Next, we offer an in-depth analysis of the legal authorities that compel the conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote is tantamount to action denying the CDP.
The Planning Commission’s Tie Vote Effectuates Denial of the CDP On March 6, 2023, four members of the Planning Commission properly heard the Project-related CDP application. They had a quorum. Three commissioners constitute a quorum. Of course, “ ‘[a] majority of the quorum may decide.’ [Citations.]” (People ex rel. Flint v. Harrington (1883) 63 Cal. 257, 260.) This means at least three yeas were required to approve the CDP for the Project. The applicant garnered only two. Two yeas do not constitute a majority of the quorum present to approve the CDP.
Because the CDP application couldn’t muster the votes necessary for approval, it must be deemed effectively denied. (REA Enterprises, supra, 52 Cal.App.3d at p. 607.) Similarly, when an ordinance does not receive the legally necessary vote for its passage, it is, “in fact, rejected.” (McCracken v.
San Francisco (1860) 16 Cal. 591, 618; accord, Pimental v. San Francisco (1863) 21 Cal. 351, 360-361.) Well-settled parliamentary rules corroborate these court holdings. “On a tie vote, a motion requiring a majority vote for adoption is lost, since a tie is not a majority.” (Roberts et al., Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed. 2000), § 44 p. 392.) In REA Enterprises, the California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission (the Coastal Commission’s predecessor) considered a CDP for a residential condominium project. The CDP applicant needed at least seven of 12 votes to secure approval of the CDP. The vote was six in favor and six opposed. (Id. at pp. 602, 606-607.) As in our case, the CDP decision-making body was deadlocked. When it was determined that the tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP, the CDP applicant sued. And lost.
The question before the court of appeal was whether the tie vote resulted in the denial of the permit. (Id. at p. 601.) The court answered this question with a straightforward “yes.” It held:
“Action was taken by the State Commission. REA did not receive the statutorily required number of votes. By failure to obtain a majority vote, the action taken by the State Commission effectuated a denial of the issuance of the development permit. [Fn.]” (Id. at p. 607, italics added.) As is self-evident from this holding, the Planning Commission’s tie vote is action. In fact, the court took pains to make clear that a tie vote at the first level of CDP review by the (former) South Coast Regional Commission, too, would be action denying the CDP:
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
“It would be just as fallacious to say that a tie vote by the State Commission did not result in a denial of a permit as to say that such a tie vote at the regional level would not result in a denial of the permit. … The denial is action by the respective commission.” (Id. at p. 607, original italics.) This is significant. Just as the Malibu Planning Commission here, in Rea Enterprises, the regional commission had original CDP jurisdiction.3 The conclusion that the Planning Commission’s tie vote resulted in the denial of the CDP makes the most sense as project applicants have the burden of proof that their projects satisfy the findings requirements upon which permit approval must be premised. (See Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 521; Hauser v. Ventura County Bd. of Supervisors (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 572, 576; see also Vedanta Society of So. California v.
California Quartet, Ltd. (2000) 84 Cal.App.4th 517, 529 [rejecting county counsel’s position that a tie vote constitutes approval of an environmental impact report when findings of approval are mandated by law]; Woodland Hills Residents Assn., Inc. v. City Council (1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 825, 838 [because findings of approval are required to sustain approval of tentative tract maps, a tie vote without findings does not approve the proposed subdivision].)4 Clearly, the fact that the Project 3 Following the tie vote, the Planning Commission passed a motion made by Commissioner Hill, seconded by Commissioner Jennings, to simply forward the CDP application to the City Council on the ground that the commission was deadlocked. (City of Malibu, Planning Commission Regular Meeting March 6, 2023, YouTube (Mar. 6, 2023), 3:07, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pba4eCojGcA (Hearing Video).) This motion doesn’t change the analysis. The Planning Commission has no power under the MLCP or any other law to compel the City Council to review and act upon CDP applications. It has no power to force the City Council to act outside “the powers conferred upon it by law” (Graves, supra, 63 Cal.App.3d at p. 976) or to “act in excess of such powers.” (Ibid.) The council just can’t ignore and violate the CDP appeal procedure mandated by MLIP section 13.20.1. As Commissioner Mazza correctly stated: “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the City Council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04; see id., 3:00 [Commissioner Mazza advising the applicant’s representatives: “You can appeal to the City Council”].) 4 The CDP findings requirements applicable to the Project include the following:
“A. That the project as described in the application and accompanying materials, as modified by any conditions of approval, conforms with certified City of Malibu Local Coastal Program; and “B. If the project is located between the first public road and the sea, that the project is in conformity with the public access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act of 1976 (commencing with Sections 30200 of the Public Resources Code).
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023
applicant failed to persuade a majority of three planning commissioners that the Project complies with the MLCP offers further support and constitutes a strong policy rationale for the rule that a tie vote amounts to an effective denial of the CDP.
*****
Original CDP permit jurisdiction properly lies with the Planning Commission, as conceded by the applicant by its participation in the commission’s hearing. The Planning Commission’s tie vote is action effectively denying the CDP. Given the applicant’s failure to appeal this action within the time limit prescribed by the MLCP, the City Council, as a matter of law, lacks CDP jurisdiction over the CDP application. There is nothing for the council to act on. “If they don’t appeal, they have no right to go to the city council.” (Hearing Video, 3:04.) I look forward to hearing from you and hope this matter can be laid to rest without the need for court action. The applicant may reapply for a CDP as provided in MLIP section 13.23.
Sincerely,
ANGEL LAW
Frank P. Angel
cc: Hon. Mayor Bruce Silverstein, via email to [email protected] Hon. Mayor Pro Tem Steve Uhring, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Paul Grisanti, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Marianne Riggins, via email to [email protected] Hon. Councilmember Doug Stewart, via email to [email protected] Steve McClary, City Manager, via email to [email protected] Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk, via email to [email protected] Patrick T. Donegan, Assistant City Attorney, via email to [email protected] Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, via email to [email protected] “C. The project is the least environmentally damaging alternative. “D. 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.” From: Tyler Eaton
To: malibu planning
Cc: Patricia Salazar
Subject: FW: New Planning Application Routed to City Departments (6734 Zumirez Dr/OC 23-071) Date: Friday, March 17, 2023 12:13:00 PM
Attachments: Biology Review Referral Sheetmsek202303171146.PDF 6734 Zumirez 2023_2023-03-15T22_18_25.7336870Z.pdf
Whoever this is assigned to let’s discuss because this is the same parcel as my CDP that has become controversial.
From: malibu planning <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2023 11:49 AM
To: Courtney McCammon <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; malibu planning <[email protected]>
Subject: New Planning Application Routed to City Departments (6734 Zumirez Dr/OC 23-071) OC 23-071 has been submitted for the project located at 6734 Zumirez Drive. Department Review sheets have been distributed for your review.
Sincerely,
Marina Sek
City of Malibu Planning Department
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: 03/17/2023
JOB ADDRESS: 6734 ZUMIREZ DR
APPLICANT / CONTACT: Benjamin Suber, Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
APPLICANT ADDRESS: 28230 Agoura Rd., Suite 200
APPLICANT PHONE #: (818) 338-3636
APPLICANT FAX #:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Chain Link Fencing in the Front, Rear & Side Yard Setbacks not to Exceed 6 Feet. Emergency purposes
for public safety.
