicyclists and vehicles to merge into and share one lane without any physical separation; and proposes a roundabout at Encinal Canyon/PCH which runs afoul of USDOT FHA guidance.

It will not “improve public safety.” City staff’s proposed findings to the contrary are not substantiated with any evidence (studies, analyses, etc.) whatsoever. See West Chandler Boulevard Neighborhood Association v. City of Los Angeles (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1506 (an agency abuses its discretion if its order or decision is not supported by the findings; or the findings are not supported by the evidence).

LIP Section 13.C4requires written findings that the project is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

LIP Section 13.D requires written findings that if the project is located in or adjacent to an environmentally sensitive habitat area pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Malibu LIP (ESHA Overlay), that the project conform with the recommendations of the Environmental Review Board, or if it does not conform with the recommendations, findings explaining why it is not feasible to take the recommended action.

This Project is not the least environmentally damaging alternative. A portion of PCH that is a part of this Project is located within an ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road. There is absolutely no reason that the roundabouts which are proposed should be proposed at the current locations. There are not only a plethora of other locations for roundabouts that are not within an ESHA buffer, but also other, alternative improvements to PCH that can be made to alleviate speeding concerns.

Furthermore, this Project was never reviewed by the Environmental Review Board.

Accordingly, the finding required by LIP Section 13.D literally cannot be made with any, let alone substantial, supporting evidence.

III. The Proposed Categorical Exemptions do not Comply with the California Environmental Quality Act
California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and its implementing regulations “embody California’s strong public policy of protecting the environment. Tomlinson v. County of 4 Also required by LIP Section 6.4.

City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 8 ends

Alameda (2012) 54 Cal.4th 281, 285. Only rigorous compliance with CEQA procedural requirements can expose the facts about a project and its impacts be properly considered. Failure constitutes an abuse of discretion. League to Save Lake Tahoe v. County of Placer (2022) 86 Ca.App.5th 63.

Here, City staff proposes that the Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15301(c) and 15303(d). However, pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2, neither of these are applicable.

CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2(b) provides that all exemptions are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant.

One of the basic and vital informational functions required by CEQA is a thorough analysis of whether the impacts of a project, in connection with other related projects, are cumulatively considerable. See Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal App.4th 1209 (emphasis added). Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.5 Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.

City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184; CEQA Guidelines §15355.

Proper cumulative impact analysis is vital under CEQA because the full environmental impact of a proposed project cannot be gauged in a vacuum. Indeed, one of the most important environmental lessons that has been learned is that environmental damage often occurs incrementally from a variety of small sources. These sources appear insignificant when considered individually but assume threatening dimensions when considered collectively with other sources with which they interact. Therefore, cumulative effects analysis requires consideration of “reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, if any.” Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v.

City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 (emphasis added); Gentry v City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1414.

CEQA Guidelines mandate the preparation of an EIR where cumulative impacts are cumulatively considerable:

An EIR must be prepared if the cumulative impact may be significant and the project's incremental effect, though individually limited, is cumulatively considerable. 5 “Cumulative impacts” refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.

City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 9 ends

“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. 14 CCR §15064(h)(1).

In this case, there is no evidence, much less substantial evidence, in the record, to support the conclusion that the “cumulative impact” of the Project will not result in any potentially significant impacts. There are no other “reasonably foreseeable probable future projects” provided, listed, or analyzed.

However, the City is not only aware of many reasonably foreseeable probable future projects on PCH, but is also currently processing CDP’s for such reasonably foreseeable probable future projects including in CDP No. 25-009 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 pullout, median reconstruction at various locations, and associated roadway improvements along PCH (also proposed with an exemption).

For purposes of CEQA, the City must evaluate the environmental impacts of all reasonably foreseeable and probable future safety improvement projects to PCH jointly.

CEQA Guideline Section 15300.2(c) further provides that a categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances. The “unusual circumstances” exception is established without evidence of an environmental effect upon a showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class, such as its size or location. In such a case, to render the exception applicable, the party need only show a reasonable possibility of a significant effect due to that unusual circumstance. Alternatively, the “unusual circumstances” exception is established with evidence that the project will have a significant environmental effect.

Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086.

As discussed hereinabove, in this case, the Project, as proposed, will increase transportation hazards on PCH due to the inclusion of the private driveways into its roundabout design, a design that specifically conflicts with guidance from the USDOT FHA, and the reduction of lanes from two into one, reducing vehicle separation, thereby creating less safe conditions. Due to its location on PCH, adjacent to private single-family residences and driveways which will be directly impacted thereby, this Project may not utilize a Categorical Exemption.

Each public agency is required to comply with CEQA and meet its responsibilities. CEQA Guidelines §15020. The City has failed to do so here.

City of Malibu Planning Commission
December 12, 2025

Page 10 ends

IV. Conclusion
The Project, as proposed:
(i) Was not recommended by the 2015 Safety Study;
(ii) Is inconsistent with USDOT FHA guidance;
(iii) Immediately fronts private, single-family lots with residences, increasing hazards at the driveways to the residences;
(iv) Reduces vehicle separation, creating less safe conditions pursuant to the City’s own 2015 Safety Study; and
(v) Is provided without studies or analysis, as proposed.

This Commission should deny the Project.

Very truly yours,

THE KROPP LAW FIRM,
A Professional Corporation

KRISTINA KROPP
EXHIBIT 1

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City's Local Coastal Program.

We stand united against the proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City's Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes. The proposal will require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone#
J/1. ·1?--10.,1 AS r;;, J)1m-t,t-c!G j ,· s:: ll- %--�=--=-":::::::ss

MALIBU RESIDENTS AGAINST ROUNDABOUT

AT PCH & ENCINAL CANYON
We, the undersigned, state: We reside in and/or own real property in Malibu, protected by law by the regulations of the City’s Local Coastal Program.

