Agenda packet, first session — Malibu City Council, October 23, 2023 (part 6 of 6)

explained below, the applicant’s failure to appeal leaves the City Council without jurisdiction to review or act upon the CDP application for the Project.1 *****
The Malibu Local Coastal Program Local Implementation Plan (MLIP) makes clear that, except for administrative or emergency permits, which the Planning Director may decide in the first instance, the Planning Commission is responsible for deciding all CDPs in the first instance, subject to appeal to the City Council (and the Coastal Commission). (MLIP, §§ 13.7, 13.20.1 (A).) Any “aggrieved person” may appeal. (Id., § 13.20.1 (A).) Alternatively, the City Council itself may appeal, upon the affirmative vote of at least three of its members. (Id., § 13.20.1 (H).) “An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) days following the date of action for which appeal is made.”
(MLIP, § 13.20.1 (B), italics added.)2 No hearing may be scheduled before the City Council, unless the City Clerk has received an appeal in proper form. (Id., § 13.20.1 (D) [“Upon receipt in proper form of an appeal, the appeal shall be set for the appropriate hearing body”].) On March 28, 2023, that is, substantially more than ten days after the Planning Commission’s March 6 meeting, we learned from the City Clerk (a) that the Project applicant did not appeal; and (b) that notwithstanding the applicant’s failure to appeal and the absence of any appeal by the City Council from the Planning Commission’s action, the Project is tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on June 12, 2023. This process is fundamentally unlawful and exposes the City Council to legal action for exceeding its CDP jurisdiction under the MLCP and caselaw precedent.

In State v. Superior Court (1974) 12 Cal.3d 237, the California Supreme Court, in no uncertain terms, held that an appellate CDP administrative decision-making body has no jurisdiction over a CDP application where the decision of the lower body with original jurisdiction was not timely appealed. (Id. at p. 248; see Park Area Neighbors v. Town of Fairfax (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1442, 1448-1449 [a failure to timely appeal a planning commission’s action is tantamount to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies; where there is a prescribed procedure for appealing to a city council, that procedure must be followed]; Franklin, supra, 131 Cal.App.3d at p. 562 [local permit appeals board held to be without jurisdiction to hear appeal from denial of variance where appeal 1 At this juncture, the applicant is free to reapply with the planning department at the expiration of a twelvemonth period ensuing the Planning Commission’s denial action. (MLIP, § 13.22.) 2 In the context of a deadline to appeal action on a development permit application to an administrative appellate body, the word “shall” is mandatory. (Franklin v. Steele (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 558, 561.) 412
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023

Page 3 ends

was filed 11 days beyond 10-day appeal period]; Samber, Inc. v. City of Oceanside (Mar. 28, 2008, No. D050107) 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 2691, at *18-19; id. at *24-25 [if no appeal or call for council review, which Oceanside’s zoning ordinance allows any council member to initiate, is filed within 10 days of a planning commission decision, the decision takes effect, and the city council thereafter has no power to review it]; id. at *36 [“Because no call for review stating the reasons for the review was filed with the City Clerk within 10 days of the Planning Commission’s decision, the decision became effective upon the termination of the appeal period”]; see also Graves v.

Commission on Professional Competence (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 970, 976 [an administrative agency “must act within the powers conferred upon it by law and may not validly act in excess of such powers”].)
As is further evident from the above-quoted MLCP provisions, without appeal from the Planning Commission’s action denying the CDP, nothing triggers City Council jurisdiction over the CDP. The City Council’s authority to consider CDP applications derives from the MLCP, and the MLCP nowhere reserves authority in the council to decide CDPs other than pursuant to a timely appeal duly filed within ten days of the Planning Commission’s action. An appeal from such action denying a CDP is the only procedural mechanism legally available to a CDP applicant, as the party aggrieved by the Planning Commission’s action, to trigger City Council jurisdiction over the CDP.

Simply put, without an appeal enabling the council to acquire CDP jurisdiction after the Planning Commission has acted, the council has no power to determine the CDP application for the Project Based on the authorities cited in this letter and our client’s due process right to proper CDP procedure -- a procedure certified by the California Coastal Commission when it adopted the MLCP pursuant to legislative mandate codified in Public Resources Code section 30166.5 -- we strongly object to any attempt by the City Council to assume jurisdiction over the CDP application when the applicant has neglected to appeal and there is no legal basis in the Coastal Act and the MLCP, which govern the CDP review process, empowering the council to decide a CDP application, and absent timely appeal by an aggrieved party or by the council itself. Consequently, we demand that the City Council refrain from hearing the CDP application. It is a well-established principle of California law that in the circumstances prevailing here, council action on the application for the CDP -- which would be adjudicatory (i.e., non-legislative) action -- is subject to writ or injunctive relief from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. (See State v. Superior Court, supra, 12 Cal.3d at p. 248; Johnston v. Board of Supervisors (1947) 31 Cal.2d 66, 72-74 [injunction affirmed, restraining legislative body from attempting to grant use permit it had no jurisdiction to grant absent prior approval decision by the planning commission]; see San Ysidro Irrigation Dist. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (1961) 56 Cal.2d 708, 720 [courts of equity are justified in issuing injunctive relief to restrain municipal corporations from “acting, or proposing to act, in excess of their jurisdiction”].)
413
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023

Page 4 ends

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:
414
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023

Page 5 ends

“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).
415
Trevor Rusin
City Attorney
April 11, 2023

Page 6 ends

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.” 416
1 City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 4.B, October 9, 2023 City Council Meeting (6734 Zumirez Dr.) Attachments: Ltr. re Agenda Item 4.B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF; M. Johnsson Memo. re Agenda Item 4B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF; E. Read Memo. re Agenda Item 4B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF
From: Ginetta Giovinco
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:31 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 4.B, October 9, 2023 City Council Meeting (6734 Zumirez Dr.) Good Afternoon, Honorable Mayor and Honorable Members of the City Council:

In connection with Item 4.B on your agenda for the October 9, 2023 City Council meeting, attached please find correspondence along with two supporting memoranda.

Thank you for your consideration of these items.

Ginetta L. Giovinco
Attorney

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
T:

NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you.
417
Los Angeles San Francisco Orange County Temecula Central Coast Sacramento RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON Ginetta L. Giovinco
T 213.626.8484
F 213.626.0078
E [email protected]
350 South Grand Avenue
37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
rwglaw.com
October 6, 2023

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor Steve Uhring and
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Re: City Council Agenda Item 4B – October 9, 2023 Meeting Coastal Development Permit No. 20-068, Site Plan Review No. 21-009, and Demolition Permit No. 20-028
(6734 Zumirez Drive; Owner: IBN Properties, LLC)
Dear Honorable Mayor and Honorable Members of the City Council:

Our office represents the Gil Friesen Trust on behalf of Janet Friesen in connection with the proposed coastal development permit (CDP) sought by IBN Properties, LLC (Applicant) for a residential development project located at 6734 Zumirez Drive (Project).

At the outset, we respectfully object to this matter proceeding before the City Council. As set forth in detail in correspondence from Angel Law dated April 11, 2023, based on the Project’s failure to obtain three affirmative votes on the CDP, and the lack of any timely appeal from that vote, this Council does not have jurisdiction over the Project. In short, there is no basis upon which this Council should proceed to take any action on the Project.

Should the Council choose nonetheless to proceed with this matter, the Council still should not approve the Project for several reasons – each of which, standing alone, is sufficient to justify a decision not to approve the Project as proposed.

First, during the course of the Planning Commission hearing in March 2023, the Applicant’s representative, in his PowerPoint presentation, rushed through two versions of the Project in an effort to address a neighbor’s concerns. To date, we are not aware that any of these revisions have been analyzed in any meaningful way, or at all. Stated differently, the Projectrelated information contained in the agenda packet does not appear to be for the actual, 418

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
Honorable Mayor Steve Uhring and
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Malibu
October 6, 2023 Page | 2
“updated” version of the Project that we understand the Applicant now is proposing. As a result, as well as for the reasons set forth in our experts’ comments (discussed below), because the older version is now presented as the Project, both this Council and the public – including our client – have been deprived of the opportunity to fully evaluate the Project and its potential impacts.