Agoura Hills, CA 91301
PROJECT NUMBER: OC 23-071
APPLICANT EMAIL: [email protected]
Malibu Planning Department and/or Applicant
FROM: City Biologist, Courtney McCammon
PLANNER: Samantha Elias
TO:
The project review package is INCOMPLETE and; CANNOT proceed through Final Planning Review until corrections and conditions from Biological Review are incorporated into the proposed project design
(See Attached).
The project is APPROVED, consistent with City Goals & Policies associated with the protection of biological resources and CAN proceed through the Planning process.
The project may have the potential to significantly impact the following resources, either individually or cumulatively: Sensitive Species or Habitat, Watersheds, and/or Shoreline Resources and therefore Requires Review by the Environmental Review Board (ERB).
Signature Date
Additional requirements/conditions may be imposed upon review of plan revision Contact Information:
Courtney McCammon, City Biologist, [email protected], (310) 456-2489, extension 277 Rev 05/29/2018
0 40 80 160 Feet
Proposed Fence
Required Setbacks
Property Boundary - 6734 Zumirez
SCOPE: Chain Link Fencing in the
Front, Rear & Side Yard Setbacks
not to Exceed 6 Feet.
Required 65'
FY Setback
Required 88' 10"
RY Setback
Required 9' 10"
SY Setback
Required 14' 9"
SY Setback
1 Jason Ernst
From: Douglas Cleavenger
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2023 6:21 AM
To: Schmitz and Associates; Chris Deleau; Tyler Eaton
Cc: Scott Hoeft; Diana Springer; Don Schmitz; Richard Mollica Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Thank you
Doug Cleavenger
Code Enforcement Manager
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (310) 456-2489, ext. 231
Fax: (310) 456-7650
CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE
This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 1, 2023 4:36 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; 2 Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
We got the notice reposted today and the signed affidavit is attached. Thank you again for notifying us about this. I hope you have a great rest of your day.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2023 4:40 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Thank you Tyler. Let us know when its ready and we will pick up and install.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message.
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer 3 <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Yes we received a complaint which is why code enforcement followed up and not me. I was just informed of this also. I guess the solution is to just put up another sign asap.
I will get one prepared and it will be at the counter by tomorrow.
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 3:12 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Tyler, I know this. We did not remove the notice nor were we aware that it was removed. Our client does not live at the residence so he did not know that it had been removed. Why did you not reach out to me personally to ask why it was missing? To ask that we reinstall it? Why am I getting contacted by Code Enforcement about this?
Obviously, one of the neighbors took it down. They probably then called Doug to complaint that there was not notice posted. Not cool. But we will rectify that Immediately.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message. 4 From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 2:23 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]> Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Hi Chris,
The notice needs to stay on the property for the entire length of this process. It is not supposed to be removed until the appeal period ends after a decision is rendered.
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:48 PM
To: Douglas Cleavenger <[email protected]>
Cc: Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Diana Springer <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Importance: High
Doug, I received your message requesting that we post the green card for the CDP pending at the above referenced property on Zumirez. Please see the attached photo that was submitted to the City, demonstrating that the green card was properly posted.
It was laminated and Zip tied to the fence. No one had requested that we reinstall the green card until you called. We weren't aware it had been taken down (we did not do so). If you need us to install a new one we would be pleased to do so.
If Tyler can provide us a new card we will reinstall.
Best Regards,
Schmitz & Associates, Inc.
Christopher M. Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager
5 The content of this email is strictly confidential and only intended for the specified recipient. It is forbidden to share the email or its contents with any third party without the sender’s written consent. If this email reached you by mistake, please let us know so that we can ensure that this doesn’t happen in the future and delete the message.
From: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 27, 2023 12:36 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Posted last summer. Mazza saw me.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Benjamin Suber
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 1:19 PM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Meanwhile, I just posted on site. The notice is at the entrance of the driveway and is visible from Zumirez Drive.
I have a zoomed out photo that I can share if need be. Please let me know if you need anything else as I’m about to get started here soon on the noticing.
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:44 AM
6 To: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Thanks Ben,
I’ll have it ready for you at the counter within the next hour. Appreciate it.
From: Benjamin Suber [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 10:02 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]> Subject: RE: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Hi Tyler,
Intercepting correspondence, I never saw a green placard in my work on this project and if you still have it, I can come down, pick it up and get it posted.
How does that sound?
Benjamin Suber : GIS Manager : Schmitz & Associates, Inc. 28230 Agoura Road, Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
V: (818) 338-3636
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2022 9:55 AM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Cc: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Subject: 6734 Zumirez Property Posting
Hey Chris,
Was the green noticing sign ever posted on the property? If not we’ll need to get this posted asap and return the posting affidavit, attached.
Thanks,
7 Tyler Eaton
Associate Planner | City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu CA, 90265
Office: 310-456-2489 Ext. 273
Mobile: 424-422-8365
//Malibucity.org/planning
From: Chris Deleau
To: Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton; Patricia Salazar; Rebecca Evans; Steve McClary; Trevor Rusin; Patrick Donegan; Kelsey Pettijohn Cc: Adrian Fernandez; Don Schmitz; Scott Hoeft; Schmitz and Associates; Hinks, Matt; Jason Rouse; Ken Adelberg Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Date: Monday, October 2, 2023 4:00:12 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.jpg
image003.png
image004.png
Richard, we have submitted our revised project to the City on March 3rd. Those plans are the ones that constitute our project. Thank you.
Ms. Pettijohn, please make sure to circulate this email chain and our comments herein to the Council members for their review and consideration. Thank you.
Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:52 PM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse ; Ken Adelberg
Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Chris,
As of several months ago, staff was given direction at City Council hearings to not present and analyze modified projects post Planning Commission review. Consistent with our recent practices staff will present the project that was presented to the Planning Commission. Similar to the Planning Commission hearing, you are welcome to submit your revised project and analysis for the consideration of the Council.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 3:34 PM
To: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Patrick Donegan <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>
Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>; Hinks, Matt <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse com>; Ken Adelberg
Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
Richard, the Council Policy you cite is not valid. This alleged policy has not been adopted by resolution or other action of the City Council and is not contained within the Published Council Policies Manual – See policy #14 below requiring that any policy of the Council must be in writing and comport with principles of due process to be effective]. Assuming arguendo, that the policy is law, this policy would only apply to Projects that the Planning Commission has taken final action on (e.g., appeals), as was its intent.
The project plans/description were revised and submitted prior to the March 6, 2023, Planning Commission hearing as was the Applicant’s prerogative. Pursuant to California Law the Applicant can modify, amend, or withdraw its development project application at any time prior to the City taking Final Action on the project.
If the City has a different position, we ask that the City provide the applicant with the applicable codes and [formally] adopted City Council policy(s) that prohibit a development project applicant from so modifying its proposal.
Because the project description was modified prior to Planning Commission hearing and prior to the City taking ANY action on the project (something the City has still not done), the project before the Council is the project as modified per the plans submitted on March 3, 2023.