We stand united againstthe proposed roundabout pilot at Pacific Coast Highway and Encinal Canyon Road which was not approved or recommended by the City Council in the 2015 PCH Safety Study Final Report; which does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Local Coastal Program; and which will increase hazards at this location, including obstruction of evacuation routes during emergencies. The proposal will provide and encourage crowds/parking on the land side of PCH, increasing jaywalking concerns, require bicyclists to merge into one lane with vehicles to navigate the roundabout, and introduce gridlock where none currently exists.

STOP THIS PROJECT from moving forward.

Name (print) Signature Address E-mail and/or Phone #
_____________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________ Linda Cohen

EXHIBIT 2

EXHIBIT 3

From:

To: Planning Commission
Subject: 12-16-25 meeting agenda item 5A Roundabouts
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 4:49:10 PM
Attachments: pc caltrans roundabouts 12-16-25..docx
Commissioners attached are Slow Growth's comments on the 2 proposed Roundabouts.
12/11/25 4:50 p.m. 12/16/25 5A2
Received
Planning Div. 12/11/25
To: Planning Commissioners
From: Malibu Coalition for Slow Growth (MCSG) by Patt Healy Re: 5A: Roundabouts
Date: 12-16-25 meeting
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,

1.Before you approve the 2 proposed roundabouts please consider how they will impact safety in a wildfire emergency if the only evacuation route is north toward Oxnard/ Ventura.

As far as we know this has not been studied and should be addressed to find out how much longer traffic will be backed up in case of an emergency and possible evacuees are put in harms way by requiring merging of two 2 lanes into one lane.

We also recommend the lighting for the roundabout lights be dark sky compliant .
{a /(ix/ 1y (xnga ‘
[KL wx~orzy / Jr//4/4§
W£¢LM w(Mtg
,‘Oaw/zwwwwd
/Mz""/
/’ 4‘ ’%%}7<?A¢r JO XW~\\
,. g z ( 4£/ /d/?Zr j v/.\;%
/¢ (,k;&¢:
*‘ ‘Wx7’
cm! OF MAUBU RECEIVED
JAN 0 5 202E
PLANNING DIVIS!ON
¢% M 5M ga/m
TO Malibu Planning Commission. Hearing on PCH roundabouts. Dec. 16, 2025. item£ From ””Lucile Keiier . Email.

1. Reducing the number of ianes at Encinal and PCH and siowing down traffic in order for vehicles to move around the roundabout in the reconfigured roadway will greatly reduce the capacity of the intersection to move traffic especially during a fire evacuation. PCH north and south are the only evacuation routes for the entire Malibu population. Evacuating over the mountain canyon roads is entirely undependable because the fires usually come from the 101 freeway across the mountains TO the ocean. Not only is it unsafe to drive into the fire but the police usually close those roads to prevent use. Until a fire occurs you cannot determine which direction you have to go to evacuate. All occupants of areas adjacent to PCH may have to exit north even tho they are close to Santa Monica. This would be a huge increase in normal traffic patterns all funneling through a roadway whose capacity has been artificially reduced by the reduction of lanes and slowing required to maneuver around the roundabouts — all in the name of safety. WHAT IS THE TRAFFIC CAPACIW OF THE ROUNDABOUT.

2. AT A MEETING BETWEEN neighbors living near Encinal AND CITY ENGINEER-S it became obvious that a primary reason for reducing traffic lanes of PCH from two lanes to one is to accommodate parking on both sides of PCH to provide beach parking. This is unnecessary because between Zuma Beach a few miles south (east) of Matador and Leo. Carrillo Beach at County Line there are SIX beaches — all with parking lots. Zuma — the largest has 1 1/2 miles of beach AND 1 1/2 miles of parking lot. This parking lot is practically NEVER FULL - except for one or two holidays like Fourth of July. People park on the street to avoid paying a parking fee. The same is true for the other 4 small beaches. Leo Carirllo also has a large parking lot.

When the 3 “pocket beaches” were built the state said they were limiting the size of the parking lots to only accommodate the number of people who could use these small beaches without eventually destroying them. Allowing people to park on the street is contrary to the state design of those beaches. Worse yet, allowing parking on the highway is extremely dangerous with or without sidewalks and crosswalks. People should never be allowed to park and cross or walk along that highway. Doing so give people false confidence that they are safe doing so.

3. There has been NO public notice of these projects until last month, yet supposedly this has been proposed since 2015. Data provided justifying the proposed work is 1O years old and likely obsolete. Many residents were and still are unaware of the project. Why hasn’t the community been brought into this issue before now. They are the ones who have to deal with the reduced capacity in an evacuation - they have to pay for it through taxes. This proposal must not move forward until the community has been informed and had the opportunity to participate in correcting any problem traffic issues that make sense. This does not. There are other ways of controlling traffic such as the portable speed notice signs and remotely controlled signals that can be turned off when necessary, and increased traffic enforcement, that cost much less. Has there been any effort to evaluate them.

4. WHAT DATA INDICATES A NEED FOR THE ROUNDABOUT lNSTALLATlONS AT ENCINAL and Matador Beach. l have used this intersection for 66 years and have never waited more than several minutes to turn onto PCH once the turn and merge lanes were installed. l have 1/5/26 5:00 p.m. 12/16/25 5A3
Lucile Keller. PCH Roundabout hearing Dec.15 2025 Pg. 2 Iived just above the intersection for those 66 years and have seen very few accidents there. I would be able to hear an accident as well as see it. This intersection has always had an A rating. -what studies show it has a lower rating now? Where are the engineering traffic studies showing the need for these changes;. Where are the traffic counts and records of the accidents for the PCH/Encinal intersection. l could not find any recommendation in the 2015 report for a roundabout or reduction of lanes at Encinal Cyn. Please provide that information to me. ALSO PROVIDE COPIES OF THE ACCIDENT REPORTS SHOWING CAUSE. Highway modifications will not stop accidents caused by road rage, bad weather, drunks, reckless drivers or car club show-offs using PCH as a race track.

