Environmental Review Board - Regular Meeting

So thank you everybody for your time today. I would like to call to order the Malibu Environmental Review Board meeting of July 22, 2026. This meeting is being held by teleconference. Boards and city staff are participating from remote locations. Members of the public can participate in the meeting via Zoom. Members of the public wishing to speak during the meeting must click the raise hand button at the bottom of the screen to indicate a desire to speak after the item has been announced by the chair and must be present in the teleconference when called upon to be recognized. Once called upon, please lower your hand in the Zoom meeting. Board members, if you have comments to make during this meeting, please raise your hand using the raise hand link at the bottom of your screen. And I will call on you in turn so we can make our discussion clear for the record and for the public. Okay, so we will go to item one, written and oral communications from staff and the board. I am seeing none. Gail, is that the case?

Nothing much. I just wanted to let the ERB members know that ERB is heating up again, and we have a tentative project for August 26 and three tentative projects for September 23. So we're going to have a couple more meetings coming up soon.

More to come. Let's put that in our calendar. Okay, thank you so much, Gail. That's good information. And item number two, old business, I'm seeing none. Nope. Okay, so we will move on to item three, new business, for Coastal Development Permit 26032. And I will pass it on to the planner, Samantha, for her presentation.

Thank you, Courtney. One moment. All right. Good morning, Environmental Review Board members. I am Samantha Elias and I will be presenting Coastal Development Permit 26-032 and related approvals for 4000 Corral Canyon Road. ERB's review is required for this project because the proposed development is within 200 feet of mapped environmentally sensitive habitat area, and the recommended action for the ERB is to review the proposed project and provide recommendations for the Planning Commission's consideration. this project is a follow-up application to an emergency coastal development permit number 25-017 for the los angeles department of water and power to continue using the site as a temporary utility lay down yard for storing materials and vehicles in support of fire restoration efforts in the pacific palisades the original ecdp authorized four storage containers grading a new access driveway fencing and the placement of permeable aggregate base on the active areas. CDP 26-032 would permit the prior approval, approved development, along with four additional storage trailers for a total of eight, dark sky compliant lighting, six portable restrooms, and a variance for grading on steep slopes for the new access driveway. The application also includes a conditional use permit to allow for the site's use as a lay down yard for the duration of the Pacific Palisades restoration work and estimated seven years. For the Board's consideration, please note that the grading work for the site is mostly completed as approved under the eCDP, but due to deadlines and the conditions of approval, the rest of the original approved developments, such as the storage containers, they have not yet been placed on the site beyond just fencing and the driveway gate. Oh, sorry. Sorry, to continue, the parcel is approximately 97 acres and is located along Corral Canyon Road. The project site will be on the southernmost portion of the site and will occupy less than two acres of the parcel. Beyond the new access driveway, the lay down yard will be on the previously graded pad. That pad ranges from flat to gently sloped. And then parts of the proposed fencing will link to an existing chain link fence that's on the site. This slide shows the 97-acre parcel outlined in blue. And the project site is marked with the red star on the left. And then the right image outlines the, narrows down the general project location. While it is not shown here, the entire parcel is mapped as environmentally sensitive habitat, as shown on the local coastal programs ESHA and Marine Resources Map, along with map streams pursuant to the National Wetlands Inventory, but not pursuant to the LCP. LADWP and their consulting group conducted multiple biological surveys and provided a bioassessment along with two addendums related to the evaluation of the biological resources and ESHA. A field survey was conducted on May 26, 2025 by members of the applicant team, and they located the riverine that bisects the area and documented no features or characteristics to indicate the area supported significant hydrology or hydric soils. The city biologists also conducted a site visit on September 15, 2025. and surveyed the two mapped riverines marked here with yellow arrows. A culvert was seen, suggesting the area serves as drainage, but the biologists agreed that these areas lack flow features, defined channels, or riparian habitat. A site-specific biological assessment was conducted in July 2025. In one of the section's findings, it stated that special status species have the potential to occur in the project area within disturbed areas or within undeveloped portions of the Santa Monica Mountains. Staff requested additional evaluation, and the March 2026 assessment and the most recent July 2026 addendum concluded that although there is the potential for these species to occur. This habitat lacks viability and does not contribute to habitat for the special status species due to the predominant presence of exclusionary invasive species. And staff reviewed this, and the potential for habitat does not make an area ESHA. And pursuant to LIP section 4.3, the site did not meet the six criteria for being ESHA as surveyed by the applicant's biologist and confirmed by our city biologist. The image here outlines the area that was surveyed. It is limited mostly to the project site and to a 100 foot buffer. The area in blue is the edge of that surveyed area and the sections where the lay down materials will be is outlined in orange. As discussed, there is a potential for the special status species to occur while none were seen during the surveys. Precautionary measures shall be taken and avoidance and mitigation measures in Appendix A of the March 2026 assessment that was included in your attachments of the ERB report shall be required as a condition of approval. Initial surveys also showed narrow leaf milkweed on the site and the project area. While it is a breeding habitat, this location is not an overwintering habitat and is therefore not considered special status. However, a seeding plan has been submitted detailing the replacement of the milkweed following the conclusion of the use. And this seeding plan will be a condition of approval, including the monitoring plan to ensure the milkweed habitat is restored. In addition, the city biologist confirmed that there were no protected native trees on site and a formal tree study was not required. Once again, while no special status species were seen during the surveys for part of our mitigation and restoration portions and conditions, the mitigation measures in Appendix A of the March assessment will be implemented. This is including but not limited to the night work restriction and the worker environmental awareness training. And just to be clear, as previously noted, the grading was permitted and was almost complete under the eCDP approval. So many of the mitigation measures in that section have been implemented already, such as the crotches bumblebee survey and the pre-construction surveys for nesting. Continuing, the project site will be required to restore the property after the use's permitted timeframe ends. As the site was predominantly invasive species, the Board is welcome to make any specific restoration recommendations for the Planning Commission's consideration. Following the required restoration, there is a potential for the site to be more viable habitat than it was prior to the lay-down yard's use. Beyond the Planning Division, this project was reviewed and conditionally approved by the City Biologist, the City Geotechnical Consultant Reviewers, and City Public Works Department. From a cultural perspective, an initial evaluation was conducted prior to the start of grading. And while the site is within a quarter mile of four archaeological resources, there was no indication of prehistoric or archaeological resources in the project area. And it was concluded that there would be no inverse impact to known cultural resources. But conditions will be included in the event of discovery. Under CEQA, City staff has determined that the project qualifies for exemptions as the project has been determined to not have significant adverse effects on the environment and determined that none of these six exemptions under 15300.2 apply. To summarize the report, the project, including a 100-foot radius around the project area, was determined to not be ESHA, and the National Wetlands Inventory map streams were also determined to not be present. Mitigation measures included in the ERB report exhibits will be conditioned as well as the site's restoration and milkweed reseeding. Staff, just to note for the board, staff did receive correspondence from a member of the public with concerns as it relates to the site being ESHA. As previously discussed, while the area was mapped ESHA, it was determined with a site-specific biological assessment that the project area and the 100-foot radius surrounding the site is not ESHA. However, the board should consider the public correspondence and may make recommendations if the site is or is not ESHA. I and the applicant team are available to answer any questions, and thank you for your time.

