Malibu City Council
July 8, 2024

Agenda Item# 3.B.5
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Luis Flores, Public Safety Liaison
Reviewed by: Susan Dueñas, Public Safety Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: June 11, 2024 Meeting date: July 8, 2024 Subject: Amendment No. 8 to Agreement with Turbo Data Systems RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement with Turbo Data Systems for Parking Citation Processing Services.

FISCAL IMPACT: No additional appropriation is required. This is a service-based contract and fees are deducted directly from parking citation revenue. However, the fees that are currently deducted would increase by an amount of $6,600 per year for the upgraded equipment. The City currently processes on average 25,000-30,000 parking citations per year and collects approximately $1.5 million per year in parking citation revenue. The projected parking citation revenue amount for FY 2024-25 is approximately $2.1 million as a result of the increase in parking enforcement services that will be provided through the City’s new contract with LAZ Parking.

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

DISCUSSION: On November 24, 2014, the Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with Turbo Data to process parking citations. The services provided by Turbo Data Systems include smartphone ticket writers and thermal printers to issue tickets, as well a completely automated citation processing services; online access to all citation records from the time of issuance through the resolution of the citation for both the citizen and City staff; digital imaging/archiving in accordance with the City's records retention schedules; paperless appeals; and complete administrative adjudication City Council Meeting
7-8-24
Item

3.B.5
1

Agenda Item# 3.B.5
processing.

Over the years, Turbo Data has provided exceptional service to the City that allows for the processing of citations, monthly reporting, the issuance of notices and letters, Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) registration holds and releases, payment collection, and administrative adjudication services. Amendment No. 8 would provide the City with an upgrade to existing ticketing mobile devices and printers and provide an additional software license to allow for additional staff usage. The upgraded equipment would allow for greater ticketing efficiency while the additional software license allows for additional user capabilities, strengthening the City’s ticketing operations.

Summary of Previous Amendments
On January 12, 2015, the Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement for bank management services, which included the processing of fee deposits and refunds, and issuance of monthly distributions to the County of Los Angeles.

On May 22, 2017, the Council approved Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement to upgrade the smartphone ticket writers to newer models and included the short-term rental of equipment to be used by the Sheriff’s Department summer enforcement team.

On February 13, 2018, the Council approved Amendment No. 3 to the Agreement to extend the term of the agreement for an additional three years until November 24, 2020.

On June 1, 2019, the Council approved Amendment No. 4 to the Agreement to lease two additional smartphone ticket writers.

On November 23, 2020, the Council approved Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement to extend the term of the agreement for an additional three years until November 23, 2023.

On April 11, 2022, the Council approved updates to the schedule of parking citation fines, which included a new escalating fine for MMC 10.18 (oversized vehicles).

On August 8, 2022, the Council approved Amendment No. 6 to the Agreement to lease three additional smartphone ticket writers.

On January 8, 2024, the Council approved Amendment No. 7 to the Agreement to extend the term of the Agreement and continue the lease of the equipment for an additional three years, until November 23, 2026.
2

Agenda Item# 3.B.5
Staff recommends that the Council review and approve Amendment No. 8 to the Professional Services Agreement with Turbo Data Systems to maintain the continuity of effective operations and to support effective and efficient parking enforcement services.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Amendment No. 8 to Agreement with Turbo Data Systems

2. Turbo Data Quote for Upgraded Ticketing Equipment
3 AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO AGREEMENT is made and entered in the City of Malibu on July 8, 2024 by and between the CITY OF MALIBU, hereinafter referred to as City, and Turbo Data Systems, Inc., hereinafter referred to as Consultant.

The City and the Consultant agree as follows:

R E C I T A L S
A. On November 24, 2014, the City entered into an Agreement with Consultant for certain projects related to Parking Citation Processing Services (the “Agreement”).

B. On January 12, 2015, the City entered into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with Consultant to include Bank Account Management Services.

C. On May 22, 2017, the City entered into Amendment No. 2 to Agreement with Consultant to upgrade mobile ticket writer equipment.

D. On February 13, 2018, the City entered into Amendment No. 3 to Agreement with Consultant to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three years, until November 23, 2020.

E. On June 1, 2019, the City entered into Amendment No. 4 to Agreement with Consultant to lease two additional mobile ticket writers.

F. On November 23, 2020, the City entered into Amendment No. 5 to Agreement with Consultant to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three years, until November 23, 2023.

G. On August 8, 2022, the City entered into Amendment No. 6 to Agreement with Consultant to lease three additional handheld ticket writers through November 23, 2023.

H. On January 8, 2024, the City entered into Amendment No. 7 to Agreement with Consultant to extend the term of the Agreement for an additional three years, until November 23, 2026.

I. The City desires to amend the Agreement with Consultant to upgrade mobile ticket writer equipment and add an additional software user license until November 23, 2026, and Consultant has submitted a proposal for this purpose that is acceptable to the City.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of their mutual promises, obligations and covenants hereinafter contained, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1. Section 4.0 – Compensation for Services, of the Agreement, is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto.

2. The Parties agree that this Amendment will be considered signed when the signature of a party is delivered physically or by facsimile transmission or scanned and delivered via electronic mail. Such facsimile or electronic mail copies will be treated in all respects as having the same effect as an original signature.

3. All terms and conditions of the Agreement not amended by Amendment No. 1, Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, Amendment No. 4, Amendment No. 5, Amendment No. 6, Amendment No. 7 and this Amendment No. 8 remain in full force and effect.

This Agreement is executed on July 8, 2024, at Malibu, California, and effective as of July 8, 2024. 4 Amendment No. 8 to Agreement
Turbo Data Systems, Inc.

255-2
CITY OF MALIBU: ____________________________________ STEVE MCCLARY, City Manager ATTEST: ____________________________________ KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk (seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM: CONSULTANT: _____________________________________ ____________________________________ TREVOR RUSIN, Interim City Attorney ROBERTA J. ROSEN President, Turbo Data Systems, Inc.
5

Agenda Item # 3.B.6.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Brandie Ayala, Administrative Analyst
Reviewed by: Rob DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: June 11, 2024 Meeting date: July 8, 2024 Subject: Los Angeles County Measure R Transportation Funding Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to execute the Los Angeles County Measure R Funding Agreement for the Pacific Coast Highway at Las Flores Canyon and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements.

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: Los Angeles County Measure R was approved by voters in 2008. This measure added a half-cent sales tax for a period of thirty years to fund transportation projects and improvements. Measure R is estimated to generate approximately $40 billion countywide.

At the April 12, 2022 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to utilize Metro Measure R and Measure M Transportation funds for the top five Safety Priority Projects. Number two on this list was the PCH at Las Flores and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements.

This project was also identified as Priority ID Nos. 58, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 92 in the 2015 PCH Safety Study.

The Las Flores Canyon Road at PCH and Rambla Pacifico at PCH intersection have been found to have the highest collision rates due to poor signal timing, unsafe speeds and geometric alignment of these intersections. In addition, the substandard pedestrian sidewalks or lack thereof forces pedestrians to walk on shoulders and/or between travel City Council Meeting
07-08-24
Item

3.B.6.
1

Agenda Item # 3.B.6.
lanes. As a result, the 2015 PCH Safety Study recommended several improvements at these intersections.

The Pacific Coast Highway at Las Flores Canyon and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements project will reconfigure the traffic signals, realign across the intersections to improve the road geometry, provide additional room for Class II bicycle lanes and improve pedestrian walkways. This project will be coordinated with other Caltrans projects planned for this intersection.

This project is eligible to use Measure R funds since it includes improvements to the highway operations. Staff has submitted the project to Metro for funding approval.

Measure R funds are now available for this project. The project requires a funding agreement between the City and Metro for the disbursement of $5,000,000 in Measure R funds to be used towards the Pacific Coast Highway at Las Flores Canyon and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements.

Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the execute the Los Angeles County Measure R Funding Agreement for the Pacific Coast Highway at Las Flores Canyon and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Funding Agreement with Los Angeles County for the Pacific Coast Highway at Las Flores Canyon and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements 2 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 1 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

MEASURE R FUNDING AGREEMENT
HIGHWAY PROGRAM (General)
This Funding Agreement (“FA”) is made and entered into effective as of November 30, 2023 (“Effective Date”), and is by and between the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("LACMTA") and the City of Malibu ("GRANTEE") for the PCH at Las Flores and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements, LACMTA Project ID# MR311.17 and FTIP# LA9919273, (the "Project"). This Project is eligible for funding under Line 32 of the Measure R Expenditure Plan.

WHEREAS, LACMTA adopted Ordinance #08-01, the Traffic Relief and Rail Expansion Ordinance, on July 24, 2008 (the “Ordinance”), which Ordinance was approved by the voters of Los Angeles County on November 4, 2008 as “Measure R” and became effective on January 2, 2009.

WHEREAS, the funding set forth herein is intended to fund the Approval/Environmental Document (PAED), Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), and Construction, of the Project.

WHEREAS, the LACMTA Board, at its January 26, 2023 meeting, programmed $5,000,000, in Measure R Funds to GRANTEE for PAED, PS&E, and Construction, subject to the terms and conditions contained in this FA; and
WHEREAS, the Funds are currently programmed as follows: $5,000,000 in Measure R Funds in Fiscal Year (FY) FY 2022-23. The total designated for PAED, PS&E, and Construction of the Project is $5,000,000; and
WHEREAS, the LACMTA Board, at its January 26, 2023 meeting, delegated administrative authority to staff to extend funding lapsing dates to meet PAED, PS&E, ROW, and Construction time frames; and
WHEREAS, the Grantee and LACMTA desire to extend the lapsing date of Funds programmed for FY 2022-2023 to lapse June 30, 2028.

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows:

The terms and conditions of this FA consist of the following and each is incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth herein:

1. Part I – Specific Terms of the FA

2. Part II – General Terms of the FA

3. Attachment A – Project Funding

4. Attachment B – Measure R Expenditure Plan Guidelines

5. Attachment B-1 – Expenditure Plan - Cost & Cash Flow Budget

6. Attachment C – Scope of Work

7. Attachment D – Project Reporting and Expenditure Guidelines

8. Attachment D-1 – Intentionally omitted
3 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 2 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

9. Attachment D-2 – Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report

10. Attachment E – Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) Sheet

11. Attachment F – Bond Requirements

12. Any other attachments or documents referenced in the above documents In the event of a conflict, the Special Grant Conditions, if any, shall prevail over the Specific Terms of the FA and any attachments and the Specific Terms of the FA shall prevail over the General Terms of the FA.
4 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 3 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this FA to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the dates indicated below:

LACMTA:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By: ________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Stephanie N. Wiggins
Chief Executive Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
By: ________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Deputy
GRANTEE:

City of Malibu
By: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________ Steve Uhring
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________ Trevor Rusin
Interim City Attorney
5 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 4 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
PART I

SPECIFIC TERMS OF THE FA

1. Title of the Project (the "Project"): PCH at Las Flores and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements – Project Approval/Environmental Document (PAED), Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E), and Construction. LACMTA Project ID# MR311.17, FTIP# LA9919273.

2. Grant Funds:

2.1 Programmed Funds for this Project consist of the following: Measure R Funds.

2.2 To the extent the Measure R Funds are available; LACMTA shall make to GRANTEE a grant of the Measure R funds in the amount of $5,000,000 (the “Funds”) for the Project. LACMTA Board of Directors’ action of January 26, 2023 granted the Measure R Funds for the Project. The Funds are programmed over one year for Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23.

3. This grant shall be paid on a reimbursement basis. GRANTEE must provide the appropriate supporting documentation with the Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report.

GRANTEE Funding Commitment, if applicable, must be spent in the appropriate proportion to the Funds with each quarter’s expenditures. LACMTA will withhold five percent (5%) of eligible expenditures per invoice as retention pending an audit of expenditures and completion of scope of work.

4. Attachment A the “Project Funding” documents all sources of funds programmed for the Project as approved by LACMTA. The Project Funding includes the total programmed funds for the Project, including the Funds programmed by LACMTA and, if any, the GRANTEE Funding Commitment of other sources of funding. The Project Funding also includes the fiscal years in which all the funds for the Project are programmed. The Funds are subject to adjustment by subsequent LACMTA Board Action.

5. Attachment B-1 is the Expenditure Plan- Cost & Cash Flow Budget (the "Expenditure Plan"). It is the entire proposed cash flow, the Budget and financial plan for the Project, which includes the total sources of all funds programmed to the Project, including GRANTEE and other entity funding commitments, if any, for this Project as well as the fiscal year and quarters the Project funds are anticipated to be expended. GRANTEE shall update the Expenditure Plan annually, no later than December 31, and such update shall be submitted to LACMTA’s Executive Officer of Countywide Planning, Complete Streets & Highway in writing. If the LACMTA’s Executive Officer of Countywide Planning, Complete Streets & Highway concurs with such updated Expenditure Plan in writing, Attachment B-1 shall be replaced with the new Attachment B-1 setting forth the latest approved Expenditure Plan. Payments under this FA shall be consistent with Attachment B-1 as revised from time to time. Any change to the final milestone date must be made by a fully executed amendment to this FA.

6. Attachment C is the “Scope of Work”. The GRANTEE shall complete the Project as described in the Scope of Work. This Scope of Work shall include a detailed description of the Project and the work to be completed, including anticipated Project milestones and a schedule 6 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 5 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
consistent with the lapsing policy in Part II, Section 9, and a description of the Project limits, if applicable. No later than December 31 of each year, GRANTEE shall notify LACMTA if there are any changes to the final milestone date set forth in the schedule or any changes to the Scope of Work. If LACMTA agrees to such changes, the parties shall memorialize such changes in an amendment to this FA. Work shall be delivered in accordance with the schedule and scope identified in this FA unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing in an amendment to this FA. If GRANTEE fails to meet milestones or fails to deliver the Project, LACMTA will have the option to suspend or terminate the FA for default as described in Part II, Sections 2, 9, 10 and 11 herein below. To the extent interim milestone dates are not met but GRANTEE believes and can show documentation acceptable to LACMTA supporting GRANTEE’S ability to make up the time so as to not impact the final milestone date, GRANTEE shall notify LACMTA of such changes in its Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports and such interim milestone dates will automatically be amended to the latest interim milestone dates provided in the Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports Attachment D-2. In no event can the final milestone date be amended by a Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report.

7. No changes to this FA, including but not limited to the Funds, and any other source of funds from LACMTA in the Project Funding, Expenditure Plan or the Scope of Work shall be allowed without an amendment to the original FA, approved and signed by both parties.

8. Attachment D is the “Project Reporting & Expenditure Guidelines”. GRANTEE shall complete the “Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report”. The Quarterly Progress/ Expenditure Report are attached to this FA as Attachment D-2 in accordance with Attachment D – Project Reporting and Expenditure Guidelines.

9. Attachment E, the "FTIP PROJECT SHEET (PDF)", is required to ensure that the Project is programmed correctly in the most up-to-date FTIP document. The FTIP PROJECT SHEET (PDF) can be found in ProgramMetro FTIP database under the reports section at https://programmetro.ecointeractive.com/secure2/login.asp. All projects that receive funding through Measure R must be programmed into the FTIP, which includes locally funded regionally significant projects for information and air quality modeling purposes. GRANTEE shall review the Project in ProgramMetro each year and update or correct the Project information as necessary during a scheduled FTIP amendment or adoption. GRANTEE will be notified of amendments and adoptions to the FTIP via e-mail. Changes to the FTIP through ProgramMetro should be made as soon as possible after GRANTEE is aware of any changes to the Project, but no later than October 1 of the year the change or update is effective. Should GRANTEE fail to meet this date, it may affect GRANTEE's ability to access funding, delay the Project and may ultimately result in the Funds being lapsed.

10. LACMTA anticipates it may need to avail itself of lower cost bonds or other debt, the interest on which is tax exempt for federal tax purposes and/or Build America Bonds as defined in the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 or similar types of bonds (collectively, the 'Bonds") to provide at least a portion of its funding commitments under this Agreement to GRANTEE. GRANTEE shall ensure that the expenditure of the Funds disbursed to GRANTEE does not jeopardize the tax-exemption of the interest, the Federal subsidy payment or the tax credit, as applicable, as specified in the Bond Requirements attached as Attachment F to this Agreement. GRANTEE agrees to provide LACMTA with 7 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 6 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
progress reports, expenditure documentation, and any other documentation as reasonably requested by LACMTA and necessary for LACMTA to fulfill its responsibilities as the grantee or administrator or bond issuer of the Funds. With regard to LACMTA debt financing to provide any portion of the Funds, GRANTEE shall take all reasonable actions as may be requested of it by LACMTA's Project Manager for the Project, to assist LACMTA in demonstrating and maintaining over time, compliance with the relevant sections of the Federal Tax Code to maintain such bonds tax status.

11. GRANTEE shall comply with the “Special Grant Conditions” attached as Attachment G, if any.

12. No changes to the (i) Grant amount, (ii) Project Funding, (iii) the Scope of Work (except as provided herein), (iv) Final milestone date or (v) Special Grant Conditions, shall be allowed without a written amendment to this FA, approved and signed by the LACMTA Chief Executive Officer or his/her designee and GRANTEE. Modifications that do not materially affect the terms of this FA, such as redistributing Funds among existing budget line items or nonmaterial schedule changes must be formally requested by GRANTEE and approved by LACMTA in writing. Non-material changes are those changes which do not affect the grant amount or its schedule, Project Funding, or the Scope of Work, including the Work schedule.