Second, the Applicant has failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate consistency with requirements of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP), including relating to geology. We are enclosing with our correspondence a Memorandum from Mark Johnsson, a professional geologist who served as the California Coastal Commission’s Staff Geologist from 2000-2017 and who authored the draft of what became Chapter 10.4 of the LCP’s Local Implementation Plan dealing with geologic stability. As stated in Mr. Johnsson’s Memorandum, the Project information provided to date fails to provide sufficient data to address concerns regarding (1) the possibility of faulting at the site and (2) the potential for retreat of the bluff at the site.

Further subsurface investigation is required, as is additional evaluation of potential, future erosion of the slope. This information is critical to a complete understanding of the Project and its potential impacts. The LCP demands inclusion of this information in the CDP application for vetting of the Project before City decision-makers’ and the public’s review.

Third, the Applicant also has failed to meet its burden of proof to demonstrate the Project’s consistency with portions of the LCP that exist to protect biological resources. We are enclosing a Memorandum from Edith A. Read, a Certified Senior Ecologist who has conducted numerous biological inventories and assessments in the City of Malibu for over a decade. As explained in the Memorandum, the Project is located next to a natural creek that may qualify as an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). While the creek is not shown as ESHA on City maps, that has not stopped the City from requiring biological review in other, recent situations. For example, as stated in Ms. Read’s Memorandum, City staff recently required a biological study for property located nearby (also on Zumirez Drive, but actually at greater distance from the environmentally sensitive intertidal zone than the Project site), due to the location above a drainage feature called Walnut Canyon that was not shown on City maps as ESHA but nevertheless potentially qualified as such.

Fourth, the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the Project complies with provisions in the LCP designed to protect scenic and visual resources. While the Staff Report purports to make required findings, the Applicant has not met its burden to provide substantial evidence to support these findings. Instead, there are simply bare statements untethered to evidence.

More is needed.
419

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
Honorable Mayor Steve Uhring and
Honorable Members of the City Council
City of Malibu
October 6, 2023 Page | 3
Fifth, while the Project seeks to rely on a Class 3 exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), insufficient information has been presented to demonstrate that the Project is not subject to an exception to that exemption, including pursuant to Title 14, Section 15300.2 of the California Code of Regulations. Based on the concerns outlined above, including those related to geological issues and potential biological resources, there is a fair argument that an exception to the exemption is present.

In sum, the issues presented above demonstrate that any action on this Project at this juncture is premature. Additional information is needed, including in the critical areas of geology and biology, before the Council and the public can understand the full potential impacts of, and issues related to, the Project in its revised form.

We respectfully urge the City Council not to approve the Project. Should the City Council determine to take any action at all (which, as noted above, we do not believe is appropriate), the Council should direct that further and complete review of the revised Project occur, and that the revised Project be considered by the Planning Commission.

Very truly yours,
Ginetta L. Giovinco
Enclosure(s)
cc: Steve McClary, City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
13123-0002\2874408v1.doc
420
Mark J. Johnsson
Geologist
21 September 2023
Janet Friesen
Dear Ms. Friesen,
In response to your request that I evaluate the proposed development at 6734 Zumirez Drive, I have prepared this memorandum evaluating the following documnents:
1) Solid Soils and Engineering, 2020, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Guesthouse, Detached Garage, Storage Building, Pool, and Spa, 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, California, 19 page geologic and soils engineering report dated 4 August 2020 and signed by Jeff Sivas (CEG 2565) and Shaun Siman (RCE 82610) 2) Solid Soils and Engineering, 2021, Addendum Letter I: Proposed Single-Family Residence, Guesthouse, Detached Garage, Storage Building, Pool, and Spa, 67344 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, California, 3 page addendum letter dated 27 January 2021 and signed by Jeff Sivas (CEG 2565) and Shaun Siman (RCE 82610) 3) Solid Soils and Engineering, 2021, Addendum Letter II: Proposed Single-Family Residence, Guesthouse, Detached Garage, Storage Building, Pool, and Spa, 67344 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, California, 2 page addendum letter dated 26 March 2021 and signed by Jeff Sivas (CEG 2565) and Shaun Siman (RCE 82610) as well as City of Malibu Geotechnical Review sheet dated 15 January 2021 and 24 February 2021. I have examined the canyon below the site on 6 December 2021, and examined aerial imagery from Google Earth. The proposed project is on Point Dume, in the area known as the Malibu Riviera.

I have been a professional geologist and Earth system scientist ever since graduating from Johns Hopkins University in 1978. After receiving a Master’s degree from Dartmouth College in 1984, and a PhD from Princeton University in 1989, I worked as a research geologist at the U.S.

Geological Survey from 1989 to 1993. I was Academic Coordinator of the Earth Systems Program at Stanford University from 1992 to 1993, and Assistant Professor of Geology at Bryn Mawr College from 1993 to 1999, where I served as the first Director of their Environmental Studies Program. From 2000 to 2017 I was Staff Geologist for the California Coastal Commission, where I served as a scientific advisor to the Commission and its staff. Currently, I work as a scientific consultant.
421
21 September 2023 page 2
Having performed scientific reviews and analyses of dozens of development proposals in the City of Malibu, I am intimately familiar with the geologic makeup and history, physiography, and coastal evolution of the coastal Santa Monica Mountains and Malibu. I also was instrumental in writing and revising the City’s Local Coastal Plan. In particular, I wrote all of the draft Local Implementation Plan dealing with geologic stability and the requirement for a 100 foot setback from coastal bluffs (Chapter 10.4) that was approved and adopted by the City of Malibu and the California Coastal Commission in 2002.

There are two areas of geologic concern revealed by these documents and my knowledge of the coastal geology of Point Dume. The first concern is the possibility of faulting at the site, and the second is the potential for retreat of the bluff at the site.

As noted in the 15 January 2021 City review sheet, the location of the bedrock--marine terrace (“older alluvium”) contact appears to show an abrupt change of elevation at the southern end of the property, as might be expected if a fault exists between test pit 5 and the test pits and borings to the north. Reference 2 opines that this change in thickness is depositional, and not related to fault displacement. Further exploration is not warranted as “…if the change in older alluvium thickness is related to fault displacement the fault is not zoned active and therefor irrelevant.” I disagree: it is exactly this type of anomaly that may provide evidence of a fault. If such a fault has not been previously identified and zoned active or inactive is not germane: any stratigraphic evidence that could be related to faulting should be further investigated. I would recommend more detailed subsurface investigation, including trenching in a roughly north-south direction, across the differences in elevation of the contact, be performed.

The second concern is equally important. An evaluation of the stability of the site over the next 100 years, as required by the LCP, requires an estimate of its configuration over that time. The possibility of changes in slope and the slope edge due to canyon erosion should be evaluated.

This is especially important in this era of sea level rise, which could introduce marine erosion to erosional processes of the slope.

I hope that this review is helpful. Either you or any other interested parties should feel free to contact me with any further questions
Sincerely,
Mark Johnsson, PhD
CEG 2177, CHG 744
422
1 October 5, 2023
Re: Agenda Item 4B, City Council Meeting October 9, 2023: proposed adoption of Resolution No. 23-45 regarding proposed development at 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu Mayor Uhring and Honorable Members of the Malibu City Council:

I am a biologist who has conducted numerous biological inventories and assessments for property owners in the City of Malibu for over a decade. It was brought to my attention that City staff has determined the demolition and development project proposed for 6734 Zumirez Drive to be categorically exempt from CEQA, and is proposing that the City Council concur in this determination.

Based on my review of background information and my visit to the neighbor’s property on September 26, 2023 where I could view the story poles, I cannot find any evidence that justifies a categorical exemption from CEQA. On the contrary, I believe that an exception to the exemption exists pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2, and therefore the project cannot proceed without some level of environmental review. I have provided an aerial photo and topographic map on the next page which show that the property is located next to a natural creek. While this creek is not shown as ESHA on City maps, in my professional opinion and based on my review of the site, it may still qualify as such. To my knowledge, no Biological Inventory or Assessment has been conducted to evaluate this, and/or whether protected native trees could be impacted by the project.

Use of a CEQA exemption here is also inapplicable based on recent City determinations on a property on the very same street. Recently I conducted a study for a nearby property at 6551 Zumirez Drive, above a drainage called Walnut Canyon that was not shown on City maps as ESHA but nevertheless potentially qualified as such.