Thank you so much, Sam. Really appreciate that presentation. Okay, great. So, Gail, do we have any members of the public?

I don't think I saw any, but... No, I don't see any here.

Okay. And then we usually give the applicant team time to give a presentation. Catherine, have you decided if you're going to give a presentation or not?

You know, I think Sam did a great job. I just wanted to thank the members of the board and the City of Malibu staff for asking us to be here today and to present our project. And I will hand it over because this is very focused on the bioreport and the biological conditions. I'll hand it over to my bio staff and see if they have anything they want to present or if we're fine. Jane or Chris, did you want to say anything or are we good?

Hello, can you hear me? Yeah. Okay, great. I think Samantha covered it very well. I'm here for questions, but I don't think there's anything further we need to add. But Chris, did you want to add anything?

No, I don't. I think the information was accurate and identified what we found on the site during our surveys.

Okay. Okay, thank you guys. So I'm still just seeing, not Joss, but Patrick and Noah. I'm not seeing Clark. So Patrick or Noah, either one of you want to begin with your comments? Noah, I think I saw your hand raised.

yeah hi um thank you for the presentation um i think we got a pretty clear picture of what the purpose of the project is what's going to happen on site and what some of the concerns are biologically i think a lot of the presentation focused on monarch butterfly restoration i do want to point out that we are within a mile of the coast and so it's not necessarily the the best use of the project site to plant milkweed, which is a breeding plant for the monarch butterflies. Within a mile of the coast, it would be preferential to have winter nectar plants, and we are about a mile away from the nearest overwintering site. So the butterflies from that overwintering site, I think at Escondido Canyon, would be able to travel to this site in order to forage and find nectar. So that's my first comment. Okay, good. No, the recommendation is not to restore with milkweed, but rather to restore with winter nectar plants.

Yeah.

Okay. Second question that I have is regarding the potential riparian area. I understand that currently it is not viable as a wetland resource, but that it could potentially be. What's the feasibility of restoring that as a riparian area and what is the future use of the site and how does that impact potential restoration? I mean, it looks like the site is graded and maintained free of vegetation on a regular basis. So is this a site that LADWP is keeping as a resource for future lay down areas, or is this a site that they're willing to rehabilitate after the use? Okay, that's a great question.

Yeah. Anyone from the LADWP team have an answer?

I'd like to start off, and Noah, thank you very much. We would be more than willing to restore and to do whatever we need to do. As far as future use, we will be, for the CDP, for the Full Coastal Development Permit, we will be using this site for the lay down for the next five to seven years. After that, for the future use, that I would imagine would be determined by the power system at a later date. But for right now, I'm not clear on that at this point in time. Patrick or Theo, did you want to chime in on future use of the site? Hi, Theo. We have to keep our, yeah. And you're on mute. You want to unmute yourself. There you go.