Below is a link to all adopted Council Policies. You will note that the policy you reference has not been adopted by the City Council and even if it were, the policy would not apply to cases where the City has not taken final action on the permit. https://www.malibucity.org/DocumentCenter/View/46/Council-Policies?bidId= Best,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:42 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Cc: Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Hi Chirs,
Tyler’s comment below echo the direction I have given him as well as that of the City Manager’s office.
Richard
Richard Mollica, AICP
Planning Director
City of Malibu
310.456.2489 ext 346
From: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 2, 2023 9:30 AM
To: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>; Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Chris,
Staff has been directed by Council to present the same project that went before the Commission. We are not supposed to accept changes between meetings. The revised plans you submitted were last minute (Friday after hours before the Monday meeting and the City was experiencing technical difficulties) and placed within an email in which we were expecting an exhibit for a bluff top question we got from a commissioner. Had we known before the meeting that revised plans were presented in that same email, we would have continued the item.
Thus, since the project went forward and was deadlocked, the project being presented to Council the same as it was in March. You can present the new changes and the Council can consider but staff is doing as directed.
Thanks,
Tyler
From: Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 12:59 PM
To: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Rebecca Evans <[email protected]> Cc: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Adrian Fernandez <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Schmitz and Associates <[email protected]> Subject: FW: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
Patricia, I wanted to copy you and Rebecca on the below email which is regarding our project at 6734 Zumirez (Item 4B Appeal going before the City Council in 10 days).
The staff report & Resolution references the wrong plans (not the most recent). Please see the below email and the attached for reference (comments on Staff report).
Call me if you have any questions.
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Chris Deleau
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2023 11:55 AM
To: Tyler Eaton <[email protected]>
Cc: Richard Mollica <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>; Jason Rouse com>; Ken Adelberg
Subject: Comments on Staff Report for 6734 Zumirez (IBN Properties) Importance: High
Tyler,
I previously provided comments on the staff report that was prepared for the prior Planning Commission hearing (March 6, 2023). Some of those comments have not been addressed as staff is reusing the Commission staff report from earlier this year. To this end I wanted to reiterate and clarify the applicant’s position on several matters.
1. Property is not Visible from a Public Beach: In the view protection sections of the staff report and resolution (page 4 resolution under pgh C.1.), the report states inaccurately that the project will be visible from a “public beach.” Paradise Cove beach is a privately owned beach and the Public view protections in the LCP do not regulate/protect private beaches or views from private property.
2. Current Plans & Project Description: We want to confirm that City staff has reviewed the most recent project plans (as it states in the staff report that staff has NOT reviewed the most current plans and that those plans are not the ones under consideration.) The current residence is designed to be 6,173 sq. ft (after elimination of the lower-level bedroom). The staff report and resolution are still referencing the old plans and this needs to be rectified prior to hearing with a Supplemental Agenda Report. Conditions of approval should reference the March 3, 2023 Plans, not the antiquated plan set dated February 8, 2023. The project description in the staff report should be modified to reflect the current scope and .
3. Findings: Page 2 of the September 25, 2023 staff report should be deleted (see below provision). In order to move forward with the correct project description and findings staff should analyze the revised plans for conformance with the LCP/MMC.
4. Private View Protection (Janet Friesen): The PVD for our neighbor, Janet Freisen, located at 6744 Zumirez is not valid. The photos and PVD location, were taken from an unpermitted deck that was constructed, without the benefit of permits, back from 2017 to 2018. During this time, the entire rear deck was reconstructed and significantly enlarged (it’s a new deck). Primary View Locations may only be located on rear decks or from inside the main viewing area of the home. Because the Deck was not legally permitted and constructed, it is not lawful or appropriate to take the neighbor’s private view from an area of bootlegged development. Please see the attached historical aerial photos illustrating that the deck is bootlegged and not appropriately considered as a Primary View Location.
5. Project Support: The prior staff report (February 23, 2023), beginning at page 3, discusses neighbor concerns. It should be noted that the applicant has modified the plans in a manner that is acceptable to several of its neighbors.
The Zicklins (6716 Zumirez) have publicly acknowledged that the applicant’s architectural changes to the lower level has completely addressed their concerns. Additionally, the Penn Family sold their property next door (6726) and the new owner has acknowledged his complete support for the project following the architectural changes made to the prior plans. Ryan Levis who previously represented the Penn family, does not represent the current property owners (who again have submitted a letter in support of the project). Jamie Harnish also commented previously on behalf of the Penn Family (6726) but Mr. Harnish does not represent the current property owner.
Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
Best Regards,
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: Chris Deleau
To: Tyler Eaton
Cc: Schmitz and Associates; Scott Hoeft; Don Schmitz
Subject: FW: 6734 Zumirez: Story Pole Update
Date: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 3:09:37 PM
Attachments: Ben Suber - 6734 Zumirez - Malibu - Certification Invoice 09.25.23.pdf 6734 zumirez cert 2.pdf
Tyler, before the last hearing we were able to update the architectural plans and the story pole plan, but we did not have time previously to update the Story Pole Certification. Accordingly, please find attached the story pole plan with the surveyor’s certification. The poles are accurate and reflect the most recent plans and we made sure that they are all in good working order (Maintenance has just been done on the poles).
Let us know if you have any questions.
Chris Deleau, JD, AICP
Special Projects Manager, Schmitz and Associates
747.494.7293
schmitzandassociates.com
[email protected]
28230 Agoura Rd. Suite 200, Agoura Hills, CA 91301
IMPORTANT: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential. They are intended for the named recipient(s) only. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to anyone or make copies thereof.
From: ashley californiastorypoles.com <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2023 4:42 AM
To: Benjamin Suber <[email protected]>
Cc: Jason Rouse <[email protected]>; Ken Adelberg <[email protected]>; Don Schmitz <[email protected]>; Scott Hoeft <[email protected]>; Chris Deleau <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 6734 Zumirez: Story Pole Update
Hi Ben,
Please see the attached.
Thank you.