13. LACMTA's Address:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority One Gateway Plaza
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Attention: Lily Foster
LACMTA Project Manager
Mail Stop 99-18-2
Phone (213) 922-2927
E-mail [email protected]

14. GRANTEE's Address:

City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Nadia Fahoum
Assistant Civil Engineer
Phone: (310) 456-2489
Email: [email protected]

8 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 7 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

PART II

GENERAL TERMS OF THE FA

1. TERM
The term of this FA shall commence on the Effective Date of this FA, and shall terminate upon the occurrence of all of the following, unless terminated earlier as provided herein: (i) the agreed upon Scope of Work has been completed; (ii) all LACMTA audit and reporting requirements have been satisfied; and (iii) the final disbursement of the Funds has been made to GRANTEE. All eligible Project expenses as defined in the Reporting and Expenditure Guidelines (Attachment D), incurred after the FA Effective Date shall be reimbursed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this FA unless otherwise agreed to by the parties in writing.

2. SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION
Should LACMTA determine there are insufficient Measure R Funds available for the Project, LACMTA may suspend or terminate this FA by giving written notice to GRANTEE at least thirty (30) days in advance of the effective date of such suspension or termination. If a Project is suspended or terminated pursuant to this section, LACMTA will not reimburse GRANTEE any costs incurred after that suspension or termination date, except those costs necessary to: (i) to return any facilities modified by the Project construction to a safe and operable state; and (ii) suspend or terminate the construction contractor’s control over the Project. LACMTA’s share of these costs will be consistent with the established funding percentages outlined in this FA.

3. INVOICE BY GRANTEE
Unless otherwise stated in this FA, the Quarterly Progress/ Expenditure Report, with supporting documentation of expenses, Project progress and other documents as required, which has been pre-approved by LACMTA, all as described in Part II, Section 6.1 of this FA, shall satisfy LACMTA invoicing requirements. Grantee shall only submit for payment the LACMTA pre-approved Quarterly Progress/ Expenditure Report Packets to the LACMTA Project Manager at the email address shown in Part I and to LACMTA Accounts Payable Department as shown below.

Submit invoice with supporting documentation to:

[email protected] (preferable)
or
mail to:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Accounts Payable
P. O. Box 512296
Los Angeles, CA 90051-0296
All invoice material must contain the following information:

Re: LACMTA Project ID# MR311.17 and FA# FA9200000000MR31117 Lily Foster; Mail Stop 99-18-2
9 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 8 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

4. USE OF FUNDS

4.1 GRANTEE shall utilize the Funds to complete the Project as described in the Scope of Work and in accordance with the Reporting and Expenditure Guidelines and the specifications for use for the transportation purposes described in the Ordinance.

4.2 Attachment C shall constitute the agreed upon Scope of Work between LACMTA and GRANTEE for the Project. The Funds, as granted under this FA, can only be used towards the completion of the Scope of Work detailed in Attachment C.

4.3 GRANTEE shall not use the Funds to substitute for any other funds or projects not specified in this FA. Further, GRANTEE shall not use the Funds for any expenses or activities above and beyond the approved Scope of Work (Attachment C) without an amendment to the FA approved and signed by the LACMTA Chief Executive Officer or his Designee. To the extent LACMTA provides GRANTEE with bond or commercial paper proceeds, such Funds may not be used to reimburse for any costs that jeopardize the tax exempt nature of such financings as reasonably determined by LACMTA and its bond counsel.

4.4 GRANTEE must use the Funds in the most cost-effective manner. If GRANTEE intends to use a consultant or contractor to implement all or part of the Project, LACMTA requires that such activities be procured in accordance with GRANTEE’s contracting procedures and consistent with State law as appropriate. GRANTEE will also use the Funds in the most cost-effective manner when the Funds are used to pay “in-house” staff time. This effective use of funds provision will be verified by LACMTA through ongoing Project monitoring and through any LACMTA interim and final audits.

4.5 GRANTEE’S employee, officers, councilmembers, board member, agents, or consultants (a “GRANTEE Party”) are prohibited from participating in the selection, award, or administration of a third-party contract or sub-agreement supported by the Funds if a real or apparent conflict of interest would be involved. A conflict of interest would include, without limitation, an organizational conflict of interest or when any of the following parties has a financial or other interest in any entity selected for award: (a) a GRANTEE Party (b) any member of a GRANTEE Party’s immediate family, (c) a partner of a GRANTEE Party; (d) any organization that employs or intends to employ any of the above. This conflict of interest provision will be verified by LACMTA through on-going Project monitoring and through any LACMTA interim and final audits.

4.6 If a facility, equipment (such as computer hardware or software), vehicle or property, purchased or leased using the Funds, ceases to be used for the proper use as originally stated in the Scope of Work, or the Project is discontinued, any Funds expended for that purpose must be returned to LACMTA as follows: GRANTEE shall be required to repay the Funds in proportion to the useful life remaining and in an equal proportion of the grant to GRANTEE Funding Commitment ratio.

4.7 If the Project requires the implementation of an Intelligent Transportation Systems (“ITS”) project, GRANTEE shall ensure the Project is consistent with the Regional ITS Architecture. Attachment E-1, the Los Angeles County Regional ITS 10 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 9 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
Architecture (CONNECT-IT) Consistency Self-Certification Form, must be completed and signed for planned ITS projects and/or ITS projects that use local, state, or federal funds programmed or administered through LACMTA. Refer to www.laconnect-it.com to find information about the CONNECT-IT Service Packages.

4.8 If any parking facilities are designed and/or constructed using the Funds, GRANTEE shall coordinate with LACMTA parking program staff (see www.metro.net for staff listing) in the planning, design and management of the facility and shall ensure that its implementation is consistent with the LACMTA adopted parking policy.

For the parking policy, see
http://media.metro.net/projects_studies/call_projects/images/09%20Appendix%20D%20Pa rking%20Policy.pdf

5. REIMBURSEMENT OF FUNDS
Funds will be released on a reimbursement basis in accordance with invoices submitted in support of the Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports. LACMTA will make all disbursements electronically unless an exception is requested in writing. Reimbursements via Automated Clearing House (ACH) will be made at no cost to GRANTEE. GRANTEE must register in LACMTA’s iSupplier portal and submit an application before grant payments can be made.

The link to the portal can be found at http://media.metro.net/uploads/EBB/Vendor Portal Registration.pdf. GRANTEE must provide detailed supporting documentation with its Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports. GRANTEE Funding Commitment, if any, must be spent in direct proportion to the Funds with each quarter’s payment.

6. REPORTING AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS/PAYMENT ADJUSTMENTS

6.1 GRANTEE shall submit the draft of Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report (Attachment D-2) within sixty (60) days after the close of each quarter on the last day of the months November, February, May and August to the LACMTA Project Manager for review and pre-approval of the applicable report. LACMTA Project Manager shall review and respond in writing to the draft Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt. Grantee shall submit the LACMTA pre-approved Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report no later than five (5) days after receipt of LACMTA’s written approval. Should GRANTEE fail to submit either the draft or pre-approved reports within five (5) days of the due date and/or submit incomplete reports, LACMTA will not reimburse GRANTEE until the completed required reports are received, reviewed, and approved. The Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports shall include all appropriate documentation (such as contractor invoices, timesheets, receipts, etc.), and any changes to interim milestone dates that do not impact the final milestone date. All supporting documents must include a clear justification and explanation of their relevance to the Project. If no activity has occurred during a particular quarter, GRANTEE will still be required to submit the Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports indicating no dollars were expended that quarter. If a request for reimbursement exceeds $500,000 in a single month, then GRANTEE can submit such an invoice once per month with supporting documentation. Expenses that are not invoiced to LACMTA Accounts Payable 11 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 10 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
within ninety (90) days after the lapsing date specified in Part II, Section 9.1 below are not eligible for reimbursement.

6.2 GRANTEE shall submit the Project expenditure estimates for the subsequent fiscal year by February of each year. LACMTA will use the estimates to determine the Project budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

6.3 LACMTA, and/or its designee, shall have the right to conduct audits of the Project as deemed appropriate, such as financial and compliance audits, interim audits, preaward audits, performance audits and final audits. LACMTA will commence a final audit within six (6) months of receipt of acceptable final invoice, provided the Project is ready for final audit (meaning all costs and charges have been paid by GRANTEE and invoiced to LACMTA, and such costs, charges and invoices are properly documented and summarized in the accounting records to enable an audit without further explanation or summarization including actual indirect rates for the period covered by the FA period under review).

GRANTEE agrees to establish and maintain proper accounting procedures and cash management records and documents in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). GRANTEE shall reimburse LACMTA for any expenditure not in compliance with the Scope of Work and/or not in compliance with other terms and conditions of this FA. The allowability of costs for GRANTEE’s own expenditures submitted to LACMTA for this Project shall be in compliance with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87. The allowability of costs for GRANTEE’s contractors, consultants and suppliers expenditures submitted to LACMTA through GRANTEE’s Quarterly Progress/Expenditures shall be in compliance with OMB Circular A-87 or Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Subpart 31 and 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter II, Part 225 (whichever is applicable). Findings of the LACMTA audit are final. When LACMTA audit findings require GRANTEE to return monies to LACMTA, GRANTEE agrees to return the monies within thirty (30) days after the final audit is sent to GRANTEE.

6.4 GRANTEE’s records shall include, without limitation, accounting records, written policies and procedures, contract files, original estimates, correspondence, change order files (including documentation covering negotiated settlements), invoices, and any other supporting evidence deemed necessary by LACMTA to substantiate charges related to the Project (all collectively referred to as “records”). Such records shall be open to inspection and subject to audit and reproduction by LACMTA auditors or authorized representatives to the extent deemed necessary by LACMTA to adequately permit evaluation of expended costs. Such records subject to audit shall also include, without limitation, those records deemed necessary by LACMTA to evaluate and verify, direct and indirect costs, (including overhead allocations) as they may apply to costs associated with the Project.

These records must be retained by GRANTEE for three years following final payment under this Agreement. Payment of retention amounts shall not occur until after the LACMTA’s final audit is completed.

6.5 GRANTEE shall cause all contractors to comply with the requirements of Part II, Section 5, paragraphs 6.2 and 6.3 above. GRANTEE shall cause all contractors to cooperate fully in furnishing or in making available to LACMTA all records deemed necessary by LACMTA auditors or authorized representatives related to the Project. 12 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 11 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

6.6 LACMTA or any of its duly authorized representatives, upon reasonable written notice, shall be afforded access to all GRANTEE’S records and its contractors related to the Project, and shall be allowed to interview any employee of GRANTEE and its contractors through final payment to the extent reasonably practicable.

6.7 LACMTA or any of its duly authorized representatives, upon reasonable written notice, shall have access to the offices of GRANTEE and its contractors, shall have access to all necessary records, including reproduction, at no charge to LACMTA, and shall be provided adequate and appropriate work space in order to conduct audits in compliance with the terms and conditions of this FA.

6.8 When business travel associated with the Project requires use of a vehicle, the mileage incurred shall be reimbursed at the mileage rates set by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as indicated in the United States General Services Administration Federal Travel Regulation, Privately Owned Vehicle Reimbursement Rates.

6.9 GRANTEE shall be responsible for ensuring all contractors/ subcontractors for the Project comply with the terms of the Ordinance. GRANTEE shall cooperate with LACMTA Management Audit Services Department such that LACMTA can meet its obligations under the Ordinance.

6.10 GRANTEE shall certify each invoice by reviewing all subcontractor costs and maintaining internal control to ensure that all expenditures are allocable, allowable and reasonable and in accordance with OMB A-87 or FAR subpart 31 and 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter II, part 225, (whichever is applicable) and the terms and conditions of this FA.

6.11 GRANTEE shall also certify final costs of the Project to ensure all costs are in compliance with OMB A-87 or FAR subpart 31 and 2 CFR Subtitle A, Chapter II, part 225, (whichever is applicable) and the terms and conditions of this FA.

6.12 In addition to LACMTA’s other remedies as provided in this FA, LACMTA may withhold the Funds if the LACMTA audit has determined that GRANTEE failed to comply with the Scope of Work (such as misusing Funds or failure to return Funds owed to LACMTA in accordance with LACMTA audit findings) and /or is severely out of compliance with other terms and conditions as defined by this FA, including the access to records provisions of Part II, Section 6.

7. GRANT
This is a one-time only grant of the Measure R Funds subject to the terms and conditions agreed to herein. This grant does not imply nor obligate any future funding commitment on the part of LACMTA.
13 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 12 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

8. SOURCES AND DISPOSITION OF FUNDS

8.1 The obligation for LACMTA to grant the Funds for the Project is subject to sufficient Funds being made available for the Project by the LACMTA Board of Directors. If such Funds are not made available as anticipated from Measure R Program revenues, LACMTA will have the right to adjust the cash flow accordingly until such funds become available. LACMTA shall have no obligation to provide any other funds for the Project, unless otherwise agreed to in writing by LACMTA.

8.2 GRANTEE shall fully fund and contribute the Grantee Funding Commitment, if any is identified in the Project Funding (Attachment A), towards the cost of the Project. If the Funds identified in Attachment A are insufficient to complete the Project, GRANTEE may request additional Measure R funds from its sub-region earmark pending support of the sub-region’s Governing Board. A particular sub-region’s Measure R funds are limited to the amount specified in the Ordinance and is still subject to approval of the LACMTA Board. Nothing in this FA shall obligate, or be construed to obligate, the LACMTA Board to approve such request for additional funds. If the Funds are still insufficient to complete the Project, GRANTEE agrees to secure and provide such additional non-LACMTA programmed funds necessary to complete the Project.

8.3 GRANTEE shall be responsible for any and all cost overruns for the Project pursuant to Section 8.2.

8.4 GRANTEE shall be eligible for the Funds up to the grant amount specified in Part I, Section 2 of this FA subject to the terms and conditions contained herein.

Any Funds expended by GRANTEE prior to the Effective Date of this FA shall not be reimbursed nor shall they be credited toward the GRANTEE Funding Commitment requirement, without the prior written consent of LACMTA. GRANTEE Funding Commitment dollars expended prior to the year the Funds are awarded shall be spent at GRANTEE’s own risk, or as delineated in a Letter of No Prejudice executed by the prospective GRANTEE and LACMTA.

8.5 If GRANTEE receives outside funding for the Project in addition to the Funds identified in the Project Funding and the Expenditure Plan at the time this grant was awarded, this FA shall be amended to reflect such additional funding. If, at the time of final invoice or voucher, funding for the Project (including the Funds, GRANTEE Funding Commitment, and any additional funding) exceeds the actual Project costs, then the cost savings shall be applied in the same proportion as the sources of funds from each party to this FA as specified in the Project Funding and both the Funds and GRANTEE Funding Commitment required for the Project shall be reduced accordingly. LACMTA shall have the right to use any cost savings associated with the Funds at its sole discretion, including, without limitation, programming the unused Funds to another project or to another grantee. If, at the time of final voucher, it is determined that GRANTEE has received Funds in excess of what GRANTEE should have received for the Project, GRANTEE shall return such overage to LACMTA within 30 days from final voucher.
14 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 13 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

9. TIMELY USE OF FUNDS / REPROGRAMMING OF FUNDS

9.1 GRANTEE must demonstrate timely use of the Funds by:
(i) Executing this FA within ninety (90) days of receiving formal transmittal of the FA from LACMTA, or by December 31 of the first Fiscal Year in which the Funds are programmed, whichever date is later; and
(ii) Beginning Project Design, Preliminary Engineering-(PE) within six (6) months from completion of environmental clearance, if appropriate.
(iii) Expending Project Development or Right-of-Way costs (including by deposit into a condemnation action) by the end of the second (2nd ) fiscal year following the year the Funds were first programmed; and
(iv) Executing Contracts for Construction or Capital purchase within twelve (12) months from the date of completion of design; and (v) Delivering Work in accordance with schedule; changes to the schedule will require an Amendment to Attachment C to reflect updated milestone dates. Meeting the Project milestone due dates as agreed upon by the LACMTA and GRANTEE in
Attachment C (Scope of Work) of this FA; and
(vi) Submitting the Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Reports as described in Part II, Section 6.1 of this FA; and
(vii) Expending the Funds granted under this FA for allowable costs by the lapsing date. All Funds programmed for FY 2022-23 are subject to lapse by June 30, 2028.

9.2 In the event that the timely use of the Funds is not demonstrated as described in Part II, Section 9.1 of this FA, the Project will be reevaluated by LACMTA and the Funds may be reprogrammed to another project by the LACMTA Board of Directors in accordance with the Ordinance. In the event that all the Funds are reprogrammed, this FA shall automatically terminate.

10. DEFAULT
A Default under this FA is defined as any one or more of the following: (i) GRANTEE fails to comply with the terms and conditions contained herein; and/or (ii) GRANTEE fails to perform satisfactorily or make material changes, as determined by LACMTA at its sole discretion, to the Expenditure Plan, the Scope of Work, or the Project Funding without LACMTA’s prior written consent or approval as provided herein.

11. REMEDIES
15 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 14 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General

11.1 In the event of a Default by GRANTEE, LACMTA shall provide written notice of such Default to GRANTEE with a 30-day period to cure the Default. In the event GRANTEE fails to cure the Default, or commit to cure the Default and commence the same within such 30-day period to the satisfaction of LACMTA, LACMTA shall have the following remedies: (i) LACMTA may terminate this FA; (ii) LACMTA may make no further disbursements of Funds to GRANTEE; and/or (iii) LACMTA may recover from GRANTEE any Funds disbursed to GRANTEE as allowed by law or in equity.