THE ANSWER TO THIS is that the current Encinal—PCH intersection is NOT what the 201 5 report refers to. Years ago the state bought a 50’ wide strip of property between PCH and Encinal to realign the Encinal intersection. That is the location of the 2015 report recommendation. They finally changed their mind and sold it. It now has a new house on it.

5. A million dollars is very expensive to fix something that doesn’t need fixing and actually will create a serious hazard for everyone who lives in the area or uses either PCH or Encinal. An Engineering and Traffic study needs to be done to evaluate the expenditure of public funds. HAS THIS BEEN DONE? If so please post a copy on the City ’s and Caltran’s website for public access.

6. REDUCING CAPACITY AND TRAFFIC FLOW WILL HINDER FIRE TRUCKS AND EMERGENCY VEHICLES ENTERING MALIBU If they have to come down PCH from the north as the only entrance into Malibu, i can just see them inching their way around a round-about with a huge back up of emergency vehicles waiting to get through. In January nearby Zuma Beach was used as a staging area for a very large number of emergency vehicles fighting the fire at the south end of Malibu.

7. Evacuation for the local area will be severely hindered. There is a subdivision located along Encinal whose local streets all are dead end and the only way out in a fire is down Encinal. One of them (Puesta del sol) enters Encinal a few car lengths from the edge of PCH. If cars from the streets above them back up Encinal they won’t be able to exit onto Encinal and then onto PCH round-about. The diagrams sent with the first notice show a pedestrian crosswalk there instead of a street. i never see a pedestrian cross Encinal then PCH there. Pedestrians should NOT be encouraged to cross PCH. They should use existing parking lots — If necessary add parking to existing beach lots. There is no business community there. At the most they should park on the ocean NOT land side of PCH. Please provide a copy of the detailed plans for residents of Puesta del sol to exit onto Encinal and access the round-about.

8. If there is an accident on the 1 lane of the round-about and traffic backs up behind it, how do you get the accident taken care of. The accident will block that one lane — how do you get police, fire trucks, ambulances to them. At the same time the accident could be blocking the only way out in an evacuation.

9. The 9/1 5/25 roundabout meeting notice states as a reason for the Encinal intersection roundabout that Encinal provides a connection from PCH to Highway 23 (Decker Cyn. Rd.) and that the 2015 Safety Study recommended the roundabout there to provide that connectiion. Rt. 23 intersects directly with PCH 1/2 mile beyond Encinal. The Rt 23/Encinal connection is 4 miles into the Cyn. Why not use the direct intersection instead of driving 4 miles up the canyon to do it? The 201 5 study recommendation refers to another site altogether. It does NOT recommend a roundabout at the current Encinal/PCH intersection.

MaIibuPlanning Comm. Meeting Dec. 16 re PCH/Encinal Roundabouts Speaking Copy Reducing PCH Ianes at Encinal from 5 to 2 and siowing traffic so cars can use the roundabouts will greatly reduce the capacity of the intersection to move traffic especialiy in a fire evacuation. PCH north and south are the only evacuation routes for all of Malibu. Evacuating over the canyons is unsafe because of fire and the roads are usually closed. Occupants of areas adjacent to PCH may have to exit north even though Santa Monica is closer. This would be a huge increase in normal traffic all funneling through a roadway whose capacity has been limited by reduction in lanes and slowing to use the roundabouts. The decision on this proposal needs to be postponed until the evacuation issue is resolved.

Roundabouts are new in the area and could cause accidents themselves. They use a lot of signage which people won’t have time to read. A million dollars is very expensive to fix something that doesn’t need fixing but could create a serious hazard for everyone who lives in the area or uses PCH or Encinal. An Engineering and Traffic Study needs to be done to evaluate the expenditure of public funds.

NO DATA HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO JUSTIFY EITHER THE EXPENSE OR DlSRUPTlON of building roundabouts. The staff reference to the 2015 study to roundabouts at Encinal is wrong. The study was referring to adding roundabouts to a Realignment of Encinal Intersection using land Caltrans then owned but has sold. This intersection has always had an A rating. Where are the traffic counts and accident records for the PCH intersection. l could not find any 201 5 recommendation for a roundabout or reduction of lanes at Encinal. Causes of accidents need to be evaluated — Highway modifications will not stop accidents caused by road rage, bad weather, drunks or reckless drivers.

EVACUATION OF THE LOCAL AREA WILL BE SEVERELY HINDERED. A subdivision is located along Encinal whose streets are dead end — the only way to evacuate is down Encinal. One of them exits onto Encinal a few car lengths from PCH. If cars from above back up beyond that exit the people will not be able to access Encinal and then the roundabout. Traffic trying to evacuate could cause a Palisades type blockage. The City’s meeting notice did not recognize this as a street a they show a crosswalk. 7%
From: Walter Keller
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Fw: Planning Comm. hearing on PCH roundabout project Dec. 15, 2025 Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 3:57:36 PM
Attn: Rebecca Evans. Testimony for #4 PCH roundabouts Dec.15, 2025. Please send this testimony regarding proposed PC roundabouts to Planning Commissioners.