In their review of the property, City staff recognized the presence of this feature and required the property owner to have a biological study completed. That the City recognized that ESHA may be present in this location supports a conclusion that an exception to the use of a CEQA exemption applies here. The purpose is not to stop the project entirely, but to ensure that it avoids or at least minimizes resource impacts. This can only occur after an appropriate environmental document is prepared.

I recommend that Resolution No. 23-45 NOT be adopted at this time and that the appropriate biological studies be conducted to ensure that Malibu’s natural resources continue to be protected as required under the LCP/LIP.

Edith A Read, PhD
President, E Read and Associates Inc.

Certified Senior Ecologist, Ecological Society of America E Read and Associates, Inc.

Ecological Surveys, Restoration, Maintenance, and Monitoring 368 South Grand Street, Orange, CA 92866
423
424
1 City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 4.B (10.09.23) -- SUPPLEMENTAL Correspondence Attachments: M. Johnsson SUPPLEMENTAL Memo. re Agenda Item 4B, 10.09.23 City Council Mtg. (6734 Zumirez Dr.).PDF
From: Ginetta Giovinco
Sent: Monday, October 9, 2023 11:32 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Cc: Steve McClary <[email protected]>; Trevor Rusin <[email protected]>; Kelsey Pettijohn <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item 4.B (10.09.23) -- SUPPLEMENTAL Correspondence Good Morning, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:

In furtherance of the materials submitted on Friday regarding this matter (please see below for reference), attached please find a short, supplemental memorandum from Mr. Mark J. Johnsson, a certified engineering geologist. Mr.

Johnsson conducted additional review of available documents and has concluded that “the development not only encroaches on a slope of more than 25%, but is actually proposed to be constructed within such a slope.” Thank you for your consideration of this supplemental memorandum.

Ginetta L. Giovinco
Attorney

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
From: Ginetta Giovinco
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2023 4:31 PM
To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]> Cc: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; 425
426
Mark J. Johnsson
Geologist
San Rafael, California 94901
www.markjohnsson.com
7 October 2023
Janet Friesen
Dear Ms. Friesen,
In response to your request that I evaluate the topographic slopes at 6734 Zumirez Drive, located in eastern Point Dume (area of Malibu Riviera), I have prepared this memorandum. In doing so, I have made use of the following:
1) Solid Soils and Engineering, 2020, Proposed Single-Family Residence, Guesthouse, Detached Garage, Storage Building, Pool, and Spa, 6734 Zumirez Drive, Malibu, California, 19 page geologic and soils engineering report dated 4 August 2020 and signed by Jeff Sivas (CEG 2565) and Shaun Siman (RCE 82610) 2) Warren Garrett, Interior Architecture—Creative Curation, 20 June 2022, Zumirez, scale varies, 62 sheets
3) Land and Air Surveying, 5 Nov 2018, Color Codes Slope Analysis, 1” = 20’, 1 sheet.

Each of which was prepared for IBN Properties LLC. In addition, I have reviewed aerial imagery of the site using Google Earth. I have examined the canyon below the site in person on 6 December 2021.

As required by the City of Malibu LCP Local Implementation Plan section 4.6.1.A “in the Point Dume area, new development shall be designed to avoid encroachment on slopes of 25 percent grade or steeper,” making important the quantitative evaluation of the slopes at the site.

Reference (3) is a map showing the areas of the parcel that exceed 25% (4 horizontal :1 vertical) in steepness. Indeed, no part of the proposed development lies within a part of the parcel colored to indicate a 25% or steeper slope. The proposed swimming pool, Jacuzzi, and stone walkways east of them, as portrayed in reference (2) do, in fact, “encroach” upon the areas characterized by slopes of 25% or greater in reference (3). This can be easily gleaned by comparison of these features to the 88 and 90 foot elevation contours on both maps.

Close examination of the topographic contours on references (2 and 3) shows that the slope is far from uniform. Portions of it are steeper than others, and a prominent bench is located between 88 and 92 feet elevation. I do not know how the slope map was generated; that is, what data points were compared and how they were used to create the colored polygons. Without the raw survey data, more accurate evaluation is impossible.
427
7 October 2023 page 2
To answer this question indirectly, I examined the geologic (and topographic) cross seection AA’ in refertence (1). Scaling from this cross section, I found that the topography drops from an elevation of 100 feet to an elevation of 36 feet over a horizontal distance of 238 feet. This yields an overall gradient for the slope, discounting variations in steepness along this transect, characterized by a drop of 64 feet over a run of 238 feet, yielding an overall average gradient of

3.7 : 1, or 27%. Thus the development not only encroaches on a slope of more than 25%, but is actually proposed to be constructed within such a slope.

Thank you for the opportunity to be of service. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any further questions or needs.

Sincerely,
Mark Johnsson, PhD
CEG 2177, CHG 744
428
429
2 Our firm has been retained to represent the Gil Friesen Trust on behalf of Janet Friesen in connection with opposition to an application for a coastal development permit (CDP) sought by IBN Properties, LLC for a residential development project located at 6734 Zumirez Drive (Project).

On March 6, 2023, the City’s Planning Commission heard and considered the CDP application. The CDP application failed to secure three votes in favor of it, and instead there was a 2-2 tie vote (following a recusal). This effectuated a denial of the CDP. We further understand that no appeal of this denial was timely filed. As a result, the City Council lacks the authority to consider the CDP application.

We understand that there have been recent efforts by the City’s Planning Commission to modify its rules and to declare that while the Commission is governed by Robert’s Rules of Order, “no action of the Planning Commission shall be invalidated or the legality thereof affected by the failure or omission to observe or follow those rules.” We are concerned that this is an effort to avoid the consequences of the tie vote on the Project. We hope this is not the case, but also want to clearly state that even this statement in the Planning Commission’s resolution cannot alter the effect of the Planning Commission’s 2-2 vote and cannot vest authority in the City Council to hear a matter over which it has no jurisdiction.

We urge you to avoid any effort to construe the Planning Commission’s recent action as providing any authority for the City Council to hear or consider the Project. Based on the 2-2 vote and the lack of any timely appeal to bring this matter before the City Council, the City Council does not have jurisdiction to proceed with a public hearing on the CDP application. While we hope that the City will not proceed with bringing this matter forward, we are prepared to pursue all appropriate legal remedies in the event that the City chooses to do so.

Best,
Ginetta Giovinco
Ginetta L. Giovinco
Attorney

RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
T:

W: rwglaw.com

PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 11, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. for the project identified below in the Council Chambers at Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA, and via teleconference.

COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 20-068, SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 21-009, AND DEMOLITION PERMIT NO. 20-028 - An application for the demolition of the existing single-family residence, construction of a new 6,284 square foot single-family residence, basement, 510 square foot attached garage and 462 square foot detached garage, 471 square foot second unit, pool and spa, cabana, onsite wastewater treatment system and associated development, and a site plan review for construction up to 24 feet in height to allow for a flat roof LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 6734 Zumirez Dr / 4466-002-001 / Rural Residential-One Acre (RR-1) APPLICANT / OWNER: Schmitz and Associates, Inc. / IBN Properties, LLC APPEALABLE TO: California Coastal Commission
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Categorical Exemption CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303(a) and 15303(e) APPLICATION FILED: December 29, 2020
CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Senior Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding these matters will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person by appointment at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL - An aggrieved person may appeal the City Council’s approval directly to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. More information may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or by calling 805-585-1800.

IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE ISSUES YOU

OR SOMEONE ELSE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

RICHARD MOLLICA, Planning Director Date: August 17, 2023

EXHIBIT D
431
Digitally signed by
Bill James Date: 2023.03.03 09:26:54 -08'00'
Exhibit E
432

Page 1 of 4 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action.