11.2 Effective upon receipt of written notice of termination from LACMTA, GRANTEE shall not undertake any new work or obligation with respect to this FA unless so directed by LACMTA in writing. Any Funds expended after termination shall be the sole responsibility of GRANTEE.

11.3 The remedies described herein are non-exclusive. LACMTA shall have the right to enforce any and all rights and remedies herein or which may be now or hereafter available at law or in equity.

12. COMMUNICATIONS

12.1 GRANTEE shall ensure that all Communication Materials contain recognition of LACMTA’s contribution to the Project as more particularly set forth in “Funding Recipient Communications Guidelines” available online at http://metro.net/partners-civic. The Funding Recipient Communications Guidelines may be changed from time to time during the course of this Agreement. GRANTEE shall be responsible for complying with the latest Funding Recipient Communications Guidelines during the term of this Agreement, unless otherwise specifically authorized in writing by the LACMTA Chief Communications Officer.

12.2 For purposes of this Agreement, “Communications Materials” include, but are not limited to, press events, public and external newsletters, printed materials, advertising, websites radio and public service announcements, electronic media, and construction site signage. A more detailed definition of “Communications Materials” is found in the Funding Recipient Communications Guidelines.

12.3 The Metro logo is a trademarked item that shall be reproduced and displayed in accordance with specific graphic guidelines. The preferred logo lock-up for Funding Recipients to use is included in the Funding Recipient Communications Guidelines.

12.4 GRANTEE shall ensure that any subcontractor, including, but not limited to, public relations, public affairs, and/or marketing firms hired to produce Project Communications Materials for public and external purposes will comply with the requirements contained in this Section.

12.5 The LACMTA Project Manager shall be responsible for monitoring GRANTEE’s compliance with the terms and conditions of this Section. GRANTEE’s failure to 16 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 15 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
comply with the terms of this Section shall be deemed a default hereunder and LACMTA shall have all rights and remedies set forth herein.

13. OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS

13.1 This FA, along with its Attachments, constitutes the entire understanding between the parties, with respect to the subject matter herein. The FA shall not be amended, nor any provisions or breach hereof waived, except in writing signed by the parties who agreed to the original FA or the same level of authority. Adoption of revisions or supplements to the Guidelines shall cause such revisions or supplements to become incorporated automatically into this Agreement as though fully set forth herein.

13.2 GRANTEE is obligated to continue using the Project dedicated to the public transportation purposes for which the Project was initially approved. The Project rightof-way, the Project facilities constructed or reconstructed on the Project site, and/or Project property purchased, excluding construction easements and excess property (whose proportionate proceeds shall be distributed in an equal proportion of the grant to GRANTEE Funding Commitment ratio), shall remain dedicated to public transportation use in the same proportion and scope and to the same extent as described in this FA. Equipment acquired as part of the Project, including office equipment, vehicles, shall be dedicated to that use for their full economic life cycle, including any extensions of that life cycle achieved by reconstruction, rehabilitation, or enhancements.

13.3 In the event that there is any legal court (e.g., Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, or the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California) proceeding between the parties to enforce or interpret this FA, to protect or establish any rights or remedies hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees.

13.4 Neither LACMTA nor any officer or employee thereof shall be responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or committed to be done by GRANTEE under or in connection with any work performed by and or service provided by GRANTEE, its officers, agents, employees, contractors and subcontractors under this FA. GRANTEE shall fully indemnify, defend and hold LACMTA and its subsidiaries, and its officers, agents and employees harmless from and against any liability and expenses, including without limitation, defense costs, any costs or liability on account of bodily injury, death or personal injury of any person or for damage to or loss of risk of property, any environmental obligation, any legal fees and any claims for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of the Project, including without limitation: (i) use of the Funds by GRANTEE, or its officers, agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors; (ii) breach of GRANTEE’s obligations under this FA; or (iii) any act or omission of GRANTEE, or its officers, agents, employees, contractors or subcontractors in the performance of the work or the provision of the services, in connection with the Project including, without limitation, the Scope of Work, described in this FA.

13.5 Neither party hereto shall be considered in default in the performance of its obligation hereunder to the extent that the performance of any such obligation is prevented 17 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVM
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.16.2023 16 Measure R Funding Agreement – Highways – General
or delayed by unforeseen causes including acts of God, acts of a public enemy, and government acts beyond the control and without fault or negligence of the affected party. Each party hereto shall give notice promptly to the other of the nature and extent of any such circumstances claimed to delay, hinder, or prevent performance of any obligations under this FA.

13.6 GRANTEE shall comply with and ensure that work performed under this FA is done in compliance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), all applicable provisions of federal, state, and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations, and procedural requirements including Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), and the applicable requirements and regulations of LACMTA. GRANTEE acknowledges responsibility for obtaining copies of and complying with the terms of the most recent federal, state, or local laws and regulations, and LACMTA requirements including any amendments thereto.

13.7 GRANTEE agrees that the applicable requirements of this FA shall be included in every contract entered into by GRANTEE or its contractors relating to work performed under this FA and LACMTA shall have the right to review and audit such contracts.

13.8 GRANTEE shall not assign this FA, or any part thereof, without prior approval of the LACMTA Chief Executive Officer or his designee. Any assignment by GRANTEE without said prior consent by LACMTA shall be void and unenforceable.

13.9 This FA shall be governed by California law. If any provision of this FA is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force without being impaired or invalidated in any way.

13.10 The covenants and agreements of this FA shall inure to the benefit of, and shall be binding upon, each of the parties and their respective successors and assigns.

13.11 GRANTEE will advise LACMTA prior to any key Project staffing changes.

Notice will be given to the parties at the address specified in Part I, unless otherwise notified in writing of change of address.

13.12 GRANTEE, in the performance of the work described in this FA, is not a contractor nor an agent or employee of LACMTA. GRANTEE attests to no organizational or personal conflicts of interest and agrees to notify LACMTA immediately in the event that a conflict, or the appearance thereof, arises. GRANTEE shall not represent itself as an agent or employee of LACMTA and shall have no powers to bind LACMTA in contract or otherwise.
18 FTIP #: LA9919273
SOURCES OF FUNDS Prior Years F2022-23 FY 2024-25 FY2025-26 FY2026-27 FY2027-28 Total Budget
% of Budget

LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDING
MEASURE R FUNDS $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000

LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDS BY
YEAR SUBTOTAL $ - $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 100% OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING:

LOCAL: $ - 0%
STATE: $ - 0%
FEDERAL: $ - 0%
PRIVATE OR OTHER: $ - 0%
OTHER FUNDING SUBTOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDS $ - $ 5,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000,000 100%

ATTACHMENT A - PROJECT FUNDING
Measure R Program - Funding Agreement Projects - FA# 9200000000MR31117 Project Title: PCH at Las Flores and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements Project#: MR311.17

PROGRAMMED BUDGET - SOURCES OF FUNDS
Rev. 05.03.19 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment A Project Funds 19 FTIP #: LA9919273 Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 11-1-14 1 FA Measure R Hwys Sub Attachment B
Measure R Expenditure Guidelines

ATTACHMENT B

MEASURE R EXPENDITURE PLAN GUIDELINES

PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND RIGHT OF WAY
State Law Requires All Measure R Project and Program Sponsors to Submit an Expenditure Plan
To be eligible to receive Measure R revenues, an agency sponsoring a capital project or program must by state law (AB 2321) submit an expenditure plan that is acceptable to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA). Pursuant to this law, LACMTA cannot release Measure R funds to capital project or program sponsors until an expenditure plan containing the following elements is submitted, reviewed and deemed satisfactory by LACMTA. LACMTA staff will request that an expenditure plan be submitted before making a recommendation to the LACMTA Board to program funds to that project:
o The estimated total cost for each project and program and/or each project or program activity;
o Funds other than Measure R that the project or program sponsor anticipates will be expended on the projects and programs and/or each project or program activity; o The schedule during which the project sponsor anticipates funds will be available for each project and program and/or each project or program activity; and, o The expected completion dates for each project and program and/or project or program activity.

Each of the above elements must be provided in enough detail to determine consistency with Measure R, the Long Range Transportation Plan for Los Angeles County, and the Los Angeles County Transportation Improvement Program (also a statutorily mandated function), as follows:
o Project or program scope of work, including sufficient information to determine funding eligibility, including, but not limited to, the anticipated proportional use of current rail rights-of-way, state highways, and below-ground subways versus any other rights-of-way or above-ground work;
o A current-year cost estimate breakdown of the major sub-elements of the project such as overhead, environmental and permit work, design and engineering, right-of-way, construction/installation (including maintenance facilities, rail yard, equipment and other major components), construction/installation support, interest costs, rolling stock, and other supporting components;
o Any extraordinary project cost escalation issues, such as extraordinary commodity, rightof-way, surety, energy costs, etc.; o A specific and accurate description of the source, commitment, and anticipated annual availability of any federal, state, local, or private funding identified for the project if applicable including a 3% local funding contribution to rail projects if indicated in Measure R and necessary to meet project expenses, and if the source funds are in current or year-of-expenditure dollars;
20 FTIP #: LA9919273 Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 11-1-14 2 FA Measure R Hwys Sub Attachment B
Measure R Expenditure Guidelines
o An annual schedule, in current dollars, of anticipated costs by the cost estimate categories described above; and;
o The expected completion by month and year of project or program completion.

Below is an excerpt of AB 2321 (2008, Feuer), the state legislation that requires the expenditure plan.

What AB 2321 (2008, Feuer) Says About the Expenditure Plan:

Section b (3) B
(f) Prior to submitting the ordinance to the voters, the MTA shall adopt an expenditure plan for the net revenues derived from the tax. The expenditure plan shall include, in addition to other projects and programs identified by the MTA, the specified projects and programs listed in paragraph (3) of subdivision (b), the estimated total cost for each project and program, funds other than the tax revenues that the MTA anticipates will be expended on the projects and programs, and the schedule during which the MTA anticipates funds will be available for each project and program. The MTA shall also identify in its expenditure plan the expected completion dates for each project described in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b). To be eligible to receive revenues derived from the tax, an agency sponsoring a capital project or capital program shall submit to te MTA an expenditure plan for its project or program containing the same elements as the expenditure plan that MTA is required by this subdivision to prepare.
(k) No later than 365 days prior to the adoption of an amendment described in paragraph (1) to an expenditure plan adopted pursuant to subdivision (f), including, but not limited to, the expenditure plan adopted by the MTA board as "Attachment A" in Ordinance #08-01 adopted by the board on July 24, 2008, and in addition to any other notice requirements in the proposing ordinance, the board shall notify the Members of the Legislature representing the County of Los Angeles of all of the following:
(1) A description of the proposed amendments to the adopted expenditure plan that would do any of the following:
(A) Affect the amount of net revenues derived from the tax imposed pursuant to this act that is proposed to be expended on a capital project or projects identified in the adopted expenditure plan.
(B) Affect the schedule for the availability of funds proposed to be expended on a capital project or projects identified in the adopted expenditure plan. (C) Affect the schedule for the estimated or expected completion date of a capital project or projects identified in the adopted expenditure plan.
(2) The reason for the proposed amendment.
(3) The estimated impact the proposed amendment will have on the schedule, cost, scope, or timely availability of funding for the capital project or projects contained in the adopted expenditure plan.
21 SOURCES OF FUNDS FY 2024-25
Qtr 1
FY 2024-25
Qtr 2
FY 2024-25
Qtr 3
FY 2024-25
Qtr 4
FY 2025-26
Qtr 1
FY 2025-26
Qtr 2
FY 2025-26
Qtr 3
FY 2025-26
Qtr 4
TOTAL
BUDGET
LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDS:

MEASURE R FUNDS:

PAED $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $310,000 PS&E $0 $0 $0 $0
RW Support $0
Const. Support $0
RW $0
Construction $0
Total MEASURE R $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $310,000 SUM PROG LACMTA FUNDS: $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $310,000 SUM NON-LACMTA FUNDS : $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PROJECT FUNDING
FY23-24 and FY24-25 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $310,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS FY 2026-27
Qtr 1
FY 2026-27
Qtr 2
FY 2026-27
Qtr 3
FY 2026-27
Qtr 4
FY 2027-28
Qtr 1
FY 2027-29
Qtr 2
FY 2027-28
Qtr 3
FY 2027-28
Qtr 4
TOTAL
BUDGET
LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDS:

MEASURE R FUNDS:

PAED $25,000 $25,000
PS&E $25,000 $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 $125,000
RW Support $0
Const. Support $0
RW $0
Construction $400,000 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $690,000 $4,540,000 Total MEASURE R $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 $400,000 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $690,000 $4,690,000 SUM PROG LACMTA FUNDS: $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 $400,000 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $690,000 $4,690,000 SUM NON-LACMTA FUNDS : $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
PAED $25,000 $0 $0 $30,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $70,000 $335,000 PS&E $25,000 $40,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $125,000 RW Support $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const. Support $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $1,725,000 $1,725,000 $690,000 $4,540,000 TOTAL MILESTONES $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $470,000 $1,795,000 $1,795,000 $760,000 $5,000,000 SUM PROG LACMTA FUNDS $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $470,000 $1,795,000 $1,795,000 $760,000 $5,000,000 SUM NON-LACMTA FUNDS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $50,000 $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 $470,000 $1,795,000 $1,795,000 $760,000 $5,000,000 ATTACHMENT B-1 - EXPENDITURE PLAN COST & CASH FLOW BUDGET Measure R Program - Funding Agreement Projects - FA# 9200000000MR31117 Project Title: PCH at Las Flores and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements Project#: MR311.17

PROGRAMMED SOURCES OF FUNDS
22 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.03.19 1 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work

ATTACHMENT C

SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT TITLE:

PCH at Las Flores and Rambla Pacifico Intersection Improvements PROJECT LOCATION:

The project is located at the intersections of Pacific Coast Highway and Las Flores Canyon Road and Rambla Pacifico Street in the City of Malibu
PROJECT LIMITS:

This project limits are Pacific Coast Highway between Las Flores Canyon Road and Rambla Pacifico Street.

NEXUS TO HIGHWAY OPERATION, DEFINITION/PROJECT PURPOSE:

This project was identified in the 2015 PCH Safety Study and includes making various safety and efficiency improvements at the Las Flores Canyon Road and Rambla Pacifico Street Intersection. The report identified these intersections as the top collision intersections within the City. The current signal configurations, roadway geometry and unsafe speed were the causes of the vehicle collisions at these intersections. Poor signal timing and the geometry alignment between Las Flores Canyon Road and Rambla Pacifico Street often led to rear end collisions. In addition, the substandard pedestrian sidewalks or lack thereof forces pedestrians to walk on shoulders and/or between travel lanes. Within the last three years, pedestrian injuries have increased.

The project will reconfigure the traffic signals, realign across the intersections to improve the road geometry, provide additional room for a Class II bicycle lanes and improve pedestrian walkways. This project will be coordinated with other Caltrans projects planned for this intersection.

These improvements will significantly improve the operation of these intersections and assist in reducing the number of vehicle collisions.

PROJECT BACKGROUND:

Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) travels 21 miles through the City of Malibu and contains 19 signalized intersections. The various land-uses within this area, corridor traffic demands, PCH is congested during peak hours and especially during holidays. Due to the high traffic volumes, this corridor experiences high number of traffic collisions with several resulting in injury and or death.

In response to these concerns, the City along with its various stakeholders conducted a detailed traffic study that summaries the existing conditions and provides recommendations to improve safety along the corridor. These recommendations were identified in the 2015 PCH Safety Study.

The Las Flores Canyon Road and Rambla Pacifico Street intersections were identified in the 2015 PCH Safety Study. These intersections have been found to have the highest collision rates. Unsafe speeds and geometric alignment of these intersections. As a result, the 2015 PCH Safety Study recommended several improvements at these intersections.

23 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.03.19 2 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
PROJECT BUDGET:

COMPONENT AMONT
PA/ED 375,000
PS and E 125,000
R/W Support 0
R/W Capital 0
Construction Capital 4,540,000
Total Budget $ 5,000,000
SCOPE:

The Project features include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Provide a protected left turn from PCH.
• Realign across the intersections to improve the road geometry, provide additional room for a class II bicycle lanes and improve pedestrian walkways. • Reconfigure the traffic signals to accommodate the re-alignment of the intersection, including the relocation of signal poles to increase safety and visibility. • Relocate crosswalks as necessary to improve safety and visibility.

PA/ED
Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Define a complete and detailed project description and delineate project study areas B. Conduct technical analysis as required for the project including archeological and other studies
C. Prepare environmental documents consistent with CEQA Guidelines for review and approval by the City following completion of appropriate technical analysis and studies.

D. Prepare technical analysis or studies consistent with the City of Malibu’s Local Coastal Program as required for the Coastal Development Permit
E. Prepare the Coastal Development Permit Application for review by the City F. Prepare the environmental documents and the Coastal Development Permit application for public circulation
G. Make presentations to regulatory and permitting agencies as necessary H. Prepare responses to public review of draft environmental documents and the Coastal Development Permit application.

I. Prepare Caltrans Project Initiation Document all associated work.

PRELIMINARY DESIGN:

Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Conduct field investigations to analyze the existing conditions and identify design issues.

Record existing site conditions in drawings, photographs and/or video.

B. Examine and review all Right-of-Way maps, Parcel Maps, As-Built drawings and all other existing documents as appropriate.