A S H L E Y S N O D G R A S S
California Story Poles
[email protected]
(310) 980-2543
82' 84'86'88' 90' 92'94' 96' 98' 100' 102'
104' 82' 84'86'88'90' 92' 94' 96' 98' 100' 100' 102' 78'80' 68'70'72'
74' 76'
78'
92' 94' 96' 98'
90'
POOL EDGE/
FLOOR BELOW
FLAT ROOF
FLAT ROOF BELOW
FLAT ROOF BELOW
FLAT ROOF BELOW
ROOF DECK BELOW
ROOF DECK BELOW
FLAT ROOF BELOW
OPEN TO BELOW
AND ABOVE
OPEN TO BELOW
AND ABOVE
OPEN TO BELOW
AND ABOVE
OPEN TO BELOW
AND ABOVE
OPEN TO BELOW
AND ABOVE
POOL DECK BELOW
POOL BELOW
JACUZZI BELOW
BBQ AREABELOW
MAIN RESIDENCE
#2
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=102.97'H=21.53'
#13
T.R.=118'
N.G.=103.62'
H=14.38'
#18
T.R.=115.5'
N.G.=105.12'H=10.38'
#15
T.handrail=116.5'
N.G.=102.06'H=14.44'
TRELLIS
90% OPEN TO
LIGHT AND AIR
#3
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=102.97'H=21.53'
#1
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=103.18'H=21.32'
#10
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=104'H=20.5'
#11
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=104.81'H=19.69'
#9
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=104.12'H=20.38'
#7
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=100.56'H=23.94'
#8
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=101.35'H=23.15'
#6
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=101.64'H=22.86'
#5
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=101.88'H=22.62'
#4
T.R.=124.5'
N.G.=102'H=22.5'
#14
T.R.=118'
N.G.=103.08'H=14.92'
#12
T.R.=118'
N.G.=105.4'
H=12.6'
#19
T.R.=115.5'
N.G.=105.02'H=10.48'
#16
T.handrail=116.5'
N.G.=101.55'H=14.95'
#17
T.handrail=116.5'
N.G.=97.07'
H=19.43'
#28
T.R.=100.5'
N.G.=92.09'
H=8.41'
#25
T.R.=102.5'
N.G.=92.48'
H=10.02'
#24
T.R.=102.5'
N.G.=89.9'H=12.6'
#23
T.R.=102.5'
N.G.=92.53'H=9.97'
#22
T.R.=102.5'
N.G.=98.69'
H=3.81'
#26
T.R.=102.5'
N.G.=97.17'H=5.33'
#27
T.R.=100.5'
N.G.=91.9'H=8.6'
TRELLIS
90% OPEN TO
LIGHT AND AIR
JACUZZI
RELOCATED
EXTERIOR GROUNDLEVEL STAIRSREMOVED
LOWER FLOOR
ADJUSTMENT
WITHIN FOOTPRINT -
BEDROOM 01,
GROUND FLOOR
LOUNGE AND
JACUZZI REMOVED
OUTDOOR LOUNGE
WITH FIREPIT
BELOW
THE DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS ARE THE PROPERTY
AND COPYRIGHT OF WARREN GARRETT AND SHALL NOT BE
USED ON ANY OTHER WORK EXCEPT BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT
WITH WARREN GARRETT.WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL BE VERIFIED ON THE JOB SITE.
DISCREPANCIES SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF
WARREN GARRETT PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANYWORK.
DRAWING NO.PROJECTDATE
SCALE
DRAWN BY
Zumirez
MP, MS
DRAWING DESCRIPTION
6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, CA 90265
PROJECT ADDRESS
Zumirez
PROJECT NOTES
PROJECTREVISION SCHEDULE
NO. DATE ISSUE
STORY POLE PLAN - MAIN
RESIDENCE
PROJECT OWNER
IBN Properties LLC
5115 Douglas Fir Road, Suite FCalabasas CA 91302 US
MARCH 03, 2023
2020/12/21 CDP INITIAL SUBMITTAL
1 2021/05/12 PLANNING RE-SUBMT
2 2023/03/03 PLANNING RE-SUBMT
1/8" = 1'-0"
SP-0.1
LEGEND
# = POLE NUMBER
T.R. = TOP ROOF/DECK ELEVATION AT
PARAPET OR HIGHEST POINTN.G. = NATURAL GRADE ELEVATIONF.G. = FINISH GRADE ELEVATIONH = HEIGHT OF POLE FROM NATURAL GRADE
CONSTRUCTION MESH CONNECTED
TO POLES - ALL MESH TO BE
CONNECTED AS STRAIGHT LINE
STORY POLE ELEVATION TABULATION (All numbers are in decimal feet)
POLENUMBER
NATURAL
GRADE
FINISH
GRADE
24' from column B or
C whichever is lower
TOP POLE
ELEVATION
1 2
3 4
56 7
89 1011121314
POLENUMBER
NATURAL
GRADE
FINISH
GRADE
24' from column B or
C whichever is lower
TOP POLE
ELEVATION
1516171819
22232425262728
124.5124.5124.5124.5124.5124.5124.5124.5124.5124.5124.5118118118 116.5116.5116.5115.5115.5102.5102.5102.5102.5102.5100.5100.5 STORY POLE ELEVATION TABULATION (All numbers are in decimal feet) 103.18102.97102101.88102.97101.64100.56101.35104.12104104.81105.4103.62103.08 102.06101.55
97.07 105.12105.02
98.6992.53
89.9 92.4897.1791.992.09
104104104104102.5104101102.5101101101101101101
127.18125125125125125124.56125.35128125126.5128127.62127.08 101 125101 125101 121.07104 128104 128101
949099.5
100.8
91.992.09
122.69116.53113.9116.48121.17115.9116.09
POLEHEIGHT
21.3221.5321.5322.522.6222.8623.9423.1520.3820.5
19.6912.614.3814.92
POLE
HEIGHT
14.4414.9519.4310.3810.48
3.819.97
12.610.02
5.338.68.41
TOP POOL EL. 124.5TOP POOL EL. 118TOP POOL EL. 116.5
TOP POOL EL. 115.5TOP POOL EL. 102.5TOP POOL EL. 100.5
18' height elevations called out by the architect on
Sheets HE-0.2 and HE-0.3 should be marked (Black
tape) on all poles depicting 18' from grade on the
second story portion of the residence (or any part of
the structure over 18' in height).
POLES 20 AND 21REMOVED
Agenda Item # 5.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: October 3, 2023 Meeting date: October 9, 2023 Subject: Hybrid Meetings and AB 361
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Receive an update on AB 361 and AB 2449; 2) Consider discontinuing or suspending hybrid meetings, rescinding or ceasing to make the AB 361 findings, and/or provide direction on how hybrid meetings will operate after January 1, 2024; and 3) Provide direction on the meeting format for Commission, Committee, and Board meetings, if appropriate.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.
STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.
DISCUSSION: The City currently conducts all Brown Act meetings in a virtual or hybrid format pursuant to AB 361. As AB 361 approaches its sunset on January 1, 2024, and incidents of Zoom bombing increase, the Council may wish to consider discontinuing hybrid meetings now or provide direction on how meetings should be conducted after AB 361 sunsets.
On March 27, 2023, the City Council launched the hybrid meeting pilot program and subsequently directed the Planning Commission to conduct its meetings in a hybrid format beginning July 17, 2023. These hybrid meetings have been conducted pursuant to AB 361 and allowed members of the public and the City Council to participate in-person or remotely. All other Commissions, Committees and Board continue to meet virtually pursuant to AB 361.
City Council Meeting
10-09-23
Item
5.A.
Agenda Item # 5.A.
AB 361 Sunset
AB 361 terminates on January 1, 2024. While there is some ambiguity in the statute, its provisions provide that so long as the Council can make the findings required by AB 361, and specifically that State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing, remote meetings may continue pursuant to AB 361’s provisions until its termination date.