Funding for this project will come from CDBG and CDBG Revolving Loan funds.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item supports the Malibu Community Labor Exchange Permanent Office priority identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION:

Summary
The Malibu Community Labor Exchange (MCLE) organization provides a supportive place for the people of Malibu to hire and be hired. The MCLE has operated in the City of Malibu for over 30 years and has partnered with the City of Malibu as a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) recipient. In 2014 it was identified that the MCLE should move from a temporary trailer to a permanent office structure, but completion of this structure has undergone a series of delays. Since the winter of 2018 the City has been renting a temporary office trailer for MCLE. Beginning in November 2021, City staff initiated discussions with LA County and Santa Monica College (SMC) in an effort to procure a permanent office structure for the MCLE. Through extensive collaboration between all parties there is now a path forward to completing the permanent structure project. As outlined in their lease agreement with the County, SMC will undertake the steps to ready the final site by constructing underground utilities, completing fencing, and preparing the parking surface. City staff have identified CDBG Funding sources to cover the costs of permit fees, foundation design, and permanent office construction and installation. A City Council Meeting
10-23-23
Item

6.A.

Page 2 of 4 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Geotech study was recently completed for the office site which is included in the foundation design plan under development. To facilitate the permanent addition of the new office on the SMC College parcel there must be adjustments to the Coastal Development Permit (CDP), the Community Use Permit (CUP), and the wastewater allocation for the site. The CDP and CUP adjustments are in process, while the wastewater allocation adjustment is being presented for approval at an upcoming City Council agenda.

Background
MCLE has historically operated out of a trailer on the County property at 23555 Civic Center Way, adjacent to the SMC Building. As plans for the new SMC Malibu Satellite Campus Project started to take shape, it was identified that the existing MCLE trailer would need to be relocated to accommodate campus construction. It was also determined that the trailer was dilapidated and unable to be relocated. On November 24, 2014, the Council adopted Resolution No. 14-70 authorizing CDBG funds to be used to purchase and install a permanent officer structure for MCLE that would be located on the northwest corner of the County property. Due to the construction schedule and footprint of the Malibu Satellite Campus Project, the City’s Permanent Office Project was put on hold. In 2018, it was determined that the existing MCLE trailer was no longer viable so the Malibu City Council subsequently directed that CDBG funds be allocated to cover the costs to rent a temporary office trailer until the permanent office could be constructed.

In November 2021, in anticipation of the completion of the SMC project, the City reached out to Los Angeles County and Santa Monica College representatives to finalize the proposed plans for the project and draft the associated agreements. Since that time, City staff have worked with representatives from the County and SMC as they revised the location and layout of the proposed permanent office project in the northwest corner of the County property.

On January 24, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-06 authorizing and approving the use of $15,000 in federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Malibu Community Labor Exchange (MCLE) and the use of $98,000 in CDBG funds for a permanent office for MCLE.

When the City received the revised plans from the County in June 2022 and prepared the permit submittal, it was determined that the office trailer would need a permanent foundation and a restroom. To permit and construct a foundation for the trailer, the City needed to prepare a geotechnical study and design plans. The costs associated with the required geotechnical study were not anticipated in the project budget but were paid out of the City’s general fund.

In March 2023, the City rented an ADA/Accessible restroom trailer using CDBG funding to address the need to replace the old porta potty that had sat beside the MCLE trailer for many years. The new restroom trailer was placed beside the relocated MCLE trailer at the

Page 3 of 4 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.
northwest corner of the SMC leased portion of the County parcel once the construction of the SMC building was completed. The two trailers provide a professional looking set up for MCLE to conduct their operations.

Next Steps
The City, MCLE representatives, the County, and SMC staff have collaborated to layout the steps needed to complete this project and to what responsibilities each party has. The County and SMC have confirmed that the MCLE permanent office site will be in the northwest corner of the County parcel which is roughly 50 feet north of the current MCLE trailer location. The County and SMC have developed a preliminary layout to ensure the assigned piece of property will have sufficient space for the office, outdoor seating, and required parking.

Permitting
To ensure the MCLE office and operations are properly permitted, it was determined that the trailer would need a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for a new commercial structure, a Variance for adding enclosed square footage to a site that already exceeds the allowable Floor Area Ratio, and a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to evaluate the “Charitable/Philanthropic Activity” proposed in the Institutional zoning district. Planning staff estimates that the application may be deemed complete approximately two months after submittal and scheduled for a public hearing at Planning Commission a month later.

CDBG funding will be used to pay for the fees associated with these permit amendments.

Underground Utility Connection
SMC has developed preliminary design for the installation of underground water, sewer, and electricity to serve the new office. This work will be designed, constructed, and paid for by SMC as per their lease agreement with the County.

Wastewater Allocation
The City also needed to figure out a way to add additional wastewater allocation to the parcel to permit the additional office space and restroom use. A newly developed wastewater transfer process was created and will be explained in a staff presentation that will follow at an upcoming City Council agenda. The plan is to transfer the small wastewater allocation required for the office addition to the MCLE parcel from the adjacent city owned parcel. The fee for this transfer is not reimbursable by CDBG so it would be up to the city to cover this cost. The request for this funding is included in the Wastewater Allocation Transfer staff report to be heard at an upcoming City Council meeting.

Foundation Design
The office must sit on a foundation to meet city construction codes, so foundation design work is underway. The cost of the design work will be covered by CDBG, but the associated Geotech boring and report were not eligible for CDBG reimbursement, so the city has covered the $12,191 cost of this work.

Page 4 of 4 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Office layout and construction
The city will work with MCLE to create an office floorplan that will be used to build a set of specifications to go out to bid with. The bid package will recommend award to a firm that provides a pre-manufactured office that they will bring on site and install on the foundation they will construct. The RFP will indicate that all work will be conducted at a prevailing wage rate to ensure the projects’ CDBG funding eligibility. CDBG funding in the form of a revolving loan is targeted to cover the cost of the office and foundation construction, as well as the installation of the office on site.

Timing
It is anticipated that permitting will be completed by December 2023. The timing for the construction of the foundation and installation of the office is hoped to be completed in spring or summer of 2024 but requires the completion of the underground utility work which is yet to be scheduled by SMC.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

Page 1 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Silverstein and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Susan Dueñas, Public Safety Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: September 25, 2023 Meeting date: October 23, 2023 Subject: MOU and License Agreement with Zuma Beach FM Emergency and Community Broadcasting, Inc. (KBUU) for a Booster Antenna at Malibu Bluffs Park
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to enter into a License Agreement and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Zuma Beach FM Emergency and Community Broadcasting, Inc. (KBUU) to utilize Malibu Bluffs Park as the location for an FM booster station.

FISCAL IMPACT: Depending on Council direction there may be a fiscal impact to be determined related to the purchase and installation of equipment. However, the cost is not expected to exceed $25,000 and would not require additional appropriations at this time.

WORK PLAN: This item supports the Public Safety Projects (Communications) priority identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: Broadcast radio capabilities have been a critical component in emergency communications for decades, and when power is out and cell service is not available, broadcast radio provides one of the only means of communication. In addition, FM radio is now capable of transmitting emergency alerts to the public even when cell service and electrical power is not available. While there are several FM stations that can be received in parts of Malibu, including KBUU, none of them reach all of Malibu due to the City’s unique topography. However, KBUU is the only FM station dedicated to serving the Malibu community. There are also some AM stations that can be received in Malibu; however, none of those stations reach all areas of Malibu and none of them are dedicated to serving the Malibu community. In addition, while AM radio is capable of sending Emergency Alert System (EAS) messages, the City is not allowed to use that City Council Meeting
10-23-23
Item

6.B.

Page 2 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.
system. Only the county, state or federal government can use the EAS system.

However, the City can implement an FM radio alerting system.

To alleviate challenges with signal coverage, KBUU submitted a proposal to the City in 2019 requesting permission to place an FM booster station at Malibu Bluffs Park (Attachment 1). Malibu Bluffs Park is the best-known location available where an antenna could be placed that would allow KBUU’s listenable broadcast signal to reach the eastern third of Malibu while meeting Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements. At the September 19, 2019, Regular City Council Meeting, the Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a license agreement with KBUU to utilize Malibu Bluffs Park as the location for an FM booster station, pending required permits.

Since 2019, KBUU applied for, and obtained, the required FCC license for the booster antenna and has worked with staff to implement the proposal, which has evolved and was temporarily on hold during the pandemic. Originally, KBUU had FCC approval to install the following components at the Maintenance Building at Malibu Bluffs Park:

1. A 28-foot mast with two identical antennae reaching four and a half feet to each side of the mast located on the south side of the building;

2. Two to three small solar collectors with batteries near the base of the mast to be used to power the booster antennae during emergencies and Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS);

3. A 19-watt transmitter inside the Parks Maintenance Building; and,

4. A communications dish, three feet in diameter, on the exterior wall of the Parks Maintenance Building.

However, in 2021, staff determined that the Michael Landon Center would provide a better location because there could be access to electrical power and internet. KBUU agreed and obtained FCC approval to move it to this location. In 2022, KBUU proposed placing a surface mount antenna on the roof of the Michael Landon Center, however, it was determined by staff that it would require an engineering plan to ensure that it was installed in a way that would not damage the building or endanger park visitors.