Yeah, sorry. I was trying to get the camera up and running. But you're correct. Current plans are just for five to seven years. Sorry, it looks like I can't turn the video on. And at a later time, if we determine any other use, which we don't currently have planned out, we would refile as part of the CDP.

I guess based on that, my recommendation would be if the plan would be to maintain it as a flat graded and maintained site, then any sort of restoration should be done offsite, perhaps on other areas within this parcel that's owned by LEWP that are adjacent, because it doesn't make sense to restore an area that is going to be continued to be maintained in a graded in mode situation.

And no, just so that I'm clear, you mean on the 97 acre site, so that site that we own. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. Yeah, that was clear. Thank you, Noah. Do you have any further recommendations, Noah? That's all I know. Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Noah. Appreciate it. Patrick, do you have any comments or recommendations at this time?

A few comments and questions.

And just to be clear, so the site was determined not to be ASHA, but it's mapped as ASHA. So that's why we're still reviewing this. Did I kind of get that right?

Yes. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.

Oh, sorry. The surveyed area that was determined not to be ESHA was the immediate project site and then basically the 100-foot buffer. But the rest of this 97-acre parcel is still mapped ESHA. The biological assessments only stuck to a specific area for the immediate project needs. So we are treating the area outside of this 100-foot buffer as ESHA still. And so with the LCP codes, it's within 200 feet.

Gotcha. Is this site still subject then to the 10,000 square foot development limitation for a development area in the LIP?

Tyler, can you chime in? I believe the answer is no, because it's outside of ESHA.

Exactly. So that would only apply to when Esha is impacted.

Got it. Okay. And then the city already determined that this compacted crushed aggregate base is permeable? Because I saw in the presentation that it mentioned permeable, but looking at the design plans, it looked like a compacted base. So I wasn't sure what the city's determination was on the pavement material or construction material.

It is supposed to be a permeable base. Potentially, Catherine can explain exactly what the material is. There will be a geogrid underneath it to keep it up because once they put down this aggregate base, they cannot keep adding more. So there will be a permeable geogrid and then this gravel, I believe it is just a gravel base, will sit on top of it and the water can permeate through.

Yeah, as long as Public Works is reviewing that, I'll leave that to their discretion, I guess.

Patrick, sorry, real quick. I know that's your area of expertise. Do you have any suggestions for the type of materials?

I mean, if it's going to be permeable, what I would typically do is geotextile below to keep it open gridded so it still has the strength and capacity. but allows water to permeate through. Because that was my primary concern is it looked to me initially like we were exceeding WQMP threshold. So you got to do stormwater treatment, detention for the increased post-development flow. So as long as the city's reviewing the design material and all the hydrologic studies to verify that we're not putting additional demand on a drain that I don't know anything about the sizing about, That was my primary concern. But like I said, I'll leave that up to Public Works to make that determination. And then is the project required then to go through a state SWPPP then for the disturbance? I'm not sure how that works when it's like owned by a public entity.

Yes, we still have to go through a state SWPPP and we did do one. We do have one filed already.

And then with any of this restoration effort, are there going to be additional temporary BMPs installed? Kind of a leading question because I'm looking at the erosion control plan. And if there is additional construction being done, I would suggest something beyond just fiber rolls for protection of the run-on and any sediment from the site itself, specifically like gravel bags. silt fences if there's anything that's just going to be temporarily dirt and unvegetated.

Yeah, and we agree with you, Patrick. And I think in the SWIFT itself, we say that the BMPs will be revised as needed.

Okay.

Patrick, that recommendation has been captured though. So, you know, if the, you know, if that does come to it, you know, so your recommendation is something more than just fiber rolls, silt fences and or gravel bags.

Yeah. And, you know, it's, I'll stay in my lane as much as I can too then with some of this, like it, since it is going through public works review, I'll defer to them as far as

you know any potential concentrated drainage or anything like that so i think as far as my recommendations go you've answered all my questions okay okay wonderful those are really really good comments really good recommendations from both of our erb members um any further clarifications comments recommendations at this time from and i didn't see i don't think i see clark or martini i just want to make sure before we you know close up shop Yeah, I'm not seeing anybody. Okay. Samantha, are you good? I took pretty good notes.

I think I got all the items as well.

Okay. Wonderful. And then if anybody has anything else they think of, feel free to shoot me an email. Yes, of course. Any ERB members specifically.

Those are very helpful comments, so we really appreciate it.

Yeah. Thank you guys so much for your time. And as Gail said, there's going to be an ERB meeting most likely next month. So, you know, have it in your calendars. We really appreciate your time again. And everybody have a wonderful day. This concludes the ERB meeting for July 22nd, 2026. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you all for your time.

Thank you.