C. Research, review and understand City of Malibu Local Coastal Program and City of Malibu General Plan.

D. Provide a complete survey of the project area, establishing horizontal and vertical control for the project.

E. Identify and coordinate with all utilities in the project area to facilitate the final design of the Project.
24 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.03.19 3 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
F. Research innovative traffic management techniques to manage traffic flow along highway corridor.

G. Work with Caltrans, County of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Country Metropolitan Transportation Authority, City of Los Angeles, and any other applicable municipal or regulatory agencies to develop the project’s scope and preliminary design to ensure acceptance of proposed work within the Caltrans’ right of way at the intersections of PCH and Las Flores Canyon Road and Rambla Pacifico Street.

I. Prepare and submit a “Preliminary Design Report” detailing the proposed project improvements and the supporting engineering analysis.

J. Prepare and submit a Preliminary Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate for all recommended improvements identified in the “Design Memo.” K. Prepare rendering of recommended improvements identified in the “Preliminary Design Report.”
FINAL DESIGN:

Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Design the roadway and sidewalk improvements based on the City reviewed “Preliminary Design Report.”
B. Prepare civil plans for the improvements, consistent with City format.

C. Submittal of plan set shall be delivered at 50%, 90% complete and final. Submittals at 50%, 90% and final levels of plans and specifications shall be submitted in hard copy and electronic formats.

D. Assist the City and conduct a Public Meeting at 50%, 90% submittal by preparing exhibits and attending workshop and be prepared to present the proposed project and discuss concerns of the residents, property owners and other stakeholders.

E. Prepare technical construction specifications consistent with City format (SSPWC “Greenbook” and CSI Format, most recent editions).

F. Submittal of specifications shall be delivered to the City at 50%, 90% complete and final in hard copy and electronic formats.

H. Prepare an Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate based on the itemized quantity takeoff from the contract documents.

I. Submittal of the Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate shall be delivered to the City at 50%, 90% complete and final in hard copy and electronic formats.

J. Prepare Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan that satisfies the requirements of the City’s storm water program, Caltrans requirements and all other applicable regulatory agencies.

K. Prepare a traffic control plan that satisfies the requirements of the City and Caltrans.

CALTRANS PERMITTING:

Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Determine the permitting documents and process required by Caltrans (Project Report, Project Study Report, Preliminary Engineering Evaluation Report, Encroachment Permit, etc.)
B. Prepare all Caltrans required permit documentation for the project in accordance with Caltrans
C. Conduct coordination meetings with Caltrans to facilitate permitting.

D. Submittal of plan set shall be delivered at 50%, 90% complete and final. Submittals at 50%, 90% and final levels of plans and specifications shall be submitted in hard copy and electronic formats.
25 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.03.19 4 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
E. Assist the City and conduct a Public Meeting at 50%, 90% submittal by preparing exhibits and attending workshop and be prepared to present the proposed project and discuss concerns of the residents, property owners and other stakeholders.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT:

Tasks to be performed include, but are not limited to, the following:

A. Meet as needed with the City to accomplish Project tasks as outlined. Meetings expected between the Consultant and City shall include but are not be limited to: Project Kick-off Meeting, presentation of “Design Memo”, regular progress meetings and preparation for the Public Meetings at 90% design completion.

B. Provide periodic schedule updates on deliverables and meetings as changes to the original schedule occur or as needed based on the needs of the project.

C. Coordinate and oversee environment analysis, Caltrans coordination, permitting, Caltrans permitting, preliminary design, final design and public outreach.

CONSTRUCTION:

Grantee expects to provide construction oversight, procure a consultant for construction management, award a contract for construction and to perform the following tasks:

A. Conduct a “Ground Breaking” ceremony for the project.

B. Contract with a separate engineering firm to provide Construction Management for the Project. This will be accomplished through an RFP.

C. Contract with a Contractor for construction.

D. Conduct a “Ribbon Cutting” ceremony at the completion of the Project.

The Design Consultant shall meet as needed with the Grantee to accomplish Project tasks as outlined. Meetings expected between the Consultant and Grantee shall include, but not be limited to, Pre-Construction Meeting, progress meetings and preparation of responses to RFIs.
26 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.03.19 5 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
MILESTONES: The implementation schedule for this project will be as follows.

START DATE COMPLETION DATE

SOLICITATION (BID/PROPOSAL)
Develop Solicitation Package November 2024 November 2024 Solicitation Response January 2025
Evaluations
Selection February 2025
Board Approval March 2025
Contract Award March 2025
Fully Executed Contract March 2025

PLANNING/PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Prepare Preliminary Design Report March 2025 March 2027 Prepare Cost Estimates March 2025 March 2027
Prepare Caltrans documents March 2025 March 2027
Submit CDP Application March 2025 March 2027
PA&ED
Prepare Environmental Document
Document Type: Categorical Exemption
March 2025 March 2027
Scoping
Technical Studies
Draft Environmental Document
Final Environmental Document
Community Outreach
Secure Project Approval
Intelligent Transportation System (ITS)
Categorical Exemption Filing
PS&E
60% PSE October 2026 January 2027
90% PSE January 2027 March 2027
Final PSE March 2027 April 2027
Caltrans Permits October 2026 April 2027
27 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.03.19 6 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES: The implementation schedule for this project will be as follows.

START DATE COMPLETION DATE

SOLICITATION (BID/PROPOSAL)
Develop Solicitation Package April 2027 June 2027
Solicitation Response June 2027
Evaluations June 2027
Selection June 2027
Board Approval Process August 2027
Contract Award August 2027
Fully Executed Contract August 2027

CONSTRUCTION
Procurement of materials August 2027 June 2028
Civil August 2027 June 2028
Foundations August 2027 June 2028
Electrical August 2027 June 2028
Installation of electrical equipment August 2027 June 2028 Testing and startup August 2027 June 2028
Final Acceptance August 2027 June 2028
28 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.03.19 7 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
ATTACHMENT C – Location Map(s)
29 06.25.19 1 FA Local Attachment C Admin Guidelines

FA ATTACHMENT D

REPORTING & EXPENDITURE GUIDELINES

REPORTING PROCEDURES
• Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report (Attachment D-1) is required for all projects. The GRANTEE shall be subject to and comply with all applicable requirements of the funding agency regarding project-reporting requirements. In addition, GRANTEE will submit a quarterly report to the LACMTA at [email protected] or by mail to Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Accounts Payable, P. O.

Box 512296, Los Angeles, California 90051-0296. Please note that letters or other forms of documentation may not be substituted for this form.
• The Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report covers all activities related to the project and lists all costs incurred. It is essential that GRANTEE provide complete and adequate response to all the questions. The expenses listed must be supported by appropriate documentation with a clear explanation of the purpose and relevance of each expense to the project. Expenses must reflect the proportionate share of local match, including inkind, charged to the grant. • In cases where there are no activities to report, or problems causing delays, clear explanation, including actions to remedy the situation, must be provided. • GRANTEES are required to track and report on the project schedule. LACMTA will monitor the timely use of funds and delivery of projects. Project delay, if any, must be reported each quarter. Projects not delivered in a timely manner will be reevaluated by LACMTA as part of the annual Call for Projects Recertification process and the Funds may be deobligated and reprogrammed by the LACMTA Board. • The Quarterly Progress/Expenditure Report is due to the LACMTA as soon as possible after the close of each quarter, but no later than the following dates for each fiscal year:

Quarter Report Due Date
July –September November 30
October - December February 28
January - March May 31
April - June August 31
Upon completion of the Project a final report that includes project’s final evaluation must be submitted.
30 06.25.19 2 FA Local Attachment C Admin Guidelines

EXPENDITURE GUIDELINES
• Any activity or expense charged above and beyond the approved Scope-of-Work (FA Attachment C) is considered ineligible and will not be reimbursed by the LACMTA unless prior written authorization has been granted by the LACMTA Chief Executive Officer or his/her designee.
• Any expense charged to the grant or local match, including in-kind, must be clearly and directly related to the project.
• Any activity or expense charged as local match cannot be applied to any other LACMTAfunded or non-LACMTA-funded projects; activities or expenses related to a previously funded project cannot be used as local match for the current project. • Administrative cost is the ongoing expense incurred by the GRANTEE for the duration of the project and for the direct benefit of the project as specified in the Scope-of-Work (Attachment C). Examples of administrative costs are personnel, office supplies, and equipment. As a condition for eligibility, all costs must be necessary for maintaining, monitoring, coordinating, reporting and budgeting of the project. Additionally, expenses must be reasonable and appropriate to the activities related to the project. • LACMTA is not responsible for and will not reimburse any costs incurred by the GRANTEE prior to the Effective Date of the FA, unless written authorization has been granted by the LACMTA Chief Executive Officer or her/her designee.

DEFINITIONS
• Local Participation: Where local participation consists of “in-kind” contributions rather than funds, the following contributions may be included:
• Costs incurred by a local jurisdiction to successfully complete the project.

Examples include engineering, design, rights-of-way purchase, and construction management costs.
• Donations of land, building space, supplies, equipment, loaned equipment, or loaned building space dedicated to the project.
• Donations of volunteer services dedicated to the project. • A third-party contribution of services, land, building space, supplies or equipment dedicated to the project.
• Allowable Cost: To be allowable, costs must be reasonable, recognized as ordinary and necessary, consistent with established practices of the organization, and consistent with industry standard of pay for work classification.
• Excessive Cost: Any expense deemed “excessive” by LACMTA staff would be adjusted to reflect a “reasonable and customary” level. For detail definition of “reasonable cost”, 31 06.25.19 3 FA Local Attachment C Admin Guidelines
please refer to the Federal Register OMB Circulars A-87 Cost Principals for State and Local Governments; and A-122 Cost Principals for Nonprofit Organizations. • Ineligible Expenditures: Any activity or expense charged above and beyond the approved Scope-of-Work is considered ineligible.
32 Invoice #
QUARTERLY PROGRESS / EXPENSE REPORT Invoice Date
FA#
Quarterly Report #

GRANTEES ARE REQUESTED TO EMAIL THIS REPORT TO
[email protected]
or submit by mail to:

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Accounts Payable
P. O. Box 512296
Los Angeles, California 90051-0296
after the close of each quarter, but no later than November 30, February 28, May 31 and August 31. Please note that letters or other forms of documentation may not be substituted for this form. Refer to the Reporting and Expenditure Guidelines (Attachment D) for further information.

Balance Remaining
% of Project Budget Expended to Date
Please itemize grant-related charges for this Quarter on Page 5 of this report and include totals in this Section.

Retention Amount
This Quarter Expenditure
Project Quarter Expenditure
Net Invoice Amount (Less Retention)
LACMTA Measure R Grant $
Grantee To Complete
LACMTA FA MEASURE R ATTACHMENT D-2
SECTION 1: QUARTERLY EXPENSE REPORT
Total Project Budget
$ -
Project-to-Date Expenditure
Funds Expended to Date (Include this
Quarter)
Rev: 05.28.21 1 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment D-2 Quarterly Report 33 PROJECT TITLE:

QUARTERLY REPORT SUBMITTED FOR:

Fiscal Year : 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023
2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026
Quarter : Q1: Jul - Sep Q2: Oct - Dec
Q3: Jan - Mar Q4: Apr - Jun
DATE SUBMITTED:

LACMTA MODAL CATEGORY:

RSTI Pedestrian
TDM Goods Movement
Transit
Phone Number:

E-mail:

Job Title:

Bicycle
Name:

FA #:

LACMTA Project Manager
Project Sponsor Contact / Project
Manager
Phone Number:

Mailing Address:

City / Agency:

Department:

Highways
Signal Synchronization
SECTION 2: GENERAL INFORMATION
Contact Name:

E-mail:

Rev: 05.28.21 2 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment D-2 Quarterly Report 34 Start Date End Date
On schedule per original FA schedule Less than 12 months behind original schedule Between 12-24 months behind original schedule More than 24 months behind original schedule Yes No Not Applicable
Yes No Not Applicable
Construction
Ground Breaking Event
Design Bid & Award
Environmental Clearance
Right-of-Way Acquisition
Start Date
Construction Bid & Award
Design
FA Milestones
SECTION 3 : QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT
Actual Schedule
End Date

1. DELIVERABLES & MILESTONES
Original FA Schedule in Scope of Work
List all deliverables and milestones as stated in the FA, with start and end dates. Calculate the total project duration. DO NOT CHANGE THE ORIGINAL FA MILESTONE START AND END DATES SHOWN IN THE 2 ND
AND 3
RD
COLUMNS BELOW.

Grantees must make every effort to accurately portray milestone dates in the original FA Scope of Work, since this will provide the basis for calculating any project delay. If milestone start and/or end dates change from those stated in the Original FA Scope of Work, indicate the new dates under Actual Schedule below and re-calculate the project duration. However, this does not change the original milestones in your FA. PER YOUR FA AGREEMENT, ANY CHANGES TO THE PROJECT SCHEDULE MUST BE FORMALLY SUBMITTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER TO LACMTA FOR WRITTEN CONCURRENCE.

B. Was the project design started within 6 months of the date originally stated in the FA? C. Was a construction contract or capital purchase executed within 9 months after completion of design / specifications?

2. PROJECT COMPLETION
Total Project Duration (Months)
Ribbon Cutting Event
A. Based on the comparison of the original and actual project milestone schedules above, project is (select only one) :

Rev: 05.28.21 3 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment D-2 Quarterly Report 35 4. PROJECT DELAY
If project is delayed, describe reasons for delay (this quarter). Pay particular attention to schedule delays. If delay is for the same reason as mentioned in previous quarters, please indicate by writing "Same as Previous Quarter".

5. ACTION ITEMS TO RESOLVE DELAY
List tasks or milestones accomplished and progress made this quarter.

3. TASKS / MILESTONES ACCOMPLISHED
If the project is delayed (as described in #4), include action items that have been, or will be, undertaken to resolve the delay.

Rev: 05.28.21 4 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment D-2 Quarterly Report 36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
Invoice Payment Information:

LACMTA will make all disbursements electronically unless an exception is requested in writing.

ACH Payments require that you complete an ACH Request Form and fax it to Accounts Payable at 213-922-6107.

ACH Request Forms can be found at www.metro.net/callforprojects.

Written exception requests for Check Payments should be completed and faxed to Accounts Payable at 213-922-6107.

Signature Date
Name Title
TOTAL

TOTAL EXPENSES CHARGED TO LACMTA MEASURE R GRANT
SECTION 4: ITEMIZED LISTING OF EXPENSES AND CHARGES THIS QUARTER INVOICE #
All expenses and charges must be itemized and listed below. Each item listed must be verifiable by an invoice and/or other proper documentation. The total amounts shown here must be equal to this quarter’s expenditures listed on page 1 of this report. All expenses and charges must be reflective of the approved budget and rates as shown in the FA Attachment B, Scope of Work. Use additional pages if needed.

ITEM
stated in this report is true and correct.

All receipts, invoices, and time sheets, attached and included with this Expense Report must be listed and shown under the Invoice Number column of the Itemized Listing (above).

Note:
and that to the best of my knowledge and belief the information I certify that I am the responsible Project Manager or fiscal officer and representative of Rev: 05.28.21 5 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment D-2 Quarterly Report 37 Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program ($000)
TIP ID LA9919273 Implementing Agency Malibu, City of
SCAG RTP Project #:

Conformity Category:

Project Description: The project will reconfigure the traffic signals, realign across the intersections to improve the road geometry, provide additional room for bicycle lanes and improve pedestrian walkways. This project will be coordinated with other Caltrans projects planned for this intersection.

Study:N/A Is Model: Model #:

PM: Rob DuBoux - (310)456-2489
LS: N LS GROUP#:

EA #: PPNO:

Program Code: NCR30 - SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Stop Loc:

Air Basin: SCAB Envir Doc: CATEGORICAL EXEMPTIONS -- CEQA - 10/01/2023
Uza: Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana
Sub-Area: Sub-Region: Las
Virgenes/Malibu COG
CTIPS ID:

Lane # Extd: Lane # Prop: Imprv Desc:

Toll Rate: Hov acs eg loc:

0.00 Toll Colc Loc: Toll Method:

System :Local Hwy Route : Postmile: Distance: Phase: Completion Date 06/30/2027 PHASE PRIOR 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 BEYOND PROG TOTAL MR20H - Measure R 20% Highway PE $70 $280 $110 $0 $460
CON
RW
SUBTOTAL $70 $280 $110 $4,540 $5,000
$0 $0 $0 $4,540 $4,540
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $70 $280 $110 $4,540
TOTAL PE: $460 TOTAL RW: $0 TOTAL CON: $4,540
$5,000
TOTAL PROGRAMMED: $5,000
- General Comment:
- Modeling Comment:
- TCM Comment:
- Amendment Comment:
- CMP Comment:
- Narrative:

Last Revised Amendment 23-17 - Submitted Change reason:NEW PROJECT Total Project Cost $5,000

38 FTIP #: LA9919273
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.17
FA# 9200000000MR31117
Rev: 05.15.19 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment F
Bond Requirements
1 ATTACHMENT F

BOND REQUIREMENTS
The provisions of this Attachment F apply only if and to the extent some or all of the Funds are derived from LACMTA issued Bonds or other debt, the interest on which is tax exempt for federal tax purposes (collectively, the "Bonds").