After much debate in early 2023, the proposed project returned to the original idea of being placed at the Park Maintenance Building. Since this location is further south than the Michael Landon Center, it provides a better place for increased signal coverage. The current proposal mirrors the proposal from 2019, but also includes a 9-inch diameter wireless internet dish attached to the top of the Michael Landon Center and a similar dish on the Parks Maintenance Building to provide internet access and telemetry to the transmitter.

In recognition of the importance of this project as a critical element of the City’s emergency communication capabilities, staff proposes forming a public-private

Page 3 of 3 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.
partnership with KBUU by establishing an MOU (Attachment 1) along with the License Agreement (Attachment 2) for the equipment to be installed on public property. The proposed partnership would include the City assuming financial and permitting responsibility for installing a mast sufficient to hold the booster antennas and KBUU will be responsible for providing the antennas and associated communication equipment as well as obtaining and maintaining the appropriate FCC license. A diagram of where the mast would be installed is included in the License Agreement. The MOU outlines the policies, procedures, and responsibilities of the City and KBUU with respect to utilizing KBUU for emergency communications.

If approved, the next step will be for staff to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and a Coastal Development Permit. Once the permits are secured, staff will identify a vendor to install a mast and the two antennas.

By expanding the signal coverage – which would apply to everyday use as well as emergencies – KBUU would become a more effective communication option for the City to provide important emergency information before, during and after an incident. This would also provide the City the ability to implement an FM radio based disaster notification system to provide emergency notifications to the community when cell service and power is out.

ATTACHMENTS:
1) MOU between the City of Malibu and KBUU
2) License Agreement with KBUU
Memorandum of Understanding between the
City of Malibu and Zuma Beach F
Emergency and Community Broadcasting Inc.
10/4/23 Draft
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is made on (Date) between the City of Malibu (City) and Zuma Beach FM Emergency and Community Broadcasting Inc., a California nonprofit corporation that holds the FCC license for Low Power FM radio station KBUU-LP in Malibu (KBUU).

PURPOSE
The purpose ofthis MOU is to 1) outline responsibilities and procedures for KBUU to broadcast public safety messages during significant events that threaten life, property and the environment, and for the direct use of KBUU’s airwaves and transmitters by the City of Malibu during emergencies, and 2) outline responsibilities for the installation and maintenance of a booster antenna at Bluffs Park located at 24250 Pacific Coast Highway [s~pjMalibu, California 90265.

BACKGROUND
In an emergency, the effective delivery of public information is critical. Timely, accurate information supports emergency response and recovery, and ensures that members of the public take appropriate actions to protect themselves and others.

In emergency situations (fire, storm, earthquake), the City frequently loses electrical power and cell service in many parts of the City. Broadcast radio capabilities are extremely important in this situation in order to provide critical emergency information to the community. KBUU is the only broadcast radio station located in Malibu. Other broadcast radio stations that have signals that reach parts of Malibu are all located outside the City. Due to this fact, and the fact that KBUU was specifically created to service the City of Malibu, the City wishes to partner with KBUU to establish an effective broadcast radio capability to serve the community during emergencies.

Also, the City is currently evaluating the implementation of an emergency outdoor warning system or sirens to alert people to an emergency situation. However, for this type of emergency alerting system to be effective, it needs to be paired with a broadcast radio system to provide community members with information about the emergency and what actions are needed.

Therefore, it is imperative that the City and KBUU have a clear understanding of the relationship and what the responsibilities of each party are. In addition, to ensure that the KBUU signal reaches most of the Malibu coastline in an emergency, a booster needs to be installed at Bluffs Park. KBUU has acquired the antenna and FCC license to operate a booster, but needs the assistance of the City to install a pole that is appropriate for the antenna to be attached to.

TERMS OF MOU
This MOU will become effective on [date] and will remain in effect from said date unless terminated by either party. The parties to this MOU are independent and no principal/agent relationship, partnership, employment or contract is created by this document.

This MOU is not legally binding on, or enforceable by, either of the parties but the parties acknowledge that this MOU is intended as a statement of mutually agreed intentions. It is not intended to create legally enforceable rights or obligations. The parties agree that KBUU is free from the control and direction of City in connection with KBUU’s performance of this Agreement. However, the parties agree that they are Attachment #1
bound in good faith to observe and perform their obligations under this MOU to the best of their ability as ifthey were legally enforceable.

RESPONSIBILITIES
City of Malibu responsibilities:

1. The City will be responsible for installing and maintaining a pole at Bluffs Park that is sufficient to support the KBUU antenna, including all permitting and fees.

2. Ifthe City decides to enable live audio feeds, the City will purchase and maintain an Internet audio codec system to deliver the live signal.

3. The City will develop the content of its official messages to be aired on KBUU.

4. The City will create the audio feed to be played live, or a recorded audio file for intermittent and/or continuous play and replay, during emergencies, on KBUU.

5. The City will communicate to the Malibu community that KBUU is the official emergency broadcast radio station.

6. The City will include the use of KBUU in all appropriate emergency plans and procedures.

7. The City will ensure that Public Safety and Media Team staff are trained in the development of audio feeds and submitting them to KBUU.

8. The City will provide KBIJU with a suitable indoor location to put its electronic equipment (including but not limited to several 12-volt car batteries, Internet switches, and the broadcast amplifier), a flat-mounted solar panel, and ancillary gear.

9. The City will provide KBUU with Internet access for a continuous Internet path of 3 megabits per second, capable of handling KBUU’s peer-to-peer multiplex broadcast signal transmission through any city Internet firewalls. The point of demarcation between the City’s Cat-S cable and KBUU will be at the Bluffs Park Maintenance Building, unless the City elects to place the point of demarcation at the Michael Landon Center, in which case the City will allow KBUU to place a small WiFi dish atop Michael Landon Center, and a reciprocal small WiFi dish atop the Maintenance Building, in locations to be as obscure to the general public as possible.

10. The City agrees to abide by all FCC policies and public laws, including prescriptions from Federal Communications Commission v. Pacjflca Foundation 38 US 726 (1978), and the prohibition on advertising from the Local Community Radio Act of 2009.

KBUU responsibilities:

1. Zuma Beach FM Emergency and Community Broadcasters Inc. shall at all times retain control of KBUU-LP but will allow the City of Malibu to use KBUU-LP’s facilities for the vital role of transmitting official communications from the city, as deemed necessary by the two parties.

2. KBUU will broadcast urgent messages from the City when furnished by the City on an hourly basis or more frequently, at no charge to the city.

3. KBUU will accommodate City-owned equipment, ifthe City elects to purchase it, to enable transmission of live audio transmissions from the City, subject to Internet functionality, on KBUU.

4. KBUU will allow the direct use of its airwaves and transmitters by the City during emergencies. This use shall mean the city may furnish a live audio feed to be played live, or a recorded audio file for continuous play and replay, on the station’s FM signal on FM 99.1.

5. Should the City elect to buy and configure the proper equipment, KBUU will train City staff on how to operate the KBUU automation system, and on how to put City live and recorded City announcements on the KBUU air. KBUU will install and maintain the broadcast booster equipment in a location inside a building at Bluffs Park to be designated by the City.

6. All equipment to be installed by KBUU will be FCC type accepted, will comply with applicable laws, including, but not limited to, applicable laws governing RF emissions, electrical codes and fire codes, and it will not necessitate any electrical rewiring by the city.

7. KBUU will allow the City of Malibu to install, at any future point, communications antennae and equipment for at the KBUU main transmitter and tower location, 5911 Murphy Way, for the City’s current or future needs, at no charge, subject to amending the master license from KBUU’s landlord. The landlord has given KBUU a revocable license to erect broadcast equipment at that location, which is outside the city limits.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1. KBUU is a volunteer organization, and no staff are paid.