I sent this to their individual email addresses on Wednesday as well. Lucile Keller ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Walter Keller <
To:

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025, 02:46:09 PM PST
Subject: Fw: Planning Comm. hearing on PCH roundabout project Dec. 15, 2025 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Walter Keller <
To: >
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025, 10:27:03 AM PST
Subject: Fw: Planning Comm. hearing on PCH roundabout project Dec. 15, 2025 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Walter Keller
net>
Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025, 12:16:16 AM PST
Subject: Planning Comm. hearing on PCH roundabout project Dec. 15, 2025

1. Reducing the number of lanes at Encinal and PCH and slowing down traffic in order for the vehicles to move around the roundabout will greatly reduce the capacity of the intersection to move traffic especially during a fire evacuation. PCH north and south are the only evacuation routes for the entire Malibu population. Evacuating over the mountain canyon roads is entirely unreliable because the fires usually come from the 101 freeway across the mountains TO the ocean. Not only is it unsafe to drive into the fire but the police usually close those roads to prevent use. Until a fire occurs you cannot determine which direction you have to go to evacuate. All occupants of areas adjacent to PCH may have to exit north even though they are closer to Santa Monica. This would be a huge increase in normal traffic flow all funneling through a roadway whose capacity has been artificially reduced by the reduction of lanes and slowing required to maneuver around the roundabouts - all in the name of safety. WHAT IS THE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF THE ROUNDABOUT? Until the fire evacuation issue is resolved a decision on this proposal needs to be put on hold. Blocking the flow of evacuation traffic is too dangerous and involves the entire population. City decisions need to be based on current, accurate, applicable information.

2. WHAT DATA INDICATES A NEED FOR THE ROUNDABOUT Received Planning Div. 12/12/25 12/12/25 3:57pm 12/16/25 5A3
INSTALLATIONS AT ENCINAL AND MATADOR BEACH. I HAVE USED THE ENCINAL INTERSECTION FOR 66 YEARS and have never waited more than a few minutes to turn onto PCH once the turn and merge lanes were installed. I have lived just above the intersection for those 66 years and have seen very few accidents there. I would be able to hear an accident as well as see it. The Encinal intersection has always had an A rating - what studies show it has a lower rating now? Where are the engineering studies showing the need for these changes. Where are the traffic counts and records of accidents for the Encinal/PCH intersection. I could not find any recommendation in the 2015study for a roundabout or reduction of lanes at Encinal Cyn. Please provide the information justifying this project. ALSO PROVIDE COPIES OF THE ACCIDENT REPORTS SHOWING CAUSE.

Highway modifications will not stop accidents caused by road rage, bad weather, drunks, reckless drivers or car club show-offs using PCH as a race track.

THE ANSWER IS THAT THE CURRENT ENCINAL-PCH intersection is NOT WHAT THE 2015 STUDY REFERS TO. Years ago the state bought a 50' wide strip of property between PCH and Encinal to realign the PCHEncinal intersection. That is the location of the 2015 report recommendation.

The state changed their mind and sold the site. It now has a house on it.

3. Evacuation of the local area will be severely hindered. There is a subdivision located along Encinal whose streets are dead end and the only way out in a fire is down Encinal. One street (Puesta del sol) enters Encinal a few car lengths from the edge of PCH. If cars back up Encinal those residents won't be able to exit onto Encinal to access the roundabout. The diagram sent with the first notice does not acknowledge there is a street there - it shows a pedestrian walkway. If this project moves forward it is essential to have accurate information used when dealing with design decisions.

4. During meetings with city engineers it has become obvious that a primary reason for reducing traffic and turn lanes from 5 to 2 is to provide parking on both sides of PCH for beach parking. This is dangerous as well as unnecessary because between Zuma near Trancas and Leo Carrillo beach at County Line there are SIX beaches with parking lots. Zuma has 1 1/2 miles of beach AND 1 1/2 miles of adjacent parking. It is almost NEVER FULL except maybe 4th of July. Leo Carrillo also has a large lot. People park on the street to avoid paying a parking fee. When the 3 "pocket beaches" were developed the state said they were limiting the size of the parking lots to accommodate the number of people who could use the small beach without eventually destroying it. Providing on-street parking is contrary to that state decision.

5. It has been emphasized that these roundabouts are an experiment and are temporary and will be removed at the end of 15-18 months. However in the Pl. Comm. resolution on pg 5 it states the city or Caltrans may decide to make the improvements permanent if they do so with appropriate permits.

6. Public notice has been limited and very recent. People have been unaware of meetings and most still are. Notification needs to be expanded to inform everyone who is going to be effected and sent out far enough in advance to allow people to plan for it.

Lucile Keller
From: Walter Keller
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 at 12:32 AM
To: SKYLAR PEAK
Subject: Fw: Planning Comm. hearing on PCH roundabout project Dec. 15, 2025 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Walter Keller
To:

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025, 12:24:14 AM PST
Subject: Fw: Planning Comm. hearing on PCH roundabout project Dec. 15, 2025 ----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Walter Keller
To:

Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2025, 12:16:16 AM PST
Subject: Planning Comm. hearing on PCH roundabout project Dec. 15, 2025

1. Reducing the number of lanes at Encinal and PCH and slowing down traffic in order for the vehicles to move around the roundabout will greatly reduce the capacity of the intersection to move traffic especially during a fire evacuation. PCH north and south are the only evacuation routes for the entire Malibu population. Evacuating over the mountain canyon roads is entirely unreliable because the fires usually come from the 101 freeway across the mountains TO the ocean. Not only is it unsafe to drive into the fire but the police usually close those roads to prevent use. Until a fire occurs you cannot determine which direction you have to go to evacuate. All occupants of areas adjacent to PCH may have to exit north even though they are closer to Santa Monica. This would be a huge increase in normal traffic flow all funneling through a roadway whose capacity has been artificially reduced by the reduction of lanes and slowing required to maneuver around the roundabouts - all in the name of safety. WHAT IS THE TRAFFIC CAPACITY OF THE ROUNDABOUT? Until the fire evacuation issue is resolved a decision on this proposal needs to be put on hold. Blocking the flow of evacuation traffic is too dangerous and Received
Planning Div. 12/11/25 12/11/25 4:50 p.m. 12/16/25 5A3
involves the entire population. City decisions need to be based on current, accurate, applicable information.