GRANTEE acknowledges that some or all of the Funds may be derived from Bonds, the interest on which is tax-exempt for federal tax purposes or with respect to which LACMTA receives a Federal subsidy for a portion of the interest cost or the investor receives a tax credit. GRANTEE further acknowledges its understanding that the proceeds of the Bonds are subject to certain ongoing limitations relating to the use of the assets financed or provided with such proceeds ("Project Costs" or "Project Components") in the trade or business of any person or entity other than a governmental organization (any such use by a person or entity other than a governmental organization is referred to as "Private Use"). Private Use will include any sale, lease or other arrangement pursuant to which a nongovernmental person or entity receives a legal entitlement of a Project Component and also includes certain agreements pursuant to which a nongovernmental person will operate or manage a Project Component. Each quarterly invoice submitted by GRANTEE to reimburse prior expenditures (or to be received as an advance) shall provide information regarding the specific Project Costs or Project Components to which the Funds which pay that invoice will be allocated and whether there is or might be any Private Use associated with such Project Costs or Project Components. GRANTEE will, for the entire time over which LACMTA's Bonds or other debt remains outstanding, (1) notify and receive LACMTA' s approval prior to entering into any arrangement which will or might result in Private Use and (2) maintain records, including obtaining records from contractors and subcontractors as necessary, of all allocations of Funds to Project Costs or Project Components and any Private Use of such Project Costs or Project Components in sufficient detail to comply and establish compliance with Section 141 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"), or similar code provision then in effect and applicable, as determined by the LACMTA in consultation with its bond counsel.

GRANTEE will designate one or more persons that will be responsible for compliance with the obligations described in this Attachment F and notify LACMTA of such designations. 39

Agenda Item # 3.B.7.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Brandie Ayala, Administrative Analyst
Reviewed by: Rob DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: June 11, 2024 Meeting date: July 8, 2024 Subject: Los Angeles County Measure R Transportation Funding Agreement RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the Mayor to execute the Los Angeles County Measure R Funding Amendment to Agreement for the Pacific Coast Highway Intersection Improvements -Trancas Canyon Intersection.

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: Los Angeles County Measure R was approved by voters in 2008. This measure added a half-cent sales tax for a period of thirty years to fund transportation projects and improvements. Measure R is projected to generate approximately $40 billion countywide.

The Pacific Coast Highway Intersection Improvements -Trancas Canyon Intersection project was identified as Priority ID Nos. 22, 70, and 71 in the 2015 PCH Safety Study.

The westbound travel lanes on Pacific Coast Highway approaching Trancas Canyon road do not have a dedicated right turn lane. Vehicles are required to drastically slow down traffic in the number two lane on PCH to make a right turn onto Trancas Canyon Road or a right turn into the commercial shopping center. The posted speed limit in this section of PCH/SR 1 is 50 miles per hour. With this posted speed limit and no dedicated right turn lane, it causes a safety issue and potential rear-end collisions approaching the signalized intersection. In addition, this area has a high number of pedestrians crossing Trancas City Council Meeting
07-08-24
Item

3.B.7.
1

Agenda Item # 3.B.7.

Canyon Road to access the commercial shopping center as well as crossing PCH to get to the beach. Drivers turning into the areas at high speeds are putting the pedestrians at risk.

The Pacific Coast Highway Intersection Improvements – Trancas Canyon Intersection consists of adding a new right turn lane on the westbound side of PCH. The addition of the right turn lane will require reconfiguring and restriping of the westbound lanes on PCH.

The design will also evaluate traffic signal modifications and improvements that include replacing and relocating traffic signal poles and equipment, upgrades and modifications to the traffic signal heads, traffic loops and modifying the traffic signal phasing. The proposed improvements will reduce this conflict, collision incidents, and will provide a safer environment for vehicles and pedestrians.

The project design has been coordinated with Caltrans’ Trancas Canyon Road Bridge Replacement project. The proposed right turn lane was considered by Caltrans during their final design of the bridge replacement project. Caltrans’ improvements will connect into the proposed right turn lane.

On April 11, 2022, City Council authorized the Mayor to execute a funding agreement in the amount of $1,000,000 for the PCH Intersection Improvements – Trancas Canyon Intersection. During the design phase of the project, it was determined that additional Caltrans requirements would be required for this project and additional funding for the construction phase would be needed. On June 14, 2023, Metro approved additional funding in the amount of $325,000 to be reallocated from Pedestrian Signal at 22523 PCH to the PCH Intersection Improvements – Trancas Canyon Intersection. Metro cancelled this project with the direction from the City because Caltrans will be installing the proposed pedestrian signal at 22523 PCH. The additional funds added to this project require an amendment to the April 2022 funding agreement.

Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the funding amendment to the Los Angeles County Measure R Funding Agreement for the PCH Intersection Improvements – Trancas Canyon Intersection.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Funding Amendment to Agreement with Los Angeles County for the Pacific Coast Highway Intersection Improvements -Trancas Canyon Intersection 2 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
Amendment No. 1
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 10.26.2022 1 Measure R Funding Agreement Amendment Highways – General
AMENDMENT No. 1 TO MEASURE R FUNDING AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF MALIBU AND THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

This Amendment No. 1 to the Funding Agreement (this “Amendment”), is dated as of February 1, 2024 by and between the City of Malibu ("Grantee") and the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("LACMTA").

RECITALS:

A. Grantee and LACMTA entered into that certain Funding Agreement No. 9200000000MR31127, dated February 14, 2022, (the "Existing FA"), which Existing FA provides for the PCH Intersection Improvements Project (the “Project”); and B. WHEREAS, the Grantee desires to increase the Project’s budget of Measure R by $325,000 from $1,000,000 to $1,325,000. This amount is within the Board authorized budget increase for the Project, and the total new Project budget is $1,325,000 which was approved by the LACMTA Board on June 22, 2023;and
C. WHEREAS, the Funds are currently programmed for the Project as follows $80,000 in Measure R Funds in FY 2020-21, $630,000 in Measure R Funds in FY 2021-22, $290,000 in Measure R Funds in FY 2022-23 and $325,000 in Measure R Funds in FY 2023-24.

The total designated amount for the Project is $1,325,000; and D. WHEREAS, the LACMTA Board on January 26, 2023, delegated administrative authority to staff to extend funding lapsing date to meet PAED, PS&E, ROW, and Construction time frames; and
E. Whereas, the Grantee and LACMTA desire to extend the lapsing date of Funds programmed for FY 2021-22 to June 30, 2025; and
F. Grantee and LACMTA desire to amend the Existing FA as provided herein. 3 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
Amendment No. 1
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 10.26.2022 2 Measure R Funding Agreement Amendment Highways – General
AGREEMENT:

NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows:

1. Part I, Paragraph 2.2 of the Existing FA is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following: “To the extent the Measure R funds are available, LACMTA shall make to GRANTEE a grant of the Measure R funds in the amount of $1,325,000 (the “Funds”) for the Project. LACMTA Board of Directors actions on January 24, 2013, October 24, 2013, November 26, 2015, January 28, 2021, and June 22, 2023 resulted in the Measure R Funds currently granted for the Project. The Funds are currently programmed in four (4) Fiscal Years: $80,000 in FY 2020-21; $630,000 in FY 2021-22; $290,000 in FY 2022-23 and $325,000 in FY 2023-24.”

2. Part II, Section 9.1 (vii) of the Existing FA is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety and replacing it with the following: “(vii) Expending the Funds granted under this FA for allowable costs by the lapsing date. All Funds in FY 2020-21 have been expended and are no longer available. All Funds programmed for FY 2021-22 are subject to lapse by June 30, 2025. All Funds programmed for FY 2022-23 are subject to lapse June 30, 2025. All Funds programmed for FY 2023-24 are subject to lapse by June 30, 2026.”

3. Attachment A of the Existing FA is hereby replaced by Attachment A-1, attached.

4. Attachment B-1 of the Existing FA is hereby replaced by Attachment B1-1, attached.

5. Attachment C of the Existing FA is hereby replaced by Attachment C-1, attached.

6. Attachment E – TIP Sheet of the Existing FA is hereby replaced by Attachment E-1, attached.

7. Except as expressly amended hereby, the Existing FA remains in full force and effect as originally executed. All rights and obligations of the parties under the Existing FA that are not expressly amended by this Amendment shall remain unchanged. 4 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
Amendment No. 1
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev.: 03.08.2023 3 Measure R Funding Agreement Amendment Highways – General
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the FA to be executed by their duly authorized representatives as of the dates indicated below:

LACMTA:

LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY By: ________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Stephanie N. Wiggins
Chief Executive Officer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

DAWYN R. HARRISON
County Counsel
By: ________________________________________ Date: ____________________ Deputy
GRANTEE:

City of Malibu
By: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________ Steve Uhring
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

By: _______________________________________ Date: ____________________ Trevor Rusin
Interim City Attorney
5 FTIP #: LA0G909
SOURCES OF FUNDS FY2020-21 FY2021-22 FY2022-23 FY2023-24 Total Budget
% of Budget

LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDING
MEASURE R FUNDS $ 80,000 $ 630,000 $ 290,000 $ 325,000 $ 1,325,000 100%

LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDS BY YEAR
SUBTOTAL $ 80,000 $ 630,000 $ 290,000 $ 325,000 $ 1,325,000 100% OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDING:

LOCAL: $ - 0%
STATE: $ - 0%
FEDERAL: $ - 0%
PRIVATE OR OTHER: $ - 0%
OTHER FUNDING SUBTOTAL $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 0%
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDS $ 80,000 $ 630,000 $ 290,000 $ 325,000 $ 1,325,000 100% ATTACHMENT A-1 - PROJECT FUNDING
Measure R Program - Funding Agreement Projects - FA# 9200000000MR31127 Project Title: PCH Intersection Improvements Project#: MR311.27

PROGRAMMED BUDGET - SOURCES OF FUNDS
Rev. 05.03.19 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment A Project Funds 6 SOURCES OF FUNDS FY 2021-22
Qtr 4
FY 2022-23
Qtr 1
FY 2022-23
Qtr 2
FY 2022-23
Qtr 3
FY 2022-23
Qtr 4
FY 2023-24
Qtr 1
FY 2023-24
Qtr 2
FY 2023-24
Qtr 3
TOTAL
BUDGET
LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDS:

MEASURE R FUNDS:

PAED $7,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $13,000 $150,000 PS&E $75,000 $60,000 $135,000
RW Support $0
Const. Support $0
RW $0
Construction $0
Total MEASURE R $7,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $88,000 $60,000 $285,000 SUM PROG LACMTA FUNDS: $7,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $88,000 $60,000 $285,000 OTHER NON LACMTA FUNDING:

LOCAL:

PAED $0
PS&E $0
RW Support $0
Const. Support $0
RW $0
Construction $0
Total LOCAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUM NON-LACMTA FUNDS : $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PROJECT FUNDING
FY21-22, FY22-23 and FY23-24 $7,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $88,000 $60,000 $285,000 SOURCES OF FUNDS FY 2023-24
Qtr 4
FY 2024-25
Qtr 1
FY 2024-25
Qtr 2
FY 2024-25
Qtr 3
FY 2024-25
Qtr 4
FY 2025-26
Qtr 1
FY 2025-26
Qtr 2
FY 2025-26
Qtr 3
TOTAL
BUDGET
LACMTA PROGRAMMED FUNDS:

MEASURE R FUNDS:

PAED $0
PS&E $50,000 $15,000 $65,000
RW Support $0
Const. Support $0
RW $0
Construction $500,000 $275,000 $200,000 $975,000
Total MEASURE R $50,000 $15,000 $500,000 $275,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,040,000 SUM PROG LACMTA FUNDS: $50,000 $15,000 $500,000 $275,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,040,000 OTHER NON LACMTA FUNDING:

LOCAL:

PAED $0
PS&E $0
RW Support $0
Const. Support $0
RW $0
Construction $0
Total LOCAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
SUM NON-LACMTA FUNDS : $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

PROJECT FUNDING
FY23-24, FY24-25, and FY25-26 $50,000 $15,000 $500,000 $275,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,040,000

SUMMARY OF ALL FUNDS
PAED $7,000 $25,000 $30,000 $30,000 $15,000 $30,000 $13,000 $0 $150,000 PS&E $50,000 $15,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $60,000 $200,000 RW Support $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Const. Support $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
RW $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Construction $0 $0 $500,000 $275,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $975,000 TOTAL MILESTONES $57,000 $40,000 $530,000 $305,000 $215,000 $30,000 $88,000 $60,000 $1,325,000 SUM PROG LACMTA FUNDS $57,000 $40,000 $530,000 $305,000 $215,000 $30,000 $88,000 $60,000 $1,325,000 SUM NON-LACMTA FUNDS $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL PROJECT FUNDING $57,000 $40,000 $530,000 $305,000 $215,000 $30,000 $88,000 $60,000 $1,325,000 ATTACHMENT B-1 - EXPENDITURE PLAN COST & CASH FLOW BUDGET Measure R Program - Funding Agreement Projects - FA# 9200000000MR31127 Project Title: PCH Intersection Improvements Project#: MR311.27

PROGRAMMED SOURCES OF FUNDS
7 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 05.03.19 1 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
ATTACHMENT C-1

SCOPE OF WORK
PROJECT TITLE:

Pacific Coast Highway Intersections Improvements (Trancas) PROJECT LOCATION:

The project is located at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway/State Route 1 (PCH/SR 1) and Trancas Canyon Road in the City of Malibu and the County of Los Angeles.

PROJECT LIMITS:

The project limits are the intersection at PCH/SR1 and Trancas Canyon Road intersection. The proposed improvements will extend approximately 500 feet to the east and west on PCH.

NEXUS TO HIGHWAY OPERATION, DEFINITION/PROJECT PURPOSE:

The purpose of this project is to install a dedicated westbound right turn lane at the intersection of PCH/SR 1 and Trancas Canyon Road. The proposed right turn lane will allow for cars to decelerate and make a right turn at the Intersection or into the adjacent commercial shopping center entrance.

PROJECT BACKGROUND:

This project intersection ranks in the top 10 most collisions from 2015 to 2020 throughout the City of Malibu. Currently, the westbound travel lanes do not have a dedicated right turn lane. Vehicles are required to drastically slow down traffic in the number two lane on PCH to make a right turn onto Trancas Canyon Road or a right turn into the commercial shopping center. The posted speed limit in this section of PCH/SR 1 is 50 miles per hour. With this posted speed limit and no dedicated right turn, it causes a safety issue and potential rear-end collisions approaching the signalized intersection.

In addition, this area has high numbers of pedestrians crossing Trancas Canyon Road to access the commercial shopping center as well as crossing PCH to get to the beach.

Drivers turning into the areas at high speeds are putting the pedestrians at risk. The proposed improvements will reduce this conflict, collision incidents, and will provide a safer environment for vehicles and pedestrians.

The PCH and Trancas Canyon Road intersection has been identified as a priority safety project within the City of Malibu. This project has been discussed at Malibu City Council, Public Works Commission and has strong support from the city residents. The City of Malibu has been actively discussing the need for improvements and design options with Caltrans.
8 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 05.03.19 2 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
PROJECT BUDGET:

COMPONENT AMOUNT
PA/ED 150,000
PS and E 200,000
Construction 975,000
Construction Capital 000,000
Total Budget $1,325,000
SCOPE:

This phase of the project funding will focus on completing the design of the project and complete the construction phase. Funding will support the preliminary design, environmental analysis, any supplementary studies, Caltrans Encroachment Permit and Costal Development Permit approvals. This funding will also support final design, construction phase and project management.

The major component of the design will be incorporating a new right turn lane on the westbound side of Pacific Coast Highway. The project boundaries lie within the City of Malibu right of way and will not require any right of way acquisition. The addition of the right turn lane will require respacing and restriping of the westbound lanes on PCH. The City will contract with a Traffic Geometrician to evaluate the best possible lane alignments and if there are any other supplementary intersection improvements required. The project improvements will include the following: installation of a 500’ new right turn lane, new curb and gutter, new asphalt concrete, traffic striping and signage, concrete ADA ramp, and median redesign. The design will also evaluate traffic signal modifications and improvements that include replacing and relocating traffic signal poles and equipment, upgrades and modifications to the traffic signal heads, traffic loops and modifying the traffic signal phasing.

The first step to starting this project would be to hire a Traffic Geometrician to begin the design process. This project will require a high level of Traffic Engineering Design, Caltrans Coordination and California Coastal Commission approvals and construction completed. The tasks below better define the different design phases and construction phase anticipated to complete this project.

Project Approval / Environmental Documents:

I. Environmental Analysis – Environmental Clearance and Coastal Development Permit as Final Work Product
City and Consultant to perform the following tasks:

A. Define a complete and detailed project description.

B. Conduct technical analysis as required for the project. 9 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 05.03.19 3 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
C. Conduct archeological or other studies as required for the project.

D. Prepare environmental documents consistent with CEQA Guidelines for review and approval by the City following completion of appropriate technical analysis and studies.

E. Prepare the Coastal Development Permit Application.

F. Prepare technical analysis or studies for the Coastal Development Permit and all other applicable permits as necessary.

G. Make presentations to regulatory agencies as necessary.

II. Preliminary Design – “Design Memo and Renderings” as Final Work Product
City and Consultant to perform the following tasks:

A. Conduct field investigations to analyze the existing conditions and identify design issues. Record existing site conditions in drawings, photographs and/or video.

B. Examine and review all Right-of-Way maps, Parcel Maps, As-Built drawings and all other existing documents as appropriate.

C. Provide a complete survey of the project area, establishing horizontal and vertical control for the project.

D. Identify and coordinate with all utilities in the project area to facilitate the final design of the Project.

E. Prepare and submit a “Design Memo” detailing the proposed project improvements and the supporting engineering analysis.