City Council and Planning Commission Meetings
Once AB 361 sunsets or the required findings are no longer made, the Council may continue to offer the public the opportunity to participate remotely, although it is not required under the Brown Act. If the Council would like to continue conducting hybrid meetings after AB 361, it should consider whether it wants all meetings to be conducted in a hybrid manner, or if some types of meetings (such as trainings and workshops) should be conducted exclusively in-person. Trainings and workshops with a quorum of the Council or Planning Commission must be public meetings, but conducting them in a hybrid manner limits the spaces in which these meetings can be held. This limitation may impact the options for conducting such trainings and workshops.
If hybrid meetings are to continue, the Council should also consider how it would like to conduct meetings when the City or the community experiences technical difficulties that prevent remote participation. Remote participation is a required component under AB 361, but once the City stops operating under its provisions the City would have the option to conduct a meeting where technical issues prevent remote participation—so long as it informs the public that remote participation is not guaranteed, and that the City will not stop a meeting if technical issues arise and prevent remote participation. Should the Council desire to conduct meetings in such a situation, Staff will need to update the notice on the agenda to clarify that the meeting will not be cancelled if technical difficulties occur.
Zoom Bombing
Dozens of cities in California, including Malibu, have experienced incidents of Zoom bombing in recent weeks from groups attempting to disrupt public meetings by making racist and anti-Semitic remarks. In response to these incidents, many cities are suspending hybrid meetings or limiting the time for each public speaker.
All individuals have the right to speak at a public meeting. If the City continues to allow remote participation it may be forced to endure these types of incendiary and hateful comments at its meetings. Such comments negatively impact the community, and also delay and disrupt the City’s ability to conduct its meetings. Cities that do not allow remote participation have avoided being impacted by the Zoom disruptions, while other cities with hybrid participation options have not. Without remote/hybrid participation, individuals must
Agenda Item # 5.A.
show up in person to make these kinds of statements, and also cannot login under multiple false names to gain additional time to speak.
Teleconferencing Considerations
After AB 361 sunsets or the findings are terminated, Councilmembers will only be able to participate remotely under the Brown Act’s general teleconferencing provisions, or AB 2449’s alternate teleconferencing provisions (if hybrid meetings continue).
The Brown Act’s general teleconferencing provisions allow Councilmembers to teleconference during a meeting provided the teleconference location is open to the public and noticed on the agenda and at least a quorum of the Council participates within the City’s jurisdiction.
AB 2449 is only applicable if the Council continues to offer members of the public the opportunity to participate remotely. AB 2449 offers an alternative teleconference option that allows Councilmembers to teleconference during hybrid meetings without publicly noticing their teleconference location if they provide notice of their need to appear remotely for “just cause” or they request the council allow them to participate remotely due to “emergency circumstances.”
“Just cause” is defined as:
• Childcare or caregiving need that requires them to participate remotely. • A contagious illness that prevents a member from attending in person. • A need related to a physical or mental disability as defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 not otherwise accommodated by the ADA
• Travel while on official business of the legislative body or another state or local agency
“Emergency circumstances” is defined as physical or family medical emergency that prevents a member from attending in person.
The legislative body must approve a teleconference request made due to emergency circumstances and these teleconference provisions may not be used by a member of the legislative body to teleconference for a period of more than three consecutive months or 20% of the regular meetings within a calendar year. Remote appearances due to just cause are limited to twice per calendar year.
There are a number of onerous requirements for any meeting where AB 2449’s provisions are implemented, including that in the event there is a disruption that interrupts the Council’s broadcast to the public, or a disruption within the City’s control preventing the public from offering public comment, the Council cannot take any further action until such
Agenda Item # 5.A.
service is restored. If the Council continues to allow remote participation after AB 361’s provisions no longer apply to the City, staff will bring back a policy and a plan to meet the technical requirements of AB 2449.
Commission and Subcommittee Meetings
After AB 361 sunsets or the findings are no longer made, Commission and Subcommittee meetings will return to in-person meetings. Meetings will be conducted at City Hall and members of the public will be able to participate in-person or via correspondence submitted before the meeting.
Pursuant to the Malibu Municipal Code, Commissioners are subject to attendance requirements. If a Commissioner is absent from three successive regular meetings without being excused by the commission or is absent for any reason for more than six regular meetings in any twelve (12) month period, the office of such member shall be deemed vacated. As it can be more challenging to attend in-person meetings than virtual meetings, staff will remind Commissioners of the attendance requirements before inperson meetings resume.
ATTACHMENTS: None.
Agenda Item # 6.A.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Nadia Fahoum, Assistant Civil Engineer
Reviewed by: Robert Duboux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: June 14, 2023 Meeting date: October 9, 2023 Subject: Outdoor Warning Sirens System (Continued from September 25, 2023) RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Receive a presentation on outdoor warning sirens; and 2) Provide directions to staff regarding the implementation of an outdoor warning system.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for the design of this project is included in the Adopted Budget for FY 2023-24 in Account No. 102-9219-5100 (Outdoor Warning Sirens - Design). The City was awarded funding through the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for the design and environmental compliance of an outdoor warning siren system. The grant was awarded in the amount of $951,633.
The HMGP grant program requires a local funding match of at least 25% from the City, or $237,908.
The total project costs, including the installation of a siren system, is estimated to be $2,728,000. Since the project grant only contributes $951,663, additional funding is required to construct a siren system.
Funding Estimated Costs
Federal Match (75%)
City match (25%)
Total HMGP Amount
$713,755
$237,908
$951,663
Design Services
Pilot Phase
Construction/Installation
(32 Sirens)
Total
$198,000
$30,000
$2,500,000
$2,728,000
Funding Shortfall $1,776,367
City Council Meeting
10-09-23
Item
6.A.
Agenda Item # 6.A.
Additional funding for this project could be obtained by seeking further grants or by additional appropriations from the General Fund undesignated reserve. The total amount of additional funds, if any, will be dependent upon which design alternative is selected.
WORK PLAN: This item was included as item 1.h. in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2022-
23. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2023-24 Work Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION: On November 12, 2018, the President declared the Woolsey Fire a major disaster, making federal disaster aid available to Los Angeles, Ventura, and Butte County.
In addition to the federal disaster funding for emergency response and repair, FEMA offered their HMGP that assists in implementing long-term hazard mitigation planning and projects to prevent or mitigate future disasters.
In the aftermath of the Woolsey Fire, the City pursued a variety of grant opportunities to secure funding for emergency preparedness, including improvements to emergency communications. The City also submitted a HMGP grant application for emergency sirens.
On February 5, 2021, the City was awarded the HGMP grant for the design of an outdoor warning siren system.
In December 2019, the City contracted with Mission Critical Partners to conduct a siren sound study to determine the optimum quantity and locations for an effective alerting system. A siren alerting system is an outdoor warning system designed to alert the public of an event or possible event, depending on how it is utilized. While there may be instances where someone will hear a siren indoors, depending on the construction of the building, location, and distance from the siren, siren systems are primarily for outdoor alerting.
Indoor notification is not guaranteed but is available through various other technologies.
Sirens are just one tool used in a comprehensive public safety alerting strategy and complement other alerting tools such as reverse 911 systems and wireless emergency alerts.