2. WHAT DATA INDICATES A NEED FOR THE ROUNDABOUT INSTALLATIONS AT ENCINAL AND MATADOR BEACH. I HAVE USED THE ENCINAL INTERSECTION FOR 66 YEARS and have never waited more than a few minutes to turn onto PCH once the turn and merge lanes were installed. I have lived just above the intersection for those 66 years and have seen very few accidents there. I would be able to hear an accident as well as see it. The Encinal intersection has always had an A rating - what studies show it has a lower rating now? Where are the engineering studies showing the need for these changes. Where are the traffic counts and records of accidents for the Encinal/PCH intersection. I could not find any recommendation in the 2015study for a roundabout or reduction of lanes at Encinal Cyn. Please provide the information justifying this project. ALSO PROVIDE COPIES OF THE ACCIDENT REPORTS SHOWING CAUSE. Highway modifications will not stop accidents caused by road rage, bad weather, drunks, reckless drivers or car club show-offs using PCH as a race track.

THE ANSWER IS THAT THE CURRENT ENCINAL-PCH intersection is NOT WHAT THE 2015 STUDY REFERS TO. Years ago the state bought a 50' wide strip of property between PCH and Encinal to realign the PCH-Encinal intersection. That is the location of the 2015 report recommendation. The state changed their mind and sold the site. It now has a house on it.

Lucile Keller
From: LARZ ANDERSON
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Round abouts
Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 11:27:43 PM
Sent from my iPhone
They are a useless waste of time and money. The true cause of the accidents are your entitled children driving cars they are not qualified for . 45-50 is fine . 80-90 is a lack of judgement 12/15/25 7:30 a.m. 12/16/25 5A1
Received
Planning Div. 12/15/25
From: Michel Shane
To: Gail Duncan; Planning Commission
Cc: Nadia Fahoum; Lindsey Horvath; Rob Duboux
Subject: : Strong Support for PCH Roundabout Pilot Project - Coastal Development Permit Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 11:55:53 AM
Attachments: DRIVING_CHANGE_1B_FINAL_no_line2TRANSPARENT.png Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing to let you know how much I can support the proposed roundabout pilot project on Pacific Coast Highway and to ask you to approve the Coastal Development Permit being considered at your December 16th meeting.

As a Malibu resident who has dedicated fifteen years to traffic safety advocacy following my daughter Emily's death on PCH in 2010, I have studied interventions worldwide and worked at the state level to advance proven safety measures. I was instrumental in passing SB 1270, which authorized speed camera enforcement in California. I write the bi-weekly "Driving Change" column for The Malibu Times. I understand both the data and the deep community concerns about any changes to PCH.

Why This Pilot Deserves Support:

Proven Safety Impact: Modern roundabouts demonstrate a 90% reduction in fatalities and serious injuries at converted intersections nationwide. High-speed rural intersections—directly comparable to PCH—show an 85% reduction in injury crashes after conversion. This isn't theoretical; the Federal Highway Administration and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety validate it.

Addresses Root Cause: PCH's fundamental problem is a speed differential at the intersection of a 55-mph highway with beach access, parking, cyclists, and pedestrians. Roundabouts solve this through geometric design that physically forces speed reduction to approximately 25 mph at conflict points. This works regardless of driver behavior, enforcement presence, or compliance with posted limits.

Complements Other Measures: I championed speed cameras because technology matters.

But cameras document violations; they don't physically prevent dangerous speeds. We need layered solutions: cameras for enforcement, education for cultural change, and infrastructure that geometrically controls speed at high-conflict intersections.

Legitimate Testing Framework: This is an 18-month pilot using temporary materials with comprehensive data collection on crash rates, traffic flow, emergency response times, and evacuation capacity. If the data shows problems—particularly with fire evacuation—that's critical information before any permanent decisions. If it works, we have a model to transform other dangerous PCH intersections.

Addressing Community Concerns:

I've heard the fears about traffic congestion and fire evacuations. These concerns are valid, and this is precisely why this is structured as a temporary pilot with robust evaluation. Research shows roundabouts actually reduce delays by 56-89% because vehicles yield rather than stop.

But Malibu deserves our own data, not just national averages. Received Planning Div. 12/12/2025 12/12/25 11:55am 12/16/25 5A3
For fire safety, the temporary nature allows real-world testing of evacuation scenarios. If roundabouts compromise emergency response, we'll have evidence to guide decisions. But we should also acknowledge that our current reliance on PCH as the sole evacuation route is itself a vulnerability that requires additional solutions regardless of intersection design.

The Cost of Inaction:

PCH's current configuration has a documented body count that will continue to grow. We have $2 million in County funding to test proven infrastructure. We have time to evaluate results objectively. What we cannot afford is rejecting evidence-based intervention out of fear of change.

The pattern nationwide is consistent: before construction, roughly 68% oppose roundabouts.

After living with them, 73% support them. Malibu residents deserve the opportunity to evaluate this infrastructure with our own experience rather than speculation.

Request to the Planning Commission:

Please approve the Coastal Development Permit for this pilot project. Give us 18 months to gather Malibu-specific data. Let evidence—not emotion or theory—guide permanent decisions about PCH safety infrastructure.

More families will join the club; no one should ever have to participate unless we're willing to test solutions that work elsewhere. We owe it to every person who drives, walks, or bikes on PCH to determine whether modern roundabouts can save lives in Malibu.

Thank you for your consideration and for your service to our community.

Respectfully,
Michel Shane
Malibu Resident
Co-Founder, The Emily Shane Foundation
Columnist, "Driving Change" - The Malibu Times
Chair, The Emily Shane Foundation
emilyshane.org
Opinion Column in Malibu Times: https://bit.ly/4p8oarE
CNN: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6cHgTPqZJY
VOD; 21 Miles in Malibu: https://21milesinmalibu.vhx.tv/

PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY

QUICK BUILD ROUNDABOUTS
Pilot Program

PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DECEMEBER 16, 2025
ITEM 5.A.