F. Prepare and submit a Preliminary Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate for all recommended improvements identified in the “Design Memo.”
G. Prepare rendering of recommended improvements identified in the “Design Memo.”
III. Final Design – Plans, Specifications and Estimates as Final Work Product
Consultant to perform the following tasks:

A. Design the roadway and sidewalk improvements based on the City reviewed “Design Memo.”
B. Prepare civil plans for the improvements, consistent with City format.

C. Submittal of plan set shall be delivered at 50%, 90% complete and final.

Submittals at 50%, 90% and final levels of plans and specifications shall be submitted in hard copy and electronic formats.

D. Assist the City and conduct a Public Meeting at 50%, 90% submittal by preparing exhibits and attending workshop and be prepared to present the proposed project and discuss concerns of the residents, property owners and other stakeholders.
10 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 05.03.19 4 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
E. Work with Caltrans’ and Caltrans’ Traffic Control Center to ensure compatibility, connectivity and acceptance by the Caltrans’ Traffic Management Center.

F. Prepare technical construction specifications consistent with City format (SSPWC “Greenbook” and CSI Format, most recent editions).

G. Submittal of specifications shall be delivered to the City at 50%, 90% complete and final in hard copy and electronic formats.

H. Prepare an Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate based on the itemized quantity take-off from the contract documents.

I. Submittal of the Engineer’s Construction Cost Estimate shall be delivered to the City at 50%, 90% complete and final in hard copy and electronic formats.

J. Prepare Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan that satisfies the requirements of the City’s storm water program, Caltrans requirements and all other applicable regulatory agencies.

K. Prepare a traffic control plan that satisfies the requirements of the City and Caltrans.

IV. Caltrans Permitting – Caltrans’ Encroachment Permit as Final Work Product
Consultant to perform the following tasks:

A. Determine the permitting documents and process required by Caltrans to obtain an encroachment permit.

B. Prepare all Caltrans required permit documentation for the project in accordance with Caltrans
C. Conduct coordination meetings with Caltrans to facilitate permitting.

D. Submittal of plan set shall be delivered at 50%, 90% complete and final.

Submittals at 50%, 90% and final levels of plans and specifications shall be submitted in hard copy and electronic formats.

E. Assist the City and conduct a Public Meeting at 50%, 90% submittal by preparing exhibits and attending workshop and be prepared to present the proposed project and discuss concerns of the residents, property owners and other stakeholders.

V. Project Coordination - Preparation of Periodic Updated Schedule, Deliverables and Meetings
Consultant to perform the following tasks:

A. Meet as needed with the City to accomplish Project tasks as outlined.

Meetings expected between the Consultant and City shall include but are not be limited to: Project Kick-off Meeting, presentation of “Design Memo”, regular progress meetings and preparation for the Public Meetings at 90% design completion.
11 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 05.03.19 5 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
B. Provide periodic schedule updates on deliverables and meetings as changes to the original schedule occur or as needed based on the needs of the project.

IV. Project Management
City to perform the following tasks:

A. Coordinate and oversee environment analysis, Caltrans coordination, permitting, Caltrans permitting, preliminary design, final design and public outreach.

CONSTRUCTION
The City will contract for construction management services for the project through the Request For Proposal process. City staff will provide construction management oversight. The City will award a low-bid contract for construction. The following tasks shall be performed:

I. Construction Management
Consultant to perform the following tasks:

A. The Construction Manager will provide contract administration and construction management as well as materials testing and inspection.

B. The Construction Manager shall meet with the City and Design Consultant to perform work as needed to accomplish Project tasks including but is not limited to: Pre-Bid Meeting, Pre-Construction Meeting, regular progress meetings and the review and preparation of Request for Information responses, Request for Change Order responses, progress payment requests, submittals, shop drawings, change orders and project closeout.

II. Design Services During Construction - Responses to RFls, RFCs, Progress Payment Requests, Review of Submittals, Shop Drawings and Change Orders
Consultant to perform the following tasks:

A. The Design Consultant shall meet with the City and the Construction Manager and perform work as needed to accomplish Project tasks including but is not limited to: Pre-Bid Meeting, Pre-Construction Meeting, regular progress meetings and the review and preparation of Request for Information responses, Request for Change Order responses, progress payment requests, submittals, shop drawings, change orders, and project closeout.
12 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 05.03.19 6 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work
III. Construction Contract
Contractor will perform the following tasks:

A. Construct project in accordance with the plans and specifications.

MILESTONES: The implementation schedule for this project will be as follows.

Milestone Estimated Timeframe
(a) Begin Design January 2022
(b) Project Approval & Environmental Documents March 2022 – August 2022 (c) Project Design, Specifications & Estimates August 2022 – June 2024 (d) Permit(s) Jan 2023 – June 2024
(e) Solicitation for Bids July 2024 – September 2024
(f) Construction September 2024 – May 2025
13 FTIP #: LA0G909
Subregion ID: LVMCOG
Project#: MR311.27
FA# 9200000000MR31127
Rev: 05.03.19 7 FA Measure R Hwys Gen Attachment C Scope of Work

ATTACHMENT C – Location Map(s)
14 Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority
2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program ($000)
TIP ID LA0G909 Implementing Agency Malibu, City of
SCAG RTP Project #: 1O1013
Conformity Category: EXEMPT - 93.127
Project Description: Pacific Coast Highway Intersection Improvements. The project will improve key intersections along the PCH/SR-1 in the City of Malibu to improve operations and traffic flow. The improvements include signal installation, dedicated turn lanes, protected turn signals, flashing beacons, crosswalks, striping and channelization.

Study:N/A Is Model: Model #:

PM: Robert Brager - (310) 456-2489
Email: [email protected]
LS: N LS GROUP#:

EA #: PPNO:

Program Code: NCRH1 - INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS/CHANNELIZATION Stop Loc:

Air Basin: SCAB Envir Doc: CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT - 04/30/2013 Uza: Los Angeles-Long
Beach-Santa Ana
Sub-Area: Sub-Region: Las
Virgenes/Malibu COG
CTIPS ID:

Lane # Extd: Lane # Prop: Imprv Desc:

Toll Rate: Hov acs eg loc:

0.00 Toll Colc Loc: Toll Method:

System :State Hwy Route :1 Postmile: 41 to 62 Distance: 21 Phase: Bid/Advertise Phase Completion Date 06/30/2025 PHASE PRIOR 22/23 23/24 24/25 25/26 26/27 27/28 BEYOND PROG TOTAL MR20H - Measure R 20% Highway PE $100 $0 $100
CON
RW
SUBTOTAL $100 $1,225 $1,325
$0 $1,225 $1,225
$0 $0 $0
TOTAL $100 $1,225
TOTAL PE: $100 TOTAL RW: $0 TOTAL CON: $1,225
$1,325
TOTAL PROGRAMMED: $1,325
- General Comment: Additional funding has been allocated to this project for construction. - Modeling Comment: No significant change made
- TCM Comment: no significant change made
- Amendment Comment:
- CMP Comment:
- Narrative:

Last Revised Amendment 23-25 - Submitted Change reason:COST INCREASE Total Project Cost $1,325

15

Agenda Item # 3.B.8.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Patrick Donegan, Assistant City Attorney
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: July 2, 2024 Meeting date: July 8, 2024
Subject: Consider Opting into a National Opioid Settlement Agreement with Kroger
RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Enter into the settlement agreement with Kroger and allocate the City’s portion of the settlement funds to the County of Los Angeles and direct the City Manager to execute any documents necessary to implement the action; and 2) Grant the City Manager authority to execute and enter into future agreements related to the nation-wide opioid settlements.

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. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.

DISCUSSION: Litigation brought by states, cities, local political subdivisions, special districts, and tribes across the United States (“subdivisions”) against manufacturers and pharmaceutical distributors of opioid painkillers (“opioid distributors”) has resulted in settlements requiring the opioid distributors to pay billions of dollars to abate the opioid epidemic. The settlements have totaled over $20 billion to date. Of this amount, approximately $17 billion will be used by participating states and subdivisions to remediate and abate the impacts of the opioid crisis.
• Kroger settlement. A proposed multi-state settlement with Kroger dated March 22, 2024 (Exhibits A and B) has been offered totaling approximately $1.4 billion (“Kroger settlement”). The proposed settlement also requires Kroger to provide injunctive relief relating to opioid dispensing practices and preventing diversion of prescription opioids.

City Council Meeting
07-08-24
Item

3.B.8.

Agenda Item # 3.B.8.
• Allocation of funds. California is expected to receive approximately $120 million and is to distribute these funds pursuant to the proposed Kroger settlement allocation formula. The terms of the Kroger settlement are nearly identical to previous opioid settlement agreements and allocate the funds as follows: 15% to the subdivision fund, 15% to the state fund; and 70% to the abatement accounts fund. The City of Malibu’s allocation percentage is 0.0019269% of the State’s allocated amount. o Subdivision Fund. 15% percent of the total settlement funds would be allocated to the subdivision fund, which would be allocated among the plaintiffs in the litigation to fund future opioid remediation and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses (which may include fees and expenses related to litigation).
o State Fund. 15% percent of the total settlement funds would be allocated to the State and used by the State for future opioid remediation. o Abatement Accounts Fund. 70% percent of the total settlement funds would be allocated to counties and cities to be used for opioid abatement or remediation uses (such as services to treat opioid use disorder; support people in treatment and recovery; purchase and distribute naloxone; connect people to care; address needs of criminal justice-involved persons, address the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations including sheltered and unsheltered people disproportionately impacted by substance use disorders; prevent over-prescribing and ensure appropriate prescribing and dispensing of opioids; prevent misuse of opioids, prevent overdose deaths and other harms; provide leadership, planning, and coordination of programs; provide training; and conduct research.
 The funds to individual counties are allocated based on opioid deaths per capita, incidence of opioid use disorder, and opioid dosage.  The funds to cities within a particular county are allocated based on historical spending of cities on various services such as police protection, fire protection, health services, correction services, housing and community development, judicial services, and legal services. • Management of funds. Each county and city that receives payment of funds from the settlements must prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds until the funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports would also include a certification that all funds received have been used in compliance with the allocation agreements. Further, each county and city would need to track all deposits and expenditures. A county is not responsible for

Agenda Item # 3.B.8.
oversight, reporting, or monitoring of funds received by a city within the county that receives direct payment.

Fund allocation and distribution. California counties and cities and the statewide abatement fund have been allocated 85% of the total amount allocated to California, which based on best estimates will be approximately $120 million. Note that in no scenario will California’s allocation be so much greater as to make the City’s allocation substantively larger.
• City allocation. The specific amount to be allocated to the City is unknown at this time because it is dependent upon the number of localities that opt into the settlements. The final total amount will be disbursed over 11 years and is lesser than the previous settlements.
• Default distribution. The default distribution of funds in the settlement agreements provides the funds would go directly to the county in which a city is located. A city can elect to have its funds delivered directly to the city by providing notice in the participation agreements. Additionally, a city within a county may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the settlement fund administrators at least sixty days prior to a payment date. • City-specific considerations. In deciding whether to allow a city’s funds to go directly to the county in which a city is located, a city should consider the following: (1) whether the amount of money is substantial enough for the city to have its own impactful and meaningful programs; (2) whether the city offers the services and has the employees to spend the money in accordance with its prescribed uses; and (3) whether the city wants to engage in the reporting requirements over the course of the next twelve years (eleven years of distribution and an additional year following final distribution).
• Opting In. The City must opt into the settlement by August 12, 2024, which requires the City to release its claims against Kroger.
o No opt-in action. If the City takes no action, it will have not opted into the settlement and its allocation of settlement funds will not be paid. The City would still have the opportunity to bring its own action against Kroger if it opts out of the settlement, which is not very realistic.
o Opt-in action. Rubris Incorporated (“Rubris”) has been designated as the Settlement Implementation Administrator responsible for providing notice and managing the collection of participation forms. Rubris also handled the previous national opioid settlements. The City must return the “Subdivision

Agenda Item # 3.B.8.

Participation and Release Form” (Exhibit D) to Rubris using electronic signature via DocuSign, manual signature returned via DocuSign, or manual signature returned via electronic mail to [email protected] by August 12, 2024 in order to opt into the settlement.

This is the third of these opioid settlements and it is Staff’s understanding that there could be more against other defendants. If previous settlements are indicative, future settlements will continue to be in descending amounts. Thus, there could be some efficacy in granting the City Manager authority to execute any future settlement agreements consistent with City Council direction.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Kroger Settlement Agreement

2. Kroger counsel side letter of March 28, 2024

3. Subdivision Participation and Release Form

Subdivision Participation and Release Form
Governmental Entity: City of Malibu State: CA
Authorized Signatory: /officialname_kroger/
Address 1: /address1_kroger/
Address 2: /address2_kroger/
City, State, Zip: /cit_kr/ /state_kr/ /zi_kr/
Phone: /phone_kroger/
Email: /email_kroger/
The governmental entity identified above (“Governmental Entity”), in order to obtain and in consideration for the benefits provided to the Governmental Entity pursuant to the Settlement Agreement dated March 22, 2024 (“Kroger Settlement”), and acting through the undersigned authorized official, hereby elects to participate in the Kroger Settlement, release all Released Claims against all Released Entities, and agrees as follows.

1. The Governmental Entity is aware of and has reviewed the Kroger Settlement, understands that all terms in this Participation and Release Form have the meanings defined therein, and agrees that by executing this Participation and Release Form, the Governmental Entity elects to participate in the Kroger Settlement and become a Participating Subdivision as provided therein.

2. The Governmental Entity shall promptly, and in any event no later than 14 days after the Reference Date and prior to the filing of the Consent Judgment, dismiss with prejudice any Released Claims that it has filed. With respect to any Released Claims pending in In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804, the Governmental Entity authorizes the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee to execute and file on behalf of the Governmental Entity a Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice substantially in the form found at https://nationalopioidsettlement.com/.

3. The Governmental Entity agrees to the terms of the Kroger Settlement pertaining to Participating Subdivisions as defined therein.

4. By agreeing to the terms of the Kroger Settlement and becoming a Releasor, the Governmental Entity is entitled to the benefits provided therein, including, if applicable, monetary payments beginning after the Effective Date.

5. The Governmental Entity agrees to use any monies it receives through the Kroger Settlement solely for the purposes provided therein.

6. The Governmental Entity submits to the jurisdiction of the court in the Governmental Entity’s state where the Consent Judgment is filed for purposes limited to that court’s role as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent provided in, the Kroger Settlement. The Governmental Entity likewise agrees to arbitrate before the National 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB Arbitration Panel as provided in, and for resolving disputes to the extent otherwise provided in, the Kroger Settlement.

7. The Governmental Entity has the right to enforce the Kroger Settlement as provided therein.

8. The Governmental Entity, as a Participating Subdivision, hereby becomes a Releasor for all purposes in the Kroger Settlement, including without limitation all provisions of Section XI (Release), and along with all departments, agencies, divisions, boards, commissions, districts, instrumentalities of any kind and attorneys, and any person in their official capacity elected or appointed to serve any of the foregoing and any agency, person, or other entity claiming by or through any of the foregoing, and any other entity identified in the definition of Releasor, provides for a release to the fullest extent of its authority. As a Releasor, the Governmental Entity hereby absolutely, unconditionally, and irrevocably covenants not to bring, file, or claim, or to cause, assist or permit to be brought, filed, or claimed, or to otherwise seek to establish liability for any Released Claims against any Released Entity in any forum whatsoever. The releases provided for in the Kroger Settlement are intended by the Parties to be broad and shall be interpreted so as to give the Released Entities the broadest possible bar against any liability relating in any way to Released Claims and extend to the full extent of the power of the Governmental Entity to release claims. The Kroger Settlement shall be a complete bar to any Released Claim.

9. The Governmental Entity hereby takes on all rights and obligations of a Participating Subdivision as set forth in the Kroger Settlement.

10. In connection with the releases provided for in the Kroger Settlement, each Governmental Entity expressly waives, releases, and forever discharges any and all provisions, rights, and benefits conferred by any law of any state or territory of the United States or other jurisdiction, or principle of common law, which is similar, comparable, or equivalent to § 1542 of the California Civil Code, which reads:

General Release; extent. A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release that, if known by him or her would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.

A Releasor may hereafter discover facts other than or different from those which it knows, believes, or assumes to be true with respect to the Released Claims, but each Governmental Entity hereby expressly waives and fully, finally, and forever settles, releases and discharges, upon the Effective Date, any and all Released Claims that may exist as of such date but which Releasors do not know or suspect to exist, whether through ignorance, oversight, error, negligence or through no fault whatsoever, and which, if known, would materially affect the Governmental Entities’ decision to participate in the Kroger Settlement.
2 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

11. Nothing herein is intended to modify in any way the terms of the Kroger Settlement, to which Governmental Entity hereby agrees. To the extent this Participation and Release Form is interpreted differently from the Kroger Settlement in any respect, the Kroger Settlement controls.

I have all necessary power and authorization to execute this Participation and Release Form on behalf of the Governmental Entity.