The study by Mission Critical Partners was completed in June 2020 and presented to the Public Safety Commission for a recommendation on August 5, 2020. The Commission recommended that an item be brought back as soon as possible with other options to consider as alternatives to sirens for alerting the community and visitors of a fire or other impending disaster threat with a specific focus on nighttime warnings.
At the November 9, 2020, Council meeting, Council received a presentation of the Siren Feasibility Report from Mission Critical Partners and directed staff to move forward with Option 2 (20 sites, Mix of High and Low Power Sirens) and to collaborate with the County of Los Angeles and Las Virgenes-Malibu Council of Governments.
Agenda Item # 6.A.
On April 29, 2021, the City issued a Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P) for engineering design services for the Outdoor Warning Sirens Systems project. On November 22, 2021, the City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Acoustic Technology Inc. (ATI) to provide engineering design services for the Outdoor Warning Sirens project. This agreement included an initial task of using computerized modeling systems, and field verification to evaluate specific locations for the proposed sirens.
In March 2022, a preliminary speaker orientation and placement using available information on topography, buildings, etc. to propose optimal coverage using a computer model was provided to the City. The preliminary design proposed 32 total sirens throughout the City to provide adequate acoustic coverage. The sirens were proposed to be installed within the City, County, or State property. The typical pole height of the sirens proposed was estimated to be 50 feet. The total cost of the proposed permanent siren system was estimated to be $2,500,000.
In 2022, the Outdoor Warning Sirens Steering Committee was formed to provide support and oversight to the project. The preliminary design was presented to the Steering Committee, and the Committee provided input on the design. The Steering Committee raised concern that the proposed design of 32 sirens of 50-foot poles and eight speakers may yield little support from the community. Through discussions with Acoustic Technology Inc., it was determined permanent sirens could be modified and reduced to 30 feet in height producing similar acoustic coverage.
Based upon the input from the Steering Committee and the Public Safety Commission, staff developed the following design alternatives for this project:
Alternative 1 – Pilot Phase
This design alternative includes the temporary installation of siren poles at various locations within the City. ATI, the City’s design consultant, can deploy temporary sirens on a trailer mounted system. The siren poles will have four speakers and will be 30 feet in height. The pilot program will be deployed at eight locations within the City over a couple of days and, weather permitting, within different environmental conditions. The eight locations were identified by high risk, high volume, fire prone regions, and areas that experienced limited notification. Each test location would require a temporary use permit (TUP) from the Planning Department for a two-week trial period. It was recommended to deploy the temporary sirens during high wind events similar to what is expected during a Santa Ana wind event. This will allow the public to witness in real time the implementation of the sirens. The pilot phase would not require additional funding and the final cost of a pilot phase would be determined by the number of deployable sirens to be rented. At the completion of the pilot phase, staff will present data and comments from the community to the Commissions for further recommendations.
Agenda Item # 6.A.
Alternative 2 – Siren Permanent Installation
This alternative would include the installation of the 32 recommended sirens throughout the City. The height of the permanent sirens can range from 30 feet to 50 feet poles and would require separate Coastal Development Permits. The method of communication with the siren includes radios, IP ethernet, fiber optics, cellular modem, satellite modem, and microwave. In the event of power loss, the siren batteries provide a full week of standby time followed by at least 30 minutes of continuous activation. The current agreement with ATI includes the completion of the design services for these permanent poles. However, the construction and installation of the sirens and system would require additional funding of $1,776,367.
Alternative 3 – Phased Siren Permanent Installation
This alternative includes a phased installation of permanent sirens, beginning with the locations that have been identified as high risk. The height of the permanent sirens can range from 30- to 50-foot poles. The construction and installation of the sirens and system would require additional funding and the final amount would be determined by the number of sirens to be installed.
Alternative 4 – Indoor Notification Systems
As an alternative to outdoor warning sirens, Council may elect to explore the implementation of indoor notification systems. These types of systems can send alerts and messages to recipients who have receiver devices located inside their home or business. These alerts can include National Weather Service weather warnings, evacuation instructions, Amber Alerts, school closings, and other alerts generated by the City. Alert FM, a type of indoor notification system, can transmit information over a radio network in areas with good coverage. These devices can be installed inside the home and connected to continuous power via a USB connection. The devices have battery backup systems (AA-sized batteries) that can keep the device operational for 4 weeks without external power. Alert FM also has the capability of sending alerts and messaging via email and text. This type of system has been shown to be effective even during power, cellular, and network outages. Butte County and Shasta County have implemented similar systems.
On May 3, 2023, staff presented siren design alternatives to the Public Works and Public Safety Commissions. The outdoor siren alternatives were discussed as well as implementing a pilot program. The commissions also discussed the option of implementing an indoor warning system. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Public Works and Public Safety Commissions recommend implementing Alternative 1 – Pilot Phase, a trial program of the siren system.
Staff is seeking direction from City Council regarding the implementation of an outdoor warning system.
Agenda Item # 6.A.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Temporary Deployable Sirens
2. Pilot Testing Locations
3. Permanent Sirens
4. Permanent Sirens Locations
MHPSS
Mobile High Powered Speaker Station
• Exceptional acoustic performance and intelligibility
• Message encryption and security coding prevents unauthorized system activations
• 1600 Watts of continuous audio output power
• Up to 255 pre-recorded voice messages with up to 100 hours of recording time
• 60 minutes of continuous tone operation*
• 7 days of standby time without AC power
• 10 standard alert tones plus live PA broadcast ability • Automatic gain control for consistent output volume
• Remote control, monitoring, and activation
• Redundant communication paths available for larger
• MNS systems: IP (Ethernet), radio (UHF/VHF), fiber, twisted pair/phone-line, satellite, and cellular*
• Solar panel*
A high powered outdoor PA speaker mounted on a sturdy steel trailer for easy transport. Provides 1600 Watts of continuous audio output power for reliable alert tone notification and delivery of pre-recorded messages in emergency situations or for public address. Designed for temporary usage including military installations, sporting events, large public gatherings or construction sites where a permanent mass notification system is not cost-effective.
KEY FEATURES
30 Jeffries St. Boston, MA 02128 | 617.567.4969 | atisystems.com | [email protected] Attachment 1 PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES HPSS 1600 Trailer 400W Speaker
Length: 40” 184” 19”
Width: 23” 80” 21”
Depth: 15” 22” 24.34”
Weight: 118 lbs 2500 lbs 45 lbs
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature: -40°C to +60°C
Humidity: 0 to 95% non-condensing
* Additional hardware/firmware may be required. § Assuming 2 or 4 12V 100AH batteries ELECTRICAL CHARACTERISTICS HPSS 1600 Watt HPSS 3200 Watt Supply Voltage: 120VAC 60Hz, 240VAC 50Hz 120VAC 60Hz, 240VAC 50Hz Supply Current Max: 5A 3A
Standby Current (24 VDC): 550mA typical § 550mA typical § Standby Time (without AC): > 7 days § > 7 days §
Activation Time Max: 60 minutes
(steady tone, full power) §
60 minutes
(steady tone, full power) §
Battery Backup: 2 to 12V 100AH* 2 to 12V 100AH*
Radio Power Supply: 12V DC, 12A max* 12V DC, 12A max*
COMMUNICATION I/O
Communication (to ATI units): UHF/ VHF RF, IP, Ethernet-over-Fiber, Telephone/ Twisted - DSL, Cellular, and Satellite RS485/RS232 Port: 1 maximum (either RS485 or RS232)*
Signaling Inputs: 8 maximum (configurable)*
Signaling Outputs: 8 maximum (configurable)*
Audio Out (for PA or FACP): Configurable 300/600 ohm balanced or unbalaced*
PRE-RECORDED MESSAGES/TONE CHARACTERISTICS
Alert Tones: 10 pre-configured alert tones
Recorded Messages: 255 max
Recording Time Max: 100 hours (depends on recording content) AMPLIFIER CHARACTERISTICS HPSS1600 HPSS3200
400W Speakers: Up to 4 UP to 8
Output Voltage: 25V 25V
Power max (audio/strobe): 1600W RMS 3200W RMS
Audio Bandwith: 250Hz to 5kHz 250Hz to 5kHz
Output Regulation: < 1dB no load to full load < 1dB no load to full load Amplifier Efficiency 90% 90%
PROPOSED PILOT LOCATIONS
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Agenda Item # 6.B.