BACKGROUND & FUNDING
LA Metro – Measure M Funds
$2,000,000
WHAT MAKES A QUICK BUILD & PILOT PROJECT?
A 3-STEP FRAMEWORK FOR PILOTING
WHY ROUNDABOUTS?
Enhanced Safety Enhanced Operations Environmentally Friendly

PROJECT LIMITS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

PCH & EL MATADOR

PCH & ENCINAL
PCH

EXISTING CONDITIONS
DESIGN – OVERVIEW
DESIGN – PCH & EL MATADOR
DESIGN – PCH
DESIGN – PCH & ENCINAL CYN

PARKING LAYOUT
How it works: Vehicles, Bikes, and Pedestrians

COMMUNITY OUTREACH
PUBLIC
NOTICE
PUBLIC

MEETINGS
AGENCY
COLLAB.

CITY’S

WEBSITE

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

EMERGENCY
&

EVACUATION
ACCESS

PARKING

CONGESTION

PROJECT NEXT STEPS

PERMITTING CONSTRUCTION PILOT

DURATION
PILOT

DETERMINATION
QUESTIONS?

APPENDIX
PARKING LAYOUT – EL MATADOR
PARKING LAYOUT – PCH
PARKING LAYOUT – ENCINAL

RIGHT OF WAY

AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PCH
Source: Traffic Volumes | Caltrans

ROUNDABOUT CAPACITY
ROUNDABOUT – LEVEL OF SERVICE
COLLISION DATA – PROJECT SEGMENT
How to Drive: Emergency Vehicles
Move to Right
Emergency vehicle
can pass
Do not stop in
roundabout if emergency
vehicle is behind you
Emergency vehicle
entering roundabout
Do not enter roundabout
if emergency vehicle is
approaching from another
direction
If you are in roundabout,
stop If emergency vehicle
is approaching from
another direction
How to Drive: Emergency Vehicles
Safety & Speed

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

COMMENT / CONCERNS RESPONSE
Why not construct a two-lane roundabout? The road is constrained by residential properties and recreational areas (beaches and parks). The design of a two-lane roundabout is not feasible within the existing roadway width.

Why not just lower the speed limit to address speed concerns on PCH? Reducing the speed limit on a state highway requires Caltrans to conduct an Engineering & Traffic Survey to determine if a reduction is justified.

The method of determining the posted speed limit is to set the speed limit at what is called the “85th percentile speed”, the speed at or below which 85 percent of the traffic is moving.

Will the roundabouts really be removed? Yes, this is a pilot project in which all proposed elements are temporary and to be removed after the pilot period.

Are there or can you include other test roundabout locations? No, this pilot project will only test roundabouts at the intersections of El Matador and Encinal Canyon.

How can the roundabout safely accommodate all modes of transportation (motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, etc.)?
The roundabouts are an effective tool to reduce speeds in doing so it improves visibility of the users along the roadway creating safe conditions for pedestrian crossing facilities and cyclists.

COMMUNITY COMMENTS

COMMENT / CONCERNS RESPONSE
Will the roundabouts obstruct and/or impact the emergency access and response of Fire Station 99?
This proposed roundabouts do not obstruct and impact emergency access, they have been engineered as mountable roundabouts so that large vehicles such as fire engines, ambulances, and emergency personnel can pass through and over them safely without delay.

How will traffic flow during an evacuation? Discussion for evacuation coordination and traffic management approaches will be maintained between Agencies throughout the pilot project.

Won't the of reduction in lanes, from two to one, result in congestion on the highway?
No, given the volume of traffic in the west segment of PCH, the travel lane reduction from two to one lane in each direction will still be of sufficient capacity and can still operate efficiently.

With parking proposed in this project, how will you ensure there is no overnight parking be along the highway?
Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) includes an “Overnight Parking Ordinance” covering certain sections of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) through Malibu.

Why can't you just increase enforcement on PCH? PCH Safety and its implementation can be defined as the three E's:

Engineering, Enforcement, and Education. A layered approach to safety that serves to work together to improve Pacific Coast Highway.

PROJECT GOALS
WHAT IS A PILOT PROGRAM?
•IDENTIFY STUDY

SOLUTION
•IDENTIFY GOALS
•IDENTIFY

METRICS & RISK

ASSESSMENT
PREPILOT
•GATHER

FEEDBACK
•DATA

COLLECTION
•TRACK

PROGRESS FOR

REFINEMENT
PILOT
•ANALYZE

FINDINGS
•PILOT

DETERMINATION
•FOLLOW UP
POSTPILOT
A 3-STEP FRAMEWORK FOR PILOTING
EXISTING CONDITIONS – PCH & EL MATADOR
EXISTING CONDITIONS – PCH
EXISTING CONDITIONS – PCH & ENCINAL CYN