Signature: /signer_1_kroger/
Name: /name_1_kroger/
Title: /title_1_kroger/
Date: /date_1_kroger/
3 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

BY E-MAIL
2001 M Street, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
+1 202 682 7000 tel
+1 202 857 0940 fax
March 28, 2024
Chantale Fiebig
+1 (202) 682-7200
[email protected]
David Jones
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Healthcare Rights & Access Section
Department of Justice
1300 I Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 210-7861
Email: [email protected]
Re: Kroger Opioids Settlement Agreement
Dear Mr. Jones:

This letter summarizes the agreement reached between Kroger and the State of California regarding the multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement dated March 22, 2024 regarding opioid claims by states and subdivisions (the "Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement").

The Kroger Co. and all of its direct and indirect subsidiaries ("Kroger"), and the State of California, by and through its Attorney General Rob Bonta, have agreed to the following modification to the Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement in its application to California. For the avoidance of doubt, the limited modification set forth below applies only to California and to no other state or territory.

The “Prescription Red Flag” described in Section IX(5)(a) of Exhibit P to the Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement is modified in its entirety to read as follows:

A Controlled Substance prescription fails to meet the requirements of law. For the sake of clarity, minor deficiencies in the patient’s name, address, date of birth, or contact information are not a red flag if the pharmacist, in his or her professional judgment and usual course of practice, is able to resolve these deficiencies with the patient.

This limited California-specific modification was a necessary condition for California's decision to signon as a participating state to the Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement.

For the avoidance of doubt, all other terms and provisions in the Multistate Kroger Settlement Agreement remain the same, including without limitation all “Prescription Red Flags” not specified above, all DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB David Jones
March 28, 2024

definitions, all release provisions, the eleven-year-payment schedule and all other terms and provisions of the payment schedule, and all other terms and provisions.

These terms and this letter shall be included in a stipulated judgment to be filed in a Superior Court in the State of California.

Sincerely,
Chantale Fiebig
Counsel for The Kroger Co.

SO AGREED BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
________________________________
Name: David A. Jones
Title: Supervising Deputy Attorney General
Date: March 29, 2024
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement
Regarding Distribution and Use of
Settlement Funds – Kroger Settlement

1. Introduction
Pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement, dated as of March 22, 2024, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and Kroger (the “Kroger Settlement Agreement”), including Section V and Exhibit O, the State of California proposes this agreement (the “CA Kroger Allocation Agreement”) to govern the allocation, distribution, and use of Settlement Fund payments made to California pursuant to Sections IV and V of the Kroger Settlement Agreement. For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not apply to payments made pursuant to Section IX of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to Exhibit O, Paragraph 4, of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, acceptance of this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision.

2. Definitions
a) CA Participating Subdivision means a Participating Subdivision that is also (a) a Plaintiff Subdivision and/or (b) a Primary Subdivision with a population equal to or greater than 10,000. For the avoidance of doubt, eligible CA Participating Subdivisions are those California subdivisions listed in Exhibit C (excluding Litigating Special Districts) and/or Exhibit I to the Kroger Settlement Agreement. b) Allergan Settlement Agreement means the Allergan Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
c) CVS Settlement Agreement means the CVS Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto as well as any modification thereto entered into by the State of California and CVS.
d) Distributor Settlement Agreement means the Distributor Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
e) Janssen Settlement Agreement means the Janssen Settlement Agreement dated July 21, 2021, and any revision thereto.
f) Teva Settlement Agreement means the Teva Settlement Agreement dated November 22, 2022, and any revision thereto.
g) Walgreens Settlement Agreement means the Walgreens Settlement Agreement dated December 9, 2022, and any revision thereto.
h) Walmart Settlement Agreement means the Walmart Settlement Agreement dated November 14, 2022, and any revision thereto.
i) CA Litigating Special District means a Litigating Special District located in California. CA Litigating Special Districts include Downey Unified School District, 1 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB Elk Grove Unified School District, Kern High School District, Montezuma Fire Protection District (located in Stockton, California), Santa Barbara San Luis Obispo Regional Health Authority, Inland Empire Health Plan, Health Plan of San Joaquin, San Leandro Unified School District, Pleasant Valley School District Board, and LA Care Health Plan.
j) Plaintiff Subdivision means a Subdivision located in California, other than a CA Litigating Special District, that filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the Subdivision and/or through an official of the Subdivision on behalf of the People of the State of California, against one or more Opioid Defendants prior to October 1, 2020. k) Opioid Defendant means any defendant (including but not limited to Kroger Co., Walgreen Co., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Allergan Finance, LLC, Allergan Limited, CVS Health Corporation, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Walmart Inc., Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Purdue Pharma L.P., Cardinal Health, Inc., AmerisourceBergen Corporation, and McKesson Corporation) named in a lawsuit seeking damages, abatement, or other remedies related to or caused by the opioid public health crisis in any lawsuit brought by any state or local government on or before October 1, 2020.

3. General Terms
This agreement is subject to the requirements of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, as well as applicable law, and the Kroger Settlement Agreement governs over any inconsistent provision of this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. Terms used in this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement have the same meaning as in the Kroger Settlement Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.

Pursuant to Section V(D)(1) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, (a) all Settlement Fund payments will be used for Opioid Remediation, except as allowed by Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement; and (b) at least seventy percent (70%) of Settlement Fund payment amounts will be used solely for future Opioid Remediation.

4. State Allocation
The Settlement Fund payments to California,1 pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement, shall be allocated as follows: 15% to the State Fund; 70% to the Abatement Accounts Fund; and 15% to the Subdivision Fund. For the avoidance of doubt, all funds allocated to California from the Settlement Fund shall be combined pursuant to this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, and 15% of that total shall be allocated to the State of California (the “State of California Allocation”), 70% to the California Abatement Accounts Fund (“CA Abatement Accounts Fund”), and 15% to the California Subdivision Fund (“CA Subdivision Fund”). 1 For purposes of clarity, use of the term “California” refers to the geographic territory of California and the state and its local governments therein. The term “State” or “State of California” refers to the State of California as a governmental unit. 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB A. State of California Allocation
Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the State and used by the State for future Opioid Remediation.

B. CA Abatement Accounts Fund
i. Allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) Seventy percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. The funds in the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be allocated based on the allocation model developed in connection with the proposed negotiating class in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804), as adjusted to reflect only those cities and counties that are eligible, based on population or litigation status, to become a CA Participating Subdivision. The percentage from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund allocated to each CA Participating Subdivision is set forth in Appendix 1 in the column entitled abatement percentage (the “Local Allocation”). For the avoidance of doubt, CA Litigating Special Districts and California towns, cities, and counties with a population less than 10,000 are not eligible to receive an allocation of CA Abatement Accounts Funds.
b) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a county, or a city and county, will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision, and will receive payments as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement. c) A CA Participating Subdivision that is a city will be allocated its Local Allocation share as of the date on which it becomes a Participating Subdivision. The Local Allocation share for a city that is a CA Participating Subdivision will be paid to the county in which the city is located, rather than to the city, so long as: (a) the county is a CA Participating Subdivision, and (b) the city did not elect to receive its share of funds in the National Opioids Settlement with Distributors AmerisourceBergenCorporation, Cardinal Health, Inc., and McKesson Corporation (the “Distributors Settlement”). If a city later changes or has already changed its distribution election in the Distributors Settlement, that change in election will apply here, provided that the change in election is received by the settlement administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. A Local Allocation share allocated to a city but paid to a county is not required to be spent exclusively for abatement activities in that city, but will become part of the county’s share of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds, which will be used in accordance with Section 4.B.ii (Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds) and reported on in accordance with Section 4.B.iii (CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight).
d) A city within a county that is a CA Participating Subdivision may opt in or out of direct payment at any time, and it may also elect direct payment of only a portion of its share, with the remainder going to the county, by providing notice to the Settlement Fund Administrator at least 60 days prior to a Payment Date. For purposes of this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, the Cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Jose and 3 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB Eureka will be deemed to have elected direct payment if they become Participating Subdivisions.
e) The State will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.
f) Funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision, and not expended or encumbered within five years of receipt and in accordance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement shall be transferred to the State; provided however, that CA Participating Subdivisions have seven years to expend or encumber CA Abatement Accounts Funds designated to support capital outlay projects before they must be transferred to the State. This provision shall not apply to the Cost Reimbursement Funds, which shall be controlled by Appendix 2.
ii. Use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds
a) The CA Abatement Accounts Funds will be used for future Opioid Remediation in one or more of the areas described in the List of Opioid Remediation Uses, which is Exhibit E to the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
b) In addition to this requirement, no less than 50% of the funds received by a CA Participating Subdivision from the Abatement Accounts Fund in each calendar year will be used for one or more of the following High Impact Abatement Activities:
(1) the provision of matching funds or operating costs for substance use disorder facilities within the Behavioral Health Continuum Infrastructure Program; (2) creating new or expanded Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) treatment infrastructure; (3) addressing the needs of communities of color and vulnerable populations (including sheltered and unsheltered homeless populations) that are disproportionately impacted by SUD;
(4) diversion of people with SUD from the justice system into treatment, including by providing training and resources to first and early responders (sworn and non-sworn) and implementing best practices for outreach, diversion and deflection, employability, restorative justice, and harm reduction; (5) interventions to prevent drug addiction in vulnerable youth, including but not limited to, youth in foster care, juvenile justice-impacted youth, youth experiencing adversities related to socioeconomic status, and unhoused youth; and/or (6) the purchase of naloxone for distribution and efforts to expand access to naloxone for opioid overdose reversals.
4 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB c) The California Department of Health Care Services (“DHCS”) may add to this list (but not delete from it) by designating additional High Impact Abatement Activities. DHCS will make reasonable efforts to consult with stakeholders, including the CA Participating Subdivisions, before adding additional High Impact Abatement Activities to this list. d) For the avoidance of doubt, and subject to the requirements of the Kroger Settlement Agreement and applicable law, CA Participating Subdivisions may form agreements or ventures, or otherwise work in collaboration with, federal, state, local, tribal or private sector entities in pursuing Opioid Remediation activities funded from the CA Abatement Accounts Fund. Further, provided that all CA Abatement Accounts Funds are used for Opioid Remediation consistent with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, a county and any cities or towns within the county may agree to reallocate their respective shares of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds among themselves, provided that any direct distribution may only be to a CA Participating Subdivision and any CA Participating Subdivision must agree to their share being reallocated.
iii. CA Abatement Accounts Fund Oversight
a) Pursuant to Section 5 below, CA Participating Subdivisions receiving settlement funds must prepare and file reports annually regarding the use of those funds. DHCS may regularly review the reports prepared by CA Participating Subdivisions about the use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds for compliance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement.
b) If DHCS determines that a CA Participating Subdivision’s use of CA Abatement Accounts Funds is inconsistent with the Kroger Settlement Agreement or this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, whether through review of reports or information from any other sources, DHCS shall send a request to meet and confer with the CA Participating Subdivision. The parties shall meet and confer in an effort to resolve the concern. c) If the parties are unable to reach a resolution, DHCS may conduct an audit of the Subdivision’s use of the CA Abatement Accounts Funds within one year of the request to meet and confer, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to extend the meet and confer time frame.
d) If the concern still cannot be resolved, the State may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to resolve the concern or otherwise enforce the requirements of the Kroger Settlement Agreement or this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. However, in no case shall any audit be conducted, or motion be brought, as to a specific expenditure of funds, more than five years after the date on which the expenditure of the funds was reported to DHCS, in accordance with this agreement.
5 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB e) Notwithstanding the foregoing, this Agreement does not limit the statutory or constitutional authority of any state or local agency or official to conduct audits, investigations, or other oversight activities, or to pursue administrative, civil, or criminal enforcement actions.

C. CA Subdivision Fund
i. Fifteen percent of the total Settlement Fund payments will be allocated to the CA Subdivision Fund. All funds in the CA Subdivision Fund will be allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions. The funds will be used, subject to any limits imposed by the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, to fund future Opioid Remediation and reimburse past opioidrelated expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation, and to pay the reasonable fees and expenses of the Special Master as set forth in Appendix 2.

The CA Subdivision Funds will be allocated as follows:
a) First, funds in the CA Subdivision Fund shall be used to pay the Special Master’s reasonable fees and expenses in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document;
b) Second, funds will be allocated to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions that have been awarded Costs, as defined by and in accordance with the procedures and limitations set forth in Appendix 2 to this document. c) Funds remaining in the CA Subdivision Fund, which shall consist of no less than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year pursuant to Appendix 2, Section 2.c.v, will be distributed to Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions, in relative proportion to the Local Allocation. These funds shall be used to fund future opioid-related projects and to reimburse past opioid-related expenses, which may include fees and expenses related to litigation against any Opioid Defendant.

D. Provision for State Back-Stop Agreement
On August 6, 2021, Judge Dan Polster of the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, issued an order (ECF Docket Number 3814) (“MDL Fees Order”) in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) “cap[ping] all applicable contingent fee agreements at 15%.” Private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions should seek its contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds under the Kroger Settlement Agreement, and, if applicable, the Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, and Walmart Settlement Agreement.

A Plaintiff Subdivision may separately agree to use its share of the CA Subdivision Fund to pay for fees or costs incurred by its contingency-fee counsel (“State Back-Stop Agreement”), 6 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB pursuant to Exhibit R, section I(CC), of the Kroger Settlement Agreement and the MDL Fees Order, so long as such contingency fees do not exceed a total contingency fee of 15% of the total gross recovery of the Plaintiff Subdivision pursuant to the Kroger Settlement, inclusive of contingency fees from the national Attorney Fee Fund and this State Back-Stop Agreement.

Before seeking fees or litigation costs and expenses from a State Back-Stop Agreement, private counsel representing Plaintiff Subdivisions must first seek contingency fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund or Cost Funds created under the Kroger Settlement Agreement. Further, private counsel may only seek reimbursement for litigation fees and costs that have not previously been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.

To effectuate a State Back-Stop Agreement pursuant to this section, an agreement in the form of Appendix 3 may be entered into by a Plaintiff Subdivision, private counsel, and the California Office of the Attorney General. The California Office of the Attorney General shall, upon the request of a Plaintiff Subdivision, execute any agreement executed by a Plaintiff Subdivision and its private counsel if it is in the form of Appendix 3. The California Office of the Attorney General will also consider requests from Plaintiff Subdivisions to execute and enter into agreements presented in other forms.

For the avoidance of doubt, this agreement does not require a Plaintiff Subdivision to request or enter into a State Back-Stop Agreement, and no State Back-Stop Agreement shall impose any duty or obligation on the State of California or any of its agencies or officers, including without limitation the Attorney General.

5. State and Subdivision Reporting
a) DHCS will prepare an annual written report regarding the State’s use of funds from the settlement until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will be made publicly available on the DHCS web site.
b) Each CA Participating Subdivision that receives payments of funds from the settlement will prepare written reports at least annually regarding the use of those funds, until those funds are fully expended and for one year thereafter. These reports will also include a certification that all funds that the CA Participating Subdivision has received through the settlement have been used in compliance with the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. The report will be in a form reasonably determined by DHCS. Prior to specifying the form of the report DHCS will confer with representatives of the Plaintiff Subdivisions.
c) The State and all CA Participating Subdivisions receiving CA Abatement Accounts Funds will track all deposits and expenditures. Each such subdivision is responsible solely for the CA Abatement Accounts Funds it receives. A county is not responsible for oversight, reporting, or monitoring of CA Abatement Accounts Funds received by a city within that county that receives direct payment. Unless otherwise exempt, Subdivisions’ expenditures and uses of CA Abatement Accounts Funds and other Settlement Funds will be subject to the normal budgetary and expenditure process of the Subdivision. 7 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB d) Each Plaintiff Subdivision receiving CA Subdivision Funds will track all deposits and expenditures, as required by the Kroger Settlement Agreement and this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. Among other things, Plaintiff Subdivisions using monies from the CA Subdivision Fund for purposes that do not qualify as Opioid Remediation must identify and include in their annual report, the amount and how such funds were used, including if used to pay attorneys’ fees, investigation costs, or litigation costs. Pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, such information must also be reported to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Kroger. e) In each year in which DHCS prepares an annual report DHCS will also host a meeting to discuss the annual report and the Opioid Remediation activities being carried out by the State and Participating Subdivisions.

6. Miscellaneous
a) The State or any CA Participating Subdivision may bring a motion or action in the court where the State has filed its Consent Judgment to enforce the requirements of this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement. Before filing such a motion or action the State will meet and confer with any CA Participating Subdivision that is the subject of the anticipated motion or action, and vice versa.
b) Except as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement, this CA Kroger Allocation Agreement is not enforceable by any party other than the State and the CA Participating Subdivisions. It does not confer any rights or remedies upon, and shall not be enforceable by, any third party.
c) Except as provided in the CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, if any provision of this agreement or the application thereof to any person, entity, or circumstance shall, to any extent, be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this agreement, or the application of such provision to persons, entities, or circumstances other than those as to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby, and each other provision of this agreement will be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. d) Except as provided in the Kroger Settlement Agreement, this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of California. 8 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB The undersigned, Goleta city, ACKNOWLEDGES acceptance of this Proposed California StateSubdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Kroger Settlement is a requirement to be an Initial Participating Subdivision in the Kroger Settlement and ACCEPTS this Proposed California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds – Kroger Settlement. EXECUTED on /date_1_kroger/.