2. The KBUU control point is staffed about 95 percent of the time, 24 hours a day, seven days a week on an annual basis. However, it is occasionally left on automation for several days or up to two weeks at a time. During these periods, the station playback equipment is maintained via remote control over long distances.

3. KBUU relies on volunteer specialized Internet and broadcast engineers who do not live in Malibu, and who sometimes are not available immediately to repair items.

4. The station’s automation, encoders, power supplies, transmitters and studio-transmitter links are complicated pieces of electronic equipment. There are times when they function without fault for months at a time. There are times when components go down unexpectedly. KBUU keeps spare components on hand, but these must be installed in person. This cannot be done if KBUU’s volunteers are out of town or not available.

5. KBUU intends to install a completely-solar-powered transmission device, which will include:
- 2 or 3 solar panels to be installed on the storage containers, as directed by the City; - 2 or 4 deep-charge 12-volt batteries, that will sit in spill-proof containers;

6. KBUU warrants that this is an experimental installation, and that the additional signal coverage area that is anticipated by our engineer’s projections cannot be guaranteed. The KBUU Bluffs booster is licensed for approximately 5 watts of actual radiated power in two tight directional lobes, pointing due east and west, and even the improved signal may, during some weather conditions, experience substantial interference in some parts of Malibu from 72,000-watt KGGI, transmitting from Lake Arrowhead.

7. The KBUU booster will emit electronic signals at a combined actual power of less than 20 watts (10 watts per antenna).

8. No signage or lighting is required by the FCC or any other agency.

WHO IS AUTHORIZED TO REQUEST AN EMERGENCY BROADCAST:

The following City of Malibu employees are authorized to request an emergency broadcast:
• City Manager
• Assistant City Manager
• Deputy City Manager
• Public Safety Director
• Public Works Director
• Media Information Officer
Environmental Services Director/Building Official
• Any designee of the above parties

COMPENSATION
No payment by either party is required for this MOU to take effect.

MOU MANAGERS:

The Public Safety Director shall be responsible for maintaining this MOU in partnership and coordination with KBUTJ.

TERMINATION:

Either the City Manager or KBUU may terminate this MOU, without cause, by giving the other party ten (10) days written notice of such termination and the effective date thereof~ and under such circumstances, KBUU will remove its equipment within 30 days of such notice.

MODIFICATIONS
No modification, variation or amendment of this MOU shall be effective without the written consent of all ofthe parties to this MOU at the time of such modification, variation or amendment.

SUCCESSORS
This MOU shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of each of the parties’ successors and assigns.

SEVERABILITY
If any term, covenant or condition of this MOU shall, to any extent, be invalid, void, illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected thereby, and each other term, covenant or condition ofthis MOU shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law.

GOVERNING LAW
This MOU is made and entered into in the State of California and shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws ofthe State of California. The venue for resolving any disputes regarding this agreement shall be within the County of Los Angeles.

NOTICES
Any party delivering notice or requesting information from the other shall send such notice or request as indicated below:

City of Malibu
Attention: City Manager
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
KBUU: Zuma Beach FM Emergency and Community Broadcasting Inc.

Attention: Hans Laetz, General Manager
6402 Surfside Way
Malibu, CA 90265

CITY OF MALIBU
By: -----------
Steve Uhring
Mayor
Date: ----------
ATTEST:

By: -------------- Kelsey Pettijohn
City Clerk

THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEE REVIEVVED

BY THE CITY A TTOR EY'S OFFICE

ZUMA BEACH FM EMERGENCY AND
COMMUNITY BROADCASTING INC.

General Manager
Date: ----------
REVOCABLE NON-EXCLUSIVE CONDiTIONAL LICENSE AGREEMENT
This Non-Exclusive License Agreement is made by and between the CITY OF MALIBU, a California municipal corporation (“City”) and the ZUMA BEACH FM EMERGENCY AND COMMUNITY BROADCASTING, INC., a California nonprofit corporation that holds the FCC license for the low power FM radio station KBUU-LP in Malibu (“KBUU”). Each of the City and the KBUU is a “Party” and together they are the “Parties” to this Agreement.

I. RECITALS
A. The City desires to grant, and KBUU to accept, a revocable license for the installation and maintenance of a booster antenna at Bluffs Park located at 24250 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, California 90265.

B. In conjunction with that certain Memorandum of Udnerstanding executed separately from this Agreement, this Agreement forthe installation of the booster antenna will allow the broadcast of public safety message during significant events that threaten life, property and the environment, and for the direct use of KBUU’s airwaves and transmitters by the City of Malibu during emergencies.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and KBUU agree as follows:

H. GRANT OF LICENSE TO KBUU
A. The City, for good and valuable consideration, grants KBUU a revocable, nonexclusive license (the “License”) to use the Property identified in Exhibit A for the purpose described in this Agreement.

B. Use of Property

1. KBUU shall only use the Property for the installation and maintenance of a booster antenna and related equipment at Bluffs Park located at 24250 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, California 90265. At no times shall the KBUU cause the Property to be inaccessible to the City and its agents. iLCity and its agents shall have access to the Property at all times. In the event that the City’s use of the Property shall interfere with the purposes and uses contemplated in Exhibit A, City shall use reasonable efforts to notil~’ KBUU of any use that would interfere with the KBUU’s use and KBUU shall ensure that its use of the Property shall not interfere with City’s use of the Property.

Nothing shall infringe or impede the City’s absolute discretion to use the Property, and to prohibit KBUU’s use, for public safety purposes.

IlL TERM, CONSiDERATION AND BREACH REGARDiNG LICENSE
A. The term of this Agreement shall be for the period commencing on September 11, 2023 and ending upon the termination of this Agreement by either the City or the KBUU as provided herein (the “Term”). This Agreement shall expire automatically at the end of the Term, unless extended by mutual agreement of the Parties.

B. Should KBUU breach the Agreement in a manner that constitutes a danger to health or safety, the Agreement may be terminated immediately; provided however, this Agreement may be reinstated at the City’s discretion in the event KBUU removes such danger.

C. Either Party may terminate this Agreement at any time and for any reason by giving ten Attachment #2
(10) days written notice to the other Party.

W. INDEMNIHCATION
A. KBUU shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees and agents from and against all claims, causes of action, liabilities and damages for injuries to persons and property, including costs of defense and reasonable attorney fees, arising from or related to KBUU’s use of the Property, including use by its guests, agents, patrons, invitees, customers, employees, officers, and contractors hired in connection with this license, except for liability resulting from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its employees and agents. KBUU shall promptly pay the amount of any judgment rendered against the City, its officers, employees and agents for any such indemnified claims, and reasonable costs and attorney fees incurred by the City in the defense of such claims. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California. The obligations of KBUU under this Section shall survive the expiration, cancellation, or termination of this Agreement and Term.

V. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY AND RESTORATION OF PROPERTY
A. KBUU assumes responsibility for all damage to the Property caused by, or related to, its use thereof, and shall reimburse the City for correction of any such damage.

B. Duty to Repair, Restore or Replace. Within five (15) days of the termination or expiration of this Agreement KBUU shall remove any remaining personal property and restore the property to the condition it was in prior to the execution of this agreement. If KBUU fails to remove such Property or restore the Property pursuant to the reasonable satisfaction of the Community Services Director, within this time frame it shall be liable for liquidated damages in the amount of $100 per day.

In such event, the City shall have the option of restoring the Property at KBUU’s expense. Any cost incurred by the City in so doing shall constitute a debt of KBUU to the City, recoverable by the City in any manner provided by law, and shall be in addition to any liquidated damages due.