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Alexis Brown, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: September 6, 2023 Meeting date: October 9, 2023 Subject: Malibu Schools Centralized Fundraising & Athletics Pathway RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the Administration & Finance Subcommittee to review and provide recommendation to City Council concerning special funding request or Malibu Centralized Fundraising & Athletics Pathway Initiative.
FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this initiative was not included in the Adopted Budget for FY 2023-24. An Appropriation of $350,000 is being requested over the term of two (2) fiscal years to be revisited annually.
WORK PLAN: This project was not included in the Adopted Work Plan for FY 2022-23.
Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2023-24 Work Plan is finalized.
DISCUSSION: The City of Malibu was approached by members of PTSA Malibu and Malibu Leadership Council to discuss opportunities to enhance Malibu’s education system through two initiatives; creation of a Centralized Funding Entity and Implementation of Athletic Pathways.
The Malibu High School PTSA supports both Malibu High School and Malibu Middle School. It is a unit of the California State PTA and National PTA organizations and shares the common mission to positively impact the lives of all children and families. The PTSA provides financial and parent support for supplemental classroom supplies, field trips, college and career services, SAT/ACT test prep, science and technology programs, bilingual support, Mindfulness Support, CPR certification, the library, the copy center, the website, the directory, emergency supplies, parent education, family and multicultural events, staff appreciation, student counseling programs, student honors and graduation ceremonies, senior scholarships and legislative support.
City Council Meeting
10-09-23
Item
6.B.
Agenda Item # 6.B.
The Malibu Leadership Council was formed in 2014 by parent leaders and local heads of student organizations in an effort to promote Malibu’s interests in the broader educational community. Members of the Council include representatives from the PTA/PTSA of Malibu Schools, Malibu Boys & Girls Club, Malibu Shark Fund and Advocates for Malibu Public Schools (AMPS).
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Copy of Email Correspondence Between City Officials and PTSA Malibu
2. Copy of Centralized Fundraising & Athletics Pathway Benchmark Budget Sheet
3. Copy of Library Tax Allocation Request
1 Kelsey Pettijohn
Subject: Malibu Fundraising Entity & Athletics Pathway
Attachments: Malibu Schools_Centralized Fundraising and Athletics Pathway_Benchmark Budget-Sheet 1.pdf; MSLC_Malibu Library Tax Allocation Request_7.10.23_LA County.pdf On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 2:16 PM PTSA Malibu <[email protected]> wrote:
Dear Mayor Silverstein:
We hope this email finds you well. As parent leaders at each of the Malibu Public Schools and key community and district partners, we are requesting a meeting with you both to discuss two crucial topics that we believe will greatly benefit our community's education system: Establishing a Centralized Fundraising Entity and Implementing an Athletics Pathway starting from the elementary school level.
We can make a group of us available next week on Tuesday or Wednesday between 10-12 and can use Malibu High School as a meeting location. Please let us know if an hour works for the both of you within those windows.
We want to emphasize that our group is engaging in similar conversations at the district level and with the other city council members in small groups. By seeking feedback from key stakeholders to support a collaborative and openminded approach, we are confident we can collectively develop a strong plan forward with broad buy-in and support.
As concerned citizens and advocates for quality education in Malibu, we believe these two initiatives can significantly contribute to the growth and development of our education systems, now and when we become a standalone district.
Centralized Fundraising Entity: Since separating from the Santa Monica Education Foundation, the burden of fundraising for staff and staffed programs has fallen onto the shoulders of the two elementary school PTAs and volunteer parents at the High School. Establishing this entity now will enable us to streamline and maximize community support for education-related initiatives by consolidating fundraising efforts and resources into a professionally-led organization to better address the needs of our students and provide them with enhanced educational opportunities.
Athletics Pathway: Strengthening the many city and partner-led athletics offerings from elementary school and aligning them more closely the needs and campuses of our students can help to strengthen our High School Athletics program and maintain enrollment within our schools and significantly benefit our students. By offering organized and competitive sports programs and fostering a culture of physical activity and team spirit at an early age, we can nurture well-rounded individuals and promote lifelong healthy habits.
We kindly request a meeting with this committee (names below) to further discuss these topics, share a proposal we have created for feedback and explore the feasibility of implementing these initiatives in our community. We believe that our collective efforts can significantly enhance the educational experience for students in a separate Malibu School District and benefit the community overall.
Additionally, if there is any information or material that would be helpful for us to share or prepare in advance, please do not hesitate to let us know.
Attachment 1
2 Best regards,
Karin Al-Hardan
President, Malibu Middle and High School PTSA
Jessica Butler-Bell
President, Webster Elementary PTA
Melanie Heseker
President, Malibu Elementary School PTA
Josie Kletter and Roui Israel
Co-Chairs, Malibu Schools Leadership Council
Isaac Burgess
Executive Director, SMMUSD Malibu Pathway Executive
Stacy Rouse
Board Member, SMMUSD Board of Education
Kasey Earnest
Chief Professional Officer, BGCM
--
Malibu Middle + High School PTSA
PTSAmalibu.membershiptoolkit.com
Follow us on FB, Insta and Twitter @PTSAmalibu
discussion.
Thank you for your attention to these matters, and we look forward to the opportunity to engage in a productive Table 1
Funding
Needed
Centralized
Fundraising
Entity Funding
Cost Detail Athletics Pathway
Funding
Cost Detail SMMUSD
Funding for
Elementary
School IA’s + Art
(Year 1)
TOTAL FUNDING Success Benchmarks
9.1.23 $12,000 - Consultant (3
months)
$24,233 - Athletic coordinator (1 month
salary) ($8,333)
- 3 Fall Coaches ($9,000)
- FIYA league Fees - Fall ($2,400)
- Fall Uniforms & Equipment
($4,500)
$36,233 1. Strategic approach delivered for fundraising entity.
2. Fall Athletics teams established at MMS (Track &
Field, Girls Volleyball, Flag Football and/or Tennis)
3. Athletic Coordinator and/or Coaches Hired and
program goals set.