Signature: /signer_1_kroger/
Name: /name_1_kroger/
Title: /title_1_kroger/
Date: /date_1_kroger/
9 DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB APPENDIX 1
DISCLAIMER: The allocation percentages herein are estimates only and should not be relied on for decisions regarding legal rights, releases, waivers, or other decisions affecting current or potential legal claims. Percentages shown in the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage column may change pursuant to Section 4.C. of the California State-Subdivision Agreement Regarding Distribution and Use of Settlement Funds—Kroger Settlement, whereas the percentages shown in the Abatement Percentage column should not change. Participating Subdivisions, underlying calculations, and the calculated allocation percentages are subject to change.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” pursuant to Section 4.B.e., the State of California will receive the Local Allocation share of any payment to the Settlement Fund that is attributable to a county or city that is eligible to become a CA Participating Subdivision, but that has not, as of the date of that payment to the Settlement Fund, become a Participating Subdivision.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” payments allocated to a Plaintiff Subdivision, which is not an Initial Participating Subdivision, will be re-allocated among the Plaintiff Subdivisions that are Initial Participating Subdivisions.

Regarding the column herein entitled “Abatement Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Abatement Account Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.B. Regarding the column herein entitled “Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to one-hundred percent (100%) of the California Subdivision Funds received, pursuant to Section 4.C. Regarding the column herein entitled “Weighted Allocation Percentage,” the annotation of “100%” refers to onehundred percent (100%) of the combined and weighted allocation of the Abatement Percentage and the Plaintiff Subdivision Percentage.

DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 1 of 15
100.000% 100.000% 100.000%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
County Alameda County Alameda 2.332% 2.853% 2.4237952%
City Alameda Alameda 0.069% 0.0570162%
City Albany Alameda 0.013% 0.0107768%
City Berkeley Alameda 0.152% 0.1249656%
City Dublin Alameda 0.033% 0.040% 0.0338810%
City Emeryville Alameda 0.023% 0.0185765%
City Fremont Alameda 0.108% 0.0888576%
City Hayward Alameda 0.117% 0.0966218%
City Livermore Alameda 0.054% 0.0446740%
City Newark Alameda 0.026% 0.0217626%
City Oakland Alameda 0.486% 0.595% 0.5055601%
City Piedmont Alameda 0.014% 0.0114064%
City Pleasanton Alameda 0.067% 0.0554547%
City San Leandro Alameda 0.039% 0.0321267%
City Union City Alameda 0.043% 0.0352484%
County Amador County Amador 0.226% 0.277% 0.2349885%
County Butte County Butte 1.615% 1.975% 1.6783178%
City Chico Butte 0.216% 0.264% 0.2246499%
City Oroville Butte 0.079% 0.0646595%
County Calaveras County Calaveras 0.226% 0.277% 0.2351644% County Colusa County Colusa 0.059% 0.0489221%
County Contra Costa County Contra Costa 2.102% 2.571% 2.1844585% City Antioch Contra Costa 0.037% 0.0301879%
City Brentwood Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0215339%
City Clayton Contra Costa 0.002% 0.0018060%
City Concord Contra Costa 0.055% 0.0456676%
City Danville Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0082255%
City El Cerrito Contra Costa 0.023% 0.0189024%
City Hercules Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0078273%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Lafayette Contra Costa 0.006% 0.0046030%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 2 of 15
City Martinez Contra Costa 0.012% 0.0098593%
City Moraga Contra Costa 0.004% 0.0031007%
City Oakley Contra Costa 0.010% 0.0079416%
City Orinda Contra Costa 0.005% 0.0038157%
City Pinole Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0110909%
City Pittsburg Contra Costa 0.053% 0.0436369%
City Pleasant Hill Contra Costa 0.013% 0.0106309%
City Richmond Contra Costa 0.146% 0.1201444%
City San Pablo Contra Costa 0.018% 0.0148843%
City San Ramon Contra Costa 0.021% 0.0176459%
City Walnut Creek Contra Costa 0.026% 0.0212132%
County Del Norte County Del Norte 0.114% 0.140% 0.1189608% County El Dorado County El Dorado 0.768% 0.939% 0.7980034% City Placerville El Dorado 0.015% 0.0127642%
City South Lake Tahoe El Dorado 0.081% 0.0665456%
County Fresno County Fresno 1.895% 2.318% 1.9693410%
City Clovis Fresno 0.065% 0.0536211%
City Coalinga Fresno 0.012% 0.0098554%
City Fresno Fresno 0.397% 0.3270605%
City Kerman Fresno 0.005% 0.0042534%
City Kingsburg Fresno 0.008% 0.0066167%
City Mendota Fresno 0.002% 0.0019387%
City Orange Cove Fresno 0.004% 0.0035607%
City Parlier Fresno 0.008% 0.0069755%
City Reedley Fresno 0.012% 0.0098804%
City Sanger Fresno 0.018% 0.0146135%
City Selma Fresno 0.015% 0.0127537%
County Glenn County Glenn 0.107% 0.131% 0.1116978%
County Humboldt County Humboldt 1.030% 1.260% 1.0703185% Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Arcata Humboldt 0.054% 0.0447660%
City Eureka Humboldt 0.117% 0.143% 0.1216284%
City Fortuna Humboldt 0.032% 0.0266837%
County Imperial County Imperial 0.258% 0.315% 0.2679006% DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB APPENDIX 1
3 of 15
City Brawley Imperial 0.011% 0.0087986%
City Calexico Imperial 0.019% 0.0152799%
City El Centro Imperial 0.158% 0.1302522%
City Imperial Imperial 0.006% 0.0048791%
County Inyo County Inyo 0.073% 0.089% 0.0754413%
County Kern County Kern 2.517% 3.079% 2.6159145%
City Arvin Kern 0.006% 0.0046425%
City Bakersfield Kern 0.212% 0.1747198%
City California City Kern 0.009% 0.0070820%
City Delano Kern 0.030% 0.0249316%
City McFarland Kern 0.003% 0.0025644%
City Ridgecrest Kern 0.015% 0.0120938%
City Shafter Kern 0.013% 0.0103417%
City Tehachapi Kern 0.009% 0.0073580%
City Wasco Kern 0.008% 0.0069861%
County Kings County Kings 0.293% 0.2413469%
City Avenal Kings 0.007% 0.0056335%
City Corcoran Kings 0.013% 0.0107032%
City Hanford Kings 0.027% 0.0226038%
City Lemoore Kings 0.016% 0.0131900%
County Lake County Lake 0.795% 0.6545389%
City Clearlake Lake 0.041% 0.050% 0.0426253%
City Lakeport Lake 0.021% 0.026% 0.0222964%
County Lassen County Lassen 0.319% 0.391% 0.3320610%
City Susanville Lassen 0.027% 0.0219295%
County Los Angeles County Los Angeles 13.896% 16.999% 14.4437559% Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Agoura Hills Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040024%
City Alhambra Los Angeles 0.042% 0.0343309%
City Arcadia Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0267718%
City Artesia Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0005100%
City Azusa Los Angeles 0.026% 0.0210857%
City Baldwin Park Los Angeles 0.027% 0.0218520%
City Bell Los Angeles 0.008% 0.0068783%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 4 of 15
City Bellflower Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0014485%
City Bell Gardens Los Angeles 0.014% 0.0114301%
City Beverly Hills Los Angeles 0.065% 0.0534897%
City Burbank Los Angeles 0.100% 0.0823132%
City Calabasas Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048948%
City Carson Los Angeles 0.019% 0.0159805%
City Cerritos Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039682%
City Claremont Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0082584%
City Commerce Los Angeles 0.000% 0.0002971%
City Compton Los Angeles 0.044% 0.0361882%
City Covina Los Angeles 0.028% 0.0229127%
City Cudahy Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006020%
City Culver City Los Angeles 0.055% 0.0449894%
City Diamond Bar Los Angeles 0.001% 0.0006993%
City Downey Los Angeles 0.052% 0.0429994%
City Duarte Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0027261%
City El Monte Los Angeles 0.031% 0.038% 0.0318985%
City El Segundo Los Angeles 0.033% 0.0268020%
City Gardena Los Angeles 0.034% 0.0278088%
City Glendale Los Angeles 0.166% 0.1366586%
City Glendora Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134411%
City Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0040549%
City Hawthorne Los Angeles 0.050% 0.0407833%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Hermosa Beach Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0145307%
City Huntington Park Los Angeles 0.023% 0.0190667%
City Inglewood Los Angeles 0.059% 0.0489195%
City La Cañada Flintridge Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0025565% City Lakewood Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039971%
City La Mirada Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0081572%
City Lancaster Los Angeles 0.045% 0.0369689%
City La Puente Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012999%
City La Verne Los Angeles 0.024% 0.0194190%
City Lawndale Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0017731%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 5 of 15
City Lomita Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0031940%
City Long Beach Los Angeles 0.439% 0.3614151%
City Los Angeles Los Angeles 2.715% 3.321% 2.8218811%
City Lynwood Los Angeles 0.016% 0.0134345%
City Malibu Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0019269%
City Manhattan Beach Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260686%
City Maywood Los Angeles 0.004% 0.0035528%
City Monrovia Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0254455%
City Montebello Los Angeles 0.030% 0.0250670%
City Monterey Park Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0256677%
City Norwalk Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0258228%
City Palmdale Los Angeles 0.046% 0.0375827%
City Palos Verdes Estates Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0053102% City Paramount Los Angeles 0.011% 0.0091483%
City Pasadena Los Angeles 0.146% 0.1200524%
City Pico Rivera Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0183333%
City Pomona Los Angeles 0.111% 0.0911933%
City Rancho Palos Verdes Los Angeles 0.002% 0.0012645%
City Redondo Beach Los Angeles 0.062% 0.0506992%
City Rosemead Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0028260%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City San Dimas Los Angeles 0.003% 0.0022016%
City San Fernando Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0104837%
City San Gabriel Los Angeles 0.018% 0.0147726%
City San Marino Los Angeles 0.009% 0.0073791%
City Santa Clarita Los Angeles 0.022% 0.0178167%
City Santa Fe Springs Los Angeles 0.031% 0.0257531%
City Santa Monica Los Angeles 0.158% 0.1298513%
City Sierra Madre Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0048646%
City Signal Hill Los Angeles 0.010% 0.0084884%
City South El Monte Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039603%
City South Gate Los Angeles 0.020% 0.0166272%
City South Pasadena Los Angeles 0.012% 0.0095334%
City Temple City Los Angeles 0.005% 0.0039498%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 6 of 15
City Torrance Los Angeles 0.112% 0.0919820%
City Walnut Los Angeles 0.006% 0.0047305%
City West Covina Los Angeles 0.049% 0.0404521%
City West Hollywood Los Angeles 0.013% 0.0108517%
City Whittier Los Angeles 0.032% 0.0260581%
County Madera County Madera 0.349% 0.427% 0.3630669%
City Chowchilla Madera 0.012% 0.0097332%
City Madera Madera 0.039% 0.0318441%
County Marin County Marin 0.564% 0.690% 0.5861325%
City Larkspur Marin 0.015% 0.0124697%
City Mill Valley Marin 0.020% 0.0168401%
City Novato Marin 0.028% 0.0229824%
City San Anselmo Marin 0.009% 0.0078062%
City San Rafael Marin 0.089% 0.0729823%
County Mariposa County Mariposa 0.084% 0.103% 0.0876131% County Mendocino County Mendocino 0.439% 0.536% 0.4558394% City Ukiah Mendocino 0.039% 0.0317153%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
County Merced County Merced 0.551% 0.674% 0.5724262%
City Atwater Merced 0.024% 0.0195846%
City Livingston Merced 0.006% 0.0045873%
City Los Banos Merced 0.020% 0.0165142%
City Merced Merced 0.061% 0.0500762%
County Modoc County Modoc 0.065% 0.080% 0.0678250%
County Mono County Mono 0.023% 0.029% 0.0242606%
County Monterey County Monterey 0.908% 1.111% 0.9437083% City Greenfield Monterey 0.006% 0.0050552%
City King City Monterey 0.005% 0.0037355%
City Marina Monterey 0.017% 0.0144098%
City Monterey Monterey 0.041% 0.0336540%
City Pacific Grove Monterey 0.009% 0.0074842%
City Salinas Monterey 0.094% 0.0776576%
City Seaside Monterey 0.023% 0.0191772%
City Soledad Monterey 0.007% 0.0060870%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 7 of 15
County Napa County Napa 0.288% 0.352% 0.2994325%
City American Canyon Napa 0.017% 0.0136869%
City Napa Napa 0.078% 0.0642783%
County Nevada County Nevada 0.441% 0.539% 0.4579827%
City Grass Valley Nevada 0.024% 0.0197805%
City Truckee Nevada 0.003% 0.0023843%
County Orange County Orange 4.364% 5.339% 4.5363576%
City Aliso Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0113841%
City Anaheim Orange 0.554% 0.678% 0.5759282%
City Brea Orange 0.086% 0.0708897%
City Buena Park Orange 0.087% 0.0714352%
City Costa Mesa Orange 0.124% 0.152% 0.1288366%
City Cypress Orange 0.033% 0.0271937%
City Dana Point Orange 0.001% 0.0005560%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Fountain Valley Orange 0.055% 0.0455980%
City Fullerton Orange 0.137% 0.168% 0.1425744%
City Garden Grove Orange 0.213% 0.1752482%
City Huntington Beach Orange 0.247% 0.302% 0.2568420%
City Irvine Orange 0.139% 0.170% 0.1442350%
City Laguna Beach Orange 0.047% 0.058% 0.0493043%
City Laguna Hills Orange 0.014% 0.0115457%
City Laguna Niguel Orange 0.001% 0.0007071%
City Laguna Woods Orange 0.001% 0.0006546%
City La Habra Orange 0.060% 0.073% 0.0621049%
City Lake Forest Orange 0.012% 0.0101249%
City La Palma Orange 0.012% 0.0095439%
City Los Alamitos Orange 0.008% 0.0069190%
City Mission Viejo Orange 0.014% 0.0117560%
City Newport Beach Orange 0.179% 0.1470134%
City Orange Orange 0.150% 0.1231320%
City Placentia Orange 0.029% 0.035% 0.0298912%
City Rancho Santa Margarita Orange 0.001% 0.0006296%
City San Clemente Orange 0.008% 0.010% 0.0086083%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 8 of 15
City San Juan Capistrano Orange 0.008% 0.0065510%
City Santa Ana Orange 0.502% 0.614% 0.5213866%
City Seal Beach Orange 0.020% 0.0165891%
City Stanton Orange 0.035% 0.0291955%
City Tustin Orange 0.073% 0.0600341%
City Westminster Orange 0.104% 0.127% 0.1082721%
City Yorba Linda Orange 0.044% 0.0362223%
County Placer County Placer 1.045% 1.278% 1.0861002%
City Auburn Placer 0.017% 0.0141114%
City Lincoln Placer 0.031% 0.0255599%
City Rocklin Placer 0.076% 0.0625485%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Roseville Placer 0.196% 0.1616559%
County Plumas County Plumas 0.205% 0.251% 0.2128729%
County Riverside County Riverside 4.534% 5.547% 4.7128296% City Banning Riverside 0.017% 0.0143848%
City Beaumont Riverside 0.021% 0.0171135%
City Blythe Riverside 0.012% 0.0096714%
City Canyon Lake Riverside 0.000% 0.0001761%
City Cathedral City Riverside 0.067% 0.0553614%
City Coachella Riverside 0.021% 0.0173054%
City Corona Riverside 0.147% 0.1207083%
City Desert Hot Springs Riverside 0.024% 0.0200433%
City Eastvale Riverside 0.000% 0.0002747%
City Hemet Riverside 0.051% 0.0421792%
City Indio Riverside 0.056% 0.0457794%
City Jurupa Valley Riverside 0.001% 0.0008991%
City Lake Elsinore Riverside 0.021% 0.0172949%
City La Quinta Riverside 0.063% 0.0516732%
City Menifee Riverside 0.032% 0.0260909%
City Moreno Valley Riverside 0.137% 0.1130348%
City Murrieta Riverside 0.048% 0.059% 0.0497423%
City Norco Riverside 0.016% 0.0134542%
City Palm Desert Riverside 0.083% 0.0682465%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB APPENDIX 1
9 of 15
City Palm Springs Riverside 0.076% 0.0629862%
City Perris Riverside 0.009% 0.0076774%
City Rancho Mirage Riverside 0.052% 0.0431098%
City Riverside Riverside 0.268% 0.2206279%
City San Jacinto Riverside 0.010% 0.0085936%
City Temecula Riverside 0.022% 0.0180086%
City Wildomar Riverside 0.008% 0.0062500%
County Sacramento County Sacramento 3.797% 4.645% 3.9465887% Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Citrus Heights Sacramento 0.057% 0.0465312%
City Elk Grove Sacramento 0.130% 0.1066994%
City Folsom Sacramento 0.108% 0.0890850%
City Galt Sacramento 0.017% 0.0143704%
City Rancho Cordova Sacramento 0.008% 0.0067679%
City Sacramento Sacramento 0.721% 0.882% 0.7496530%
County San Benito County San Benito 0.106% 0.130% 0.1101417% City Hollister San Benito 0.027% 0.0225355%
County San Bernardino County San Bernardino 3.259% 3.987% 3.3878124% City Adelanto San Bernardino 0.008% 0.0066640%
City Apple Valley San Bernardino 0.025% 0.0207360%
City Barstow San Bernardino 0.015% 0.0122056%
City Chino San Bernardino 0.064% 0.0525893%
City Chino Hills San Bernardino 0.001% 0.0006388%
City Colton San Bernardino 0.031% 0.0253443%
City Fontana San Bernardino 0.112% 0.0920543%
City Grand Terrace San Bernardino 0.006% 0.0051051%
City Hesperia San Bernardino 0.035% 0.0291522%
City Highland San Bernardino 0.004% 0.0029061%
City Loma Linda San Bernardino