VL iNSURANCE
A. During the term of the License, KBUU shall maintain in full force and effect, at its cost and expense, the following coverages and amounts of insurance. Any self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. City reserves the nght to require that self-insured retentions be eliminated, lowered, or replaced by a deductible, or require proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention through confirmation from the underwriter
I. Full replacement cost Property Insurance (written on a “special perils” basis) for the Property and all other personal Property, machinery, equipment and trade fixtures owned by the KBUU;
ii.Commercial General Liability Insurance, written on an occurrence basis, covering bodily injury (including death), personal injury, and property damage, with limits of not less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate, that includes coverage for contractual liability, independent contractors, premises/operations, products/completed operations, and cross liabilities/separation of insureds; KBUU shall consider its own insurance primary, and shall not seek contribution from similar insurance being maintained by the City. lii. Automobile Liability Insurance. KBLJU shall maintain automobile insurance in the amount not less than $500,000 per person and $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury liability and up to $100,000 per accident for property damage liability. City shall require proof of coverage and limits and the insurance shall name the City as an additional insured. iv. Three Million Dollars ($3,000,000) in excess liability coverage per occurrence, for injuries, losses, claims for damages to persons or Property occurring on the Property, and resulting from the use of the Property by KBUU and/or the negligence of KBUU and its agents, contractors, employees or invitees, which coverage shall sit excess of the scheduled underlying General Liability, and Automobile Liability and Employer’s Liability Insurance policies with exclusions that are no more broad that those contained in the underlying policies. Such policy or policies shall include the following terms and conditions:

1. A drop-down feature requiring the policy to respond if any primary insurance that would otherwise have applied proves to be uncollectible in whole or in part for any reason, other than bankruptcy or insolvency of said primary insurer;

2. “Pay on behalf of’ wording as opposed to “reimbursement”;

3. Concurrency of effective dates with primary policies.

Such policy or policies shall include wording that the excess liability policy follows the terms and conditions of the underlying policies.

B. With respect to KBUU’s Commercial General Liability Insurance, Automobile Liability Insurance and Excess Liability Insurance, they shall include City as an additional insured with respect to liability arising out of KBUU’s use of the Property.

They shall be primary and non-contributing with any other insurance available to City and shall contain a full waiver of subrogation clause.

VH. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Taxes. This Agreement may create a taxable property interest in the Property. KBUTJ is solely responsible for the personal Property, possessory interest, income, franchise and similar taxes imposed on the Property up to and including the date of expiration, termination or cancellation of this Agreement and Term.

B. Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement shall be in writing, and shall be deemed made when delivered to the applicable Party’s representative as provided in this Agreement. Additionally, such notices may be given to the respective Parties at the following addresses, or at such other addresses as the parties may provide in writing for this purpose. Such notices shall be deemed made when personally delivered or when mailed forty-eight (48) hours after deposit in the U.S. mail, first-class postage prepaid, and addressed to the party at its applicable address, as follows:

KBUU: Hans Laetz, General Manager
6402 Surfside Way
Malibu, CA 90265
TEL (424) 442-9862
CITY: Steve McClary
City Manager
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, CA 90265-4861
TEL (310) 456-2489 x 226
FAX (310) 456-2760
Each party may change its address for notice by giving notice thereof to the other party.

C. Entire Agreement / Modification. This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or written, between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof, and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the Parties. Each Party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements, oral or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein. Any agreement, statement, or promise not contained in the Agreement, and any modification to the Agreement, will be effective only if signed by both Parties.

D. Authority. Each of the persons signing this Agreement represents and warrants that they have authority to bind the party for whom they are signing.

E. Compliance with Applicable Law. KBUU and the City shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances and codes of the Federal, State, County and City governments F. Assignment. This Agreement is binding on and inures to the benefit of the Parties and their respective heirs, successors, assigns, and personal representatives. Neither Party may assign its rights and obligations in and under this License without first obtaining prior written consent of the other Party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

G. Independent Contractor. This Agreement is by and between the City and KBUU and is not intended, and shall not be construed, to create the relationship of agency, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, as between the City and KBUU or any of KBUU’s agents or employees.

H. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the internal laws of the State of California without giving effect to conflict of law rules. The Parties further agree that all actions brought under this Agreement shall be brought in the courts located in Los Angeles County.

I. Force Majeure. Neither Party is responsible for any delay or failure in performance of any part of this Agreement to the extent that delay or failure is caused by fire, flood, explosion, war, embargo, government requirement, civil or militaiy authority, act of God, act or omission of carriers or other similar causes beyond the Party’s control.

J. No Waiver. The failure of a Party to insist on strict performance of any provision of the Agreement does not constitute a waiver of, or estoppel against asserting, the right to require performance In the future. A waiver or estoppel given in any one instance does not constitute a waiver or estoppel with respect to a later obligation or breach.

K. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement does not confer any rights or remedies on any person other than the Parties and their respective successors and permitted assigns.

L. Remedies. The rights and remedies provided by this Agreement are cumulative, and the use of any right or remedy by any Party does not preclude or waive its right to use any or all other remedies. These rights and remedies are given in addition to any other rights a Party may have under ~pp1icable I~w, in equity or otherwise.

M. Severability. If any term of this Agreement is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to contravene, or to be invalid under, the laws of any political body having jurisdiction over this subject matter, that contravention or invalidity shall not invalidate the entire Agreement.

Instead, this Agreement shall be construed as reformed to the extent necessary to render valid the particular provision or provisions held to be invalid, consistent with the original intent of that provision and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed and enforced accordingly, and this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect as reformed.

N. Counterpart Execution. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts with the same effect as if all the Parties had signed the same document; all counterparts shall be construed together- and shall constitute one and the same instrument. The delivery of an executed counterpart to this Agreement by electronic means (including via email) shall be as effective as the delivery of a manually executed counterpart.

0. Construction. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience and identification only. When the context requires, the number of all words shall include the singular and the plural. In this Agreement, words importing any gender include the other genders and the words including, includes and include shall be deemed to be followed by the words without limitation. All documents or items attached to, or referred to in, this Agreement are incorporated into this Agreement as fully as if stated within the body of this Agreement. The Agreement expresses the mutual intent of the Parties to this Agreement and the rule of construction against the drafting Party has no application to this Agreement.

Th.is Agreement is executed on October 23, 2023, at Malibu, California, and effective as of October 23, 2023
ATTEST
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)

THIS DOCU IENT HAS BEE REVIEWED

BY THE CITY A TTOR EY'S OFFICE
CITY OF MALIBU:

STEVE UHRING, Mayor
KBUU:

EXHIBIT A
KBUU will install the following components at the Maintenance Building at Malibu Bluffs Park:

1. A 28-foot mast with two identical antennae reaching four and a half feet to each side of the mast located on the south side of the building;

2. Two to three small solar collectors with batteries near the base of the mast to be used to power the booster antennae during emergencies and Public Safety Power Shutoffs (PSPS);

3. A 19-watt transmitter inside the Parks Maintenance Building; and

4. A communications dish, three feet in diameter, on the exterior wall of the Parks Maintenance Building.

5. A 9-inch diameter wireless Internet dish attached to the top of the Michael Landon Center and a similar dish on the Parks Maintenance Building to provide internet access and telemetry to the transmitter.

Ma of Park and location of mast
‘ ‘. ~MeSal~ _
Mock u of where the mast would be installed

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kristin Riesgo, Community Services Director Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: October 4, 2023 Meeting date: October 23, 2023 Subject: Veterans Day Recognition Ceremony Fee Waiver
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider whether to approve the request from The Navy League to waive the facility use and staffing fees and incur event costs for the Veterans Day Recognition Ceremony.

FISCAL IMPACT: Waiving the facility use and staffing fees will result in a loss of revenue of $3,108.00, for FY 2023-24 in Account Number 100-0000-3461-00 (Municipal Facility Use Fees). Facility rentals generate revenue for the City, and waiving these associated fees limits potential revenue.

Funding for an audio-visual consultant and event insurance was not included in the Adopted Budget for FY 2023-24, requiring an expense of $2,087.00 in Account Number 100-4011-5107-00 (Special Events – Contract Personnel).

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 Malibu Navy League plans to coordinate the Veterans Day Recognition Ceremony on Saturday, November 11, 2023 at Malibu City Hall, to celebrate and recognize Malibu Veterans.

The Malibu Navy League has requested a 100% fee waiver for the facility rental and staffing costs. In addition, they are requesting the City to pay for audio visual (AV) personnel and the event insurance.

Staff from the Community Services Department will assist with facility supervision and a member of the City’s media team will film the event. Due to limited staff availability, an AV City Council Meeting
10-23-23
Item

6.C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.
consultant will be hired to provide technical assistance for the live performances and speakers.