PROJECT BOUNDARIES
CDP No. 25-041
Citywide Between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road Planning Commission
Item 5A
December 16, 2025
Vicinity Map
Source: Caltrans2025
`
Pilot Project Background
• On June 22, 2015, the City Council adopted the 2015 PCH Safety Study • Objectives of the pilot project:
oImprove safety, slow vehicular speeds, and reduce crash severity along PCH oGather community feedback and test effective
• Temporary roadway improvements along an approximate 1.2 mile stretch of PCH oBeginning at Broad Beach Road (approx. 0.5 miles east of El Matador State Beach entrance)
oFinish at La Piedra Beach Road (approx. 0.1 miles west of Encinal Canyon Road) Pilot Project Description
• Temporary Road Improvements:
o Two roundabouts (Encinal Canyon Rd/PCH and El Matador State Park/PCH o Reduction of travel lanes
o Striping and medians
o Class II bicycle lanes
o Parking lanes
o Street lights
o Crosswalk striping
o Rectangular rapid flashing
beacons (RRFB)
o Quick-Kurb bollards
o Roadway Signs
Source: Caltrans2025
Pilot Project Description
Source: Caltrans2025
Pilot Project Description
Source: Fonroche 2025
• Road Improvements:
o Street lights
Pilot Project Description
Source: Fonroche 2025
Environmentally Sensitive Area
• The proposed roundabouts are within the ESHA buffer that extends 100 feet from El Matador State Beach and 100 feet from a blueline stream at La Piedra Beach Road
• The pilot project would occur entirely within the existing roadway prism
• The proposed light poles will minimize any impact on wildlife with low-intensity features, shielded and directed away from ESHA Pilot Project Timeline
• Construction period is expected to take up to 90 days. o Phased lane closures are required
• Temporary improvements for a minimum of 15 months, with a three-month time extension.
o Safety and Operational Performance Assessment
• Conclusion of Pilot Program –
(1) Improvements removed and PCH travel lanes restored
(2) Improvements would be retained permanently
Public Action
• On September 15, 2025, the City’s Public Works Department released a public notification for the Public Works Commission hearing. • On September 24, 2025, the applicant team presented to Public Works Commission
• Community Meetings: October 22, 2025 (virtual) and December 2, 2025 (inperson) Correspondence
• Staff received correspondence in support and opposition to the pilot project
• Points of Concern:
–Gridlock and Traffic Congestion
–Reduction in travel lanes would make evacuations difficult –Emergency access
–Parking
–Project Alternatives
Appeal Period
LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local Appeals), a Planning Commission decision may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and a filing fee, as determined by the City Council. Please note that City Hall will be closed from December 24, 2025 through January 2, 2026, due to the winter closure.

As such, the appeal period for this decision will be tolled until City Hall re-opens. For every day that City Hall is closed during the appeal period, an additional day will be added to the appeal period to ensure that members of the public are afforded the ability to obtain information before filing an appeal. The appeal period for this decision is from December 17, 2025 through January 7, 2026, 5:30 PM. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucity.org/planningforms. For questions about the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division at (310) 456-2489, ext. 309.

Recommendation
Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-78 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and recommending approval of CDP No. 25-041 Amendment to Resolution:

LOCAL APPEAL - Pursuant to LIP Section 13.20.1 (Local
Appeals), a Planning Commission decision may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written
statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and a filing fee, as
determined by the City Council. Please note that City Hall will be closed from December 24, 2025 through January 2, 2026, due to the winter closure. As such, the appeal period for this decision will be tolled until City Hall re-opens. For every day that City Hall is closed during the appeal period, an additional day will be added to the appeal period to ensure that members of the public are afforded the ability to obtain information before filing an appeal. The appeal period for this decision is from December 17, 2025 through January 7, 2026, 5:30 PM. Appeal forms may be found online at
www.malibucity.org/planningforms. For questions about the appeal process, please contact the Planning Division at (310) 456-2489, ext. 309.

From: Rosemary Sampson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041
Date: Saturday, December 13, 2025 11:43:18 AM
I live off of Broad Beach road about 1/4 of a mile from the Western end which we use for ingress and egress to/from Pacific Coast Highway.

Currently there is a street light at the southwest corner of the intersection as well as an electric pole. a fire hydrant, and foliage and fence. All of this blocks the view of the traffic coming from the Encinal and El Matador proposed round abouts.

This is a blind intersection. Going from west to east on PCH it is a steep long down hill drive with the current speed limit at 55 MPH. I've lived in my neighborhood for better than 40 years. I'd be very surprised if 1 out of 5 cars was actually obeying the 55MPH speed limit. My concern is with narrower lanes and two roundabouts the speed going down hill will only increase making a difficult blind intersection even more difficult. My guess is that you'll say just go to the stoplight at Trancas and Broad Beach a mere 1 1/2 miles or more away. My response is going down Broad Beach is a dangerous situation due to the lack of speed limit compliance by both beachgoers and residents. We live on one of the very short cul-de-sac streets on the land side of Broad Beach. Beach goers come down our little street with their foot in it looking for another exit to PCH. I'm sharing this so that you can picture the traffic and lack of courtesy of both beach goers and construction workers. We would rather take our chances turning right on PCH at our corner of Broad Beach. We can at least pull over to the small shoulder to keep from getting hit by oncoming traffic that we didn't see but who are traveling 65-70 MPH. Trust me . It's true. How are you going to mitigate that or are we to live or die with it? BTW I was hit by a car backing down the highway as I was turning into Broad Beach from PCH. It was clear. This car passed me and I waited for it. He totaled my car and hurt both me and my daughter. I'm not the only one.
12/15/25 7:30 a.m. 12/16/25 5A1
Received
Planning Div. 12/15/25
From: Tim Davis
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Round-about at Encinal Cyn Rd
Date: Friday, December 12, 2025 6:44:04 PM
HI all,
AS an owner of property on Encinal Cyn and a regular user of same, I don’t see any reason or need for a round-about @ PCH and Encinal Cyn.

I don’t have an issue with round-abouts, per se, but it seems like an awfully poor choice to put one there.

I get that El Matador has an issue with pedestrians on PCH and their safety, etc, but I don’t feel that a round-about is the solution there, either.

What needs to happen is better/safer off-street parking on the mountain side of PCH and a safe way for pedestrians to cross PCH – either via a tunnel or pedestrian over-pass.

Thank you for your consideration,
Tim Davis
12/15/25 7:30 a.m. 12/16/25 5A1
Received
Planning Div. 12/15/25
From: Rick Mullen
To: Planning Commission; Gail Duncan
Subject: Agenda Item 5A - Rick Mullen Comments
Date: Thursday, December 11, 2025 2:33:11 PM
Attachments: Rick Mullen - Roundabout comments - Agenda Item 5A 121625.docx I am attaching my comments on Agenda Item 5A for the 12-16-26 Planning Commission Meeting.

Thank you,
Rick Mullen
Malibu, CA 90265
Received
Planning Div. 12/11/25 12/11/25 2:33 p.m. 12/16/25 5A2
Rick Mullen - Comments on Agenda Item 5A for the 12-16-25 Planning Commission Meeting I am very supportive of the Roundabout initiative / temporary evaluation period on PCH in Western Malibu.