10.1.23 (Q4)
$55,000 - Athletic Coordinator Salary
($25,000)
- Transportation ($30,000)
$94,000
$0
$55,000 1. Middle School Athletics Program Established and Active
District Funding for Aides & Arts reduces the need.
1.1.24 (Q1)
$10,000 - Consultant support
+ Recruiting for
Executive Director
$35,200 - Athletic Coordinator Salary
($25,000)
- 2 Winter Coaches ($6,000)
- FIYA League Fees - Winter
($1,600)
- Winter Uniforms & Equipment
($3,000
- Transportation ($10,000)
$94,000
$3,000
$48,200 1. Launch Plan in place, fundraising goals established.
2. Active Recruitment for Executive Director.
3. MMS Athletics participation growth
4. Establish plan for Elementary School Athletic Clinics District Funding for Aides & Arts reduces the need.
4.1.24 (Q2)
$60,000 - Hire Exec. Director
(3 months salary)
- Consultant
Support ($10k)
$70,900 - Athletic Coordinator Salary
($25,000)
- 3 Spring Coaches ($9,000)
- FIYA League Fees - Spring
($2,400)
- Spring Uniforms & Equipment
($4,500)
- Transportation ($30,000)
$94,000
$76,500
$207,400 1. Launch plan finalized and underway.
2. Athletics Pathway plan - elementary to Middle
School - established.
3. Year 1 Assessment and recommendations provided
to Malibu City.
District Funding for Aides & Arts reduces the need.
7.1.24 (Q3)
$60,000 - Exec. Director (3
months salary)
- Consultant
Support ($10k)
$70,900 - Athletics Coordinator Salary
($25,000)
- 3 Fall Coaches ($9,000)
- FIYA League Fees - Fall ($2,400)
- Fall Uniforms & Equipment
($4,500
- Transportation ($30,000)
$94,000
$76,500
$207,400 1. Fundraising Entity Awareness and momentum.
2. Established goals for launch met/exceeded.
3. Athletics Pathway awareness and momentum.
4. SMMUSD Agreement to assume cost gaps for IA’s
and Arts for 2024-2026 school years.
District Funding for Aides & Arts reduces the need.
10.1.24 (Q4)
$60,000 - Exec. Director (3
months salary)
- Consultant
Support ($10k)
$25,000 - Athletics Coordinator Salary $85,000 1. Positive Feedback from parents and students.
2. Funding entity benchmark goals met.
2025 $200,000 - Exec. Director
(Annual Salary)
$202,000 Annual Cost (as above) $402,000 1. $1.5M in endowments established. $500k in annual funds raised.
2. 6+ Teams Established for MMS.
3. 4+ Athletics clinics for Elementary School.
2026 $200,000 - Exec. Director
(Annual Salary)
$202,000 Annual cost (as above) $402,000 1. $3M in endowments established. $1M in annual funds raised.
2. Funding for current and expanded staff established.
3. Successful Athletics Pathway.
TOTAL $602,000 $685,233 $0 $1,443,233
1 Attachment 1
MSLC for Malibu Public Schools
Library Tax Allocation Request 2023
MALIBU SCHOOLS LEADERSHIP COUNCIL (MSLC) is composed of PTA Presidents and Principals from our four Malibu Public schools, as well as Boys & Girls Club Malibu Leadership, SMMUSD Pathway Director and a Board of Education Representative.
The MSLC Mission is to advocate on behalf of Malibu Public School students to ensure equitable learning experiences at our local schools.
CURRENT STATE: Malibu’s Pathway of 4 public schools and 1,200 students rely on parent volunteers to raise roughly $1M annually across all schools to fund staff (instructional aides, arts, technology, marine science, athletics and counseling) to fill basic gaps in school district funding for staff and additional staffed programs.
Santa Monica’s Pathway of 13 public schools and 8,000 students benefit from a professionally run centralized fundraising entity which raises and distributes roughly $2M each year to fund incremental staff, art, science programs, gardening programs and an athletics pathway starting in elementary school at all the Santa Monica Public Schools.
To create equitable and holistic public school experience for all students in Malibu and Santa Monica, and to foster a lifelong love of learning, we need to establish a self-sustaining centralized fundraising entity in Malibu to address student educational needs, now and for future generations.
THE REQUEST: The MSLC, with the support of members of the Malibu City Council, is advocating for temporary funding from the Malibu Library Tax Allocation Fund over the next 3 years (Fall 2023 - June 2026) to assist in establishing a professional centralized fundraising entity for Malibu Schools to support the public education experience, specifically: language, arts, athletics and basic literacy programs in the Malibu pathway. Note, this funding is temporary and would sunset once the organization and the community is able to develop a sustainable model and program within the Malibu pathway. This may also include the development of a Malibu Unified School District that is currently under negotiation.
A top-line benchmark budget, estimated to be roughly $500-700k/year, is outlined below.
THE NEXUS: The funding is being requested to establish a self-sustaining entity to support language arts, literacy, and other educational programs in the Malibu’s Public Schools forever.
Malibu’s (public and school) Libraries and this fundraising entity will be connected through:
1. Shared Goals: There is already a number of cooperative programs between the local library and the schools, so the precedent for such funding already exists. Both entities are committed to supporting education, learning and the overall development of individuals within the community. This fundraising entity will improve the educational experience for all Malibu Public School students, not just those that can afford outside enrichment opportunities.
A Malibu Schools Leadership Council Effort
Contact: Karin Al-Hardan, Chair, The Shark Fund | EMail: [email protected] | Mobile: 310-709-2255 Attachment 3
2. SMMUSD Budget Reallocation: The ability to secure these funds will potentially also allow the SMMUSD to relocate current funding to support specific (staffing and programatic elements) of the existing Malibu Pathway budget.
3. Comprehensive Support: The current environment for students in Malibu, who have weathered wildfires, a pandemic and a rapidly changing world, requires a well-rounded education which encompasses academics as well as arts and athletics. Funding solely focused on libraries is important, but may not be sufficient to provide a holistic educational experience. This fundraising entity will provide financial support to bridge the gap by providing additional resources and financial support specifically dedicated to supporting academics, arts and athletics in Malibu public schools.
4. The Ripple Effect: There is no question as to the need and the clear linkage between what the City of Malibu and the County have noted is their vision for this funding in the past.
Investing in academics, arts, and athletics can lead to positive outcomes in various aspects of a student’s life. Research shows that students engaged in extracurricular activities have higher academic performance, improved social skills and increased motivation. Libraries will benefit from this ripple effect by providing a supportive environment for students to further explore their interests, engage in research related to their pursuits, and foster a love for reading and learning.
TOP-LINE BENCHMARK BUDGET: Initial estimates for necessary funding support.
A Malibu Schools Leadership Council Effort
Contact: Karin Al-Hardan, Chair, The Shark Fund | EMail: [email protected] | Mobile: 310-709-2255 A Malibu Schools Leadership Council Effort
Contact: Karin Al-Hardan, Chair, The Shark Fund | EMail: [email protected] | Mobile: 310-709-2255