The facility rental and staffing fees associated with the event include:

Type Non-Profit Rate
Facility Use $2,244.00
City Staffing $864.00
Total $3,108.00
The event costs include:

Type Rate
Insurance $87.00
AV Consultant $2,000.00
Total $2,087.00
In 2019, City Council approved a fee waiver of $4,400.00 for the Veterans Day Organization Committee, who conducted the event at Malibu City Hall. Due to fewer number of required staff hours, the fee for 2023 is less than the previous request.

ATTACHMENTS: Malibu Navy League Financial Document
Malibu Council United States Navy League Income & Expenses 2022 1/1/22 12/31/22
INCOME
Amazon Smile 43
Copenhafer LOH Event Donations 1,925
Langley (Sea Cadets) for 501(c)(3) Credit 4,750
Membership Dues Received from Members 165
Membership NLUS Rebate Council Portion 310
T4T Donations 2,404
Veteran's Day Donations 1,500
TOTAL INCOME 11,097

EXPENSES
Administrative Expense: Bank Charges 50
Administrative Expense: Meetings 373
Administrative Expense: PO Box Rental 392
Total Administrative Expenses 815
Copenhafer LOH France 6,736
Langley Divn. (Sea Cadets) 4,750
Membership Dues sent to NLUS Headquarters Washington DC 220 Pepperdine Flags Exhibit 9/11
T4T 417
Veteran's Day Expenses 1,025
Total Event Expenses 13,148
TOTAL EXPENSES 13,964
Net of Income & Expenses (2,867)

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.D.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Kristin Riesgo, Community Services Director Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: October 4, 2023 Meeting date: October 23, 2023 Subject: Community Christmas Tree Lot Fee Waiver
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider whether to approve the request from the Malibu High School Athletic Booster Club to waive the facility use and staffing fees for the Ioki Property for the Annual Community Christmas Tree Lot.

FISCAL IMPACT: Waiving the facility use and staffing fees will result in a loss of revenue of $37,914.00, for FY 2023-24 in Account Number 100-0000-3461-00 (Municipal Facility Use Fees). The Malibu Municipal Code allows six events at the Ioki Parcel per calendar year. These events generate revenue for the City, and waiving these associated fees limits potential revenue.

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 Malibu High School Athletic Booster Club (Booster Club) coordinates the Community Christmas Tree Lot (Tree Lot) from late November through mid-December each year as a fundraiser for Malibu High School athletic programs.

The 2023 Tree Lot will be open to the public from Saturday, November 25, to Sunday, December 17. Event setup will begin on Friday, November 17, to Friday, November 24, with event breakdown from Monday, December 18 through Sunday, December 24.

The Booster Club has requested a 100% fee waiver of the facility rental and staffing fees, which would allow them to utilize a significant portion of the funds raised directly towards Malibu High School athletic programs. The fees associated with the event include:

City Council Meeting
10-23-23
Item

6.D.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.D.

Type Non-Profit Rate
Facility Use $35,738.00
Application Fee $200.00
Staffing $1,976.00
Total $37,914.00
The Council approved a similar fee waiver request from the Booster Club for the 2022 Tree Lot in the amount of $45,188. Due to fewer hours of operation, the fee for 2023 is less than last year’s request.

A TUP is required for the Tree Lot, and the Booster Club has agreed to all the associated requirements and has paid the permitting fees and a facility deposit.

Additionally, the Booster Club has agreed to share the property with other groups who also have TUPs during the same period.

ATTACHMENTS: Malibu High School Athletic Booster Club Financial Document Malibu High School
Balance Sheet
As of June 30, 2023
Cash Basis Wednesday, September 27, 2023 12:04 PM GMT-07:00 1/1 TOTAL
ASSETS
Current Assets
Bank Accounts
B of A Checking 78,725.09
B of A Savings 103,070.03
Business Advantage Sav - 3320 - 2 3.39
Business Economy Checking - 7219 - 2 -1,998.31
PayPal 0.00
Total Bank Accounts $179,800.20
Total Current Assets $179,800.20
TOTAL ASSETS $179,800.20

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Liabilities
Current Liabilities
Other Current Liabilities
Amount owed to individual teams 425.00
PayPal Tax Agency Payable -37.80
Total Other Current Liabilities $387.20
Total Current Liabilities $387.20
Total Liabilities $387.20
Equity
Opening Balance Equity -14,022.67
Unrestricted Net Assets 187,968.07
Net Income 5,467.60
Total Equity $179,413.00
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY $179,800.20

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 6.E.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Rob Houston, Interim Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: October 1, 2023 Meeting date: October 23, 2023 Subject: Consideration of Gift of Smart Coast California Membership Fees from Councilmember Grisanti
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Determine whether to accept a gift from Councilmember Grisanti to underwrite the cost of the City joining the Smart Coast California Municipal Collective for each year that he is on the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT: If the City joins Smart Coast California, acceptance of the gift would result in a savings of approximately $1000 per year, reflecting the cost of membership.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: This item is being put forward to consider a gift being offered by Councilmember Grisanti. Membership in Smart Coast California is being considered in a separate agenda item. There is a membership cost of $1,000 per year which Councilmember Grisanti has offered to underwrite each year that he is on the City Council.

The City Council has the discretion to accept or decline gifts such as that offered by Councilmember Grisanti. If the Council elects to join Smart Coast, acceptance of the gift would result in no cost to the City for the period of time Councilmember Grisanti continues to serve on the City Council.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

City Council Meeting
10-23-23
Item

6.E.

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Rob Houston, Interim Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: October 1, 2023 Meeting date: October 23, 2023 Subject: Smart Coast California Presentation (Councilmember Grisanti) RECOMMENDED ACTION: At the request of Councilmember Grisanti, receive a presentation from Smart Coast California describing the organization’s purpose and their efforts to facilitate collaboration between local municipalities and state agencies, and determine whether to join the Smart Coast Municipal Collective group.

FISCAL IMPACT: Annual dues for membership in the Smart Coast Municipal Collective are approximately $1000/year.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List.

DISCUSSION: Smart Coast California was founded in 2019 to collect and distribute information about scientific studies, proof of concept adaptive projects, and the impacts of changes in the Coastal Commission requirements on cities and counties, now and in the future.

The organization provides planning and policy insight to Coastal Communities and stakeholders through Policy Summits, Stakeholder meetings and other outreach activities.

Work includes the commissioning of a Sea Level Rise study to consolidate sea level rise data from across the State to allow comparison and collaboration. Current discussion being facilitated by the organization is focused on the recent effort by the State to have coastal property owners that are obtaining new permits, to sign away their right to protect their property from coastal erosion.

The organization also maintains their website at www.SmartCoastca.org which contains a wide range of coastal information, including information on managed retreat, regulatory City Council Meeting
10-23-23
Item

7.A.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 7.A.
takings, existing development and rolling easements. It also provides a LCP renewal listing for coastal cities and counties to help applicants understand the developmental environments that exist across the State.

The Smart Coast Collective Agency is looking to add coastal city partners to their membership to expand their education and advocacy strength. Smart Coast CEO Marta Golding Brown will provide an overview of the organization and the benefits of joining the Collective Group.

ATTACHMENTS: None.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Agenda Item # 7.B.

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 10, 2023 Meeting date: October 23, 2023 Subject: Council Appointment to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDED ACTION: Councilmember Stewart may make a new appointment to the Planning Commission.

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: Jeffrey Jennings, Councilmember Stewarts’s appointment, resigned from the Planning Commission effective upon the appointment of his successor. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54974, a notice of unscheduled vacancy was posted on October 5, 2023. Councilmember Stewart may make his appointment at this time.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. October 5, 2023 Notice of Unscheduled Vacancy

2. Applications received to date
City Council Meeting
10-23-23
Item

7.B.

City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road ꞏ Malibu, California ꞏ 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 ꞏ Fax (310) 456-3356 ꞏ www.malibucity.org Unscheduled Vacancy Notice
(Government Code Section 54974)

VACANT POSITION PREVIOUS INCUMBENT DATE APPOINTMENT

CAN BE MADE
Planning Commission Jeffrey D. Jennings October 19, 2023 Interested citizens should contact the City Clerk at (310) 456-2489, extension 228 or by email at [email protected] for more information.

Posted: October 5, 2023
______________________________
Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk
Attachment #1
Attachment #2

Malibu City CouncilOctober 23, 2023

Malibu City Council
October 23, 2023