In 1970 my family moved to Ireland which was very rural with small single lane roads. At that time, there was only one short stretch of highway that actually had two lanes in each direction near Dublin. It was referred to as the “dual carriageway” and it was only a few miles long. We moved away in 1987 and came back to the USA.

I did not return there until 2019 and when I did I felt like a time traveler. The quaint little single lane country roads and tiny cars were replaced by freeways and an incredible increase in volume of traffic with modern automobiles.

The thing that struck me most was that the traffic was always in motion. Everything was constantly moving. This was because of the extensive use of roundabouts all over the place. They had them in residential neighborhoods and on freeway interchanges and entrances and in the urban areas.

Everything was on the go constantly. There was very little sitting at a red traffic light waiting for it to change when there was no traffic from the other direction.

These roundabouts enabled this small country to handle the incredible improvement in transportation infrastructure and to keep everyone moving. I was very impressed and had a new appreciation for the value of roundabouts.

I am also impressed by the speed of implementation of these two “evaluation” roundabouts that will be installed on Pacific Coast Highway. This is a great opportunity to evaluate their effectiveness. I am constantly surprised when people are dismissive of the value of roundabouts when they have had only minimal exposure to them. If they were embraced on a broader scale, the positive effect on the flow of traffic would be immense.

Also, as someone who was involved in a dangerous high speed accident from a careless driver on PCH just north of Malibu, I think the “calming” effect of the roundabouts provides an added safety benefit.

This is not to be discounted as slowing the traffic down will have a positive effect.

I hope that you support this initiative for an evaluation period. There is nothing to lose. They will be removed anyway when the evaluation period is over. Let’s give it a try and check it out. I think you will all be pleasantly surprised.

Thank you,
Rick Mullen –

From: Winnie Johnson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Against Roundabouts
Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2025 7:39:53 PM
To the Malibu City Planning Commission,
I have lived, for nearly 9 years up Encinal Canyon Road. I have two daughters who attend Malibu Elementary School, so I drive through both proposed roundabout sites almost everyday.

I applaud the mission to make PCH safer, however, I believe the plan to put roundabouts at Encinal and El Matador to be misguided.

These 2 sites are at the western edge of our city. The traffic is light and quick, with a current speed limit of 55mph. I find this speed to be appropriate to the usage.

From what I understand, the roundabouts would require traffic to slow substantially and merge into one lane. This is highly unnecessary as the accidents and deaths on PCH are not centered in this area. These roundabouts would not replace existing stops as no traffic stops are needed here.

Are these modular systems intended purely as a test? Will they be removed and used to greater effect in other locations?
I am not opposed to traffic circles. I am accustomed to them from growing up in NJ, and traveling in France.

I could see them working well for instance at the Trancas Canyon/Broad Beach intersection, and hopefully in the eastern part of Malibu which is more dense and more deadly.

My concern is that these unnecessary interventions, once placed, will become permanent fixtures.

I understand wanting to run a test but don’t sufficient “tests” already exist in the many other traffic circles in use? See Santa Barbara near the 101 as an example. Their circles have two lanes continuing around and work well in heavily traveled areas.

Please don’t make West Malibu a test site. As someone who knows these roads well, we do not need or want them here.

I hope I have reached you in time to have my voice heard.

Thank you for your time.

Winnie Johnson
Received
Planning Div. 12/17/25 12/17/25 7:30 a.m. 12/16/25 5A1

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public hearings on WEDNESDAY, March 18, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the projects identified below.

APPEAL NO. 26-001 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-78 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 25-041 for a pilot project for temporary improvements within the Pacific Coast Highway Public Right-of-Way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road, including lane reductions, signage, and the installation of two roundabouts with safety lighting at the intersections of El Matador Beach Road and Encinal Canyon Road, between Post Mile 58.4 and 59.9, as recommended in the 2015 Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study conducted by the City of Malibu in partnership with the California Department Of Transportation (Caltrans)
Location: Along Pacific Coast Highway within the public right-of-way between Broad Beach Road and La Piedra Beach Road
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(d) and 15301(c)
Applicant: City of Malibu Public Works Department
Owner: California Department of Transportation
Appellant: Dr. Thomas G. Diamantidis
Application Filed: September 9, 2025
Appeal Filed: January 6, 2026
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission
Case Planner: Courtney Brown, Senior Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 268
[email protected]
APPEAL NO. 24-011 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-77 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit No. 19-011 for the construction of a new 3,977.5 square foot, 28 foot high two-story single-family home with basement, pool, spa, retaining walls, new onsite wastewater treatment system and associated development; including Site Plan Review No. 24-022 for construction over 18 feet up to a maximum of 28 feet in height for a pitched roof and Minor Modification No. 24-006 to reduce the required front yard setback by 50 percent
Location: 33610 Pacific Coast Highway
APN: 4473-021-012
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Environmental Review: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a), 15303(e) and 15304(b)
Applicant: Block and Block
Owner: Peaches LLC, DBA 33616 PCH
Appellant: Matthew Mark
Application Filed: March 4, 2019
Appeal Filed: December 9, 2024
Appealable to: California Coastal Commission
Exhibit E
Case Planner: Richard Greenbauer, Contract Planner
(949) 489-1442, extension 132
[email protected]
For the projects identified above with a categorical exemption for environmental review, pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Community Development Director has analyzed these proposed projects and found that they are listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment. Therefore, the projects are categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. The Community Development Director has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to these projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the projects. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on March 4, 2026. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from members of the public, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted three (3) business days in advance, by 4:00 p.m. on March 13, 2026. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected] To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures.

Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours.

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

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

RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS

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

If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact the assigned case planner.

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: February 12, 2026

Malibu City CouncilMarch 18, 2026

Malibu City Council
March 18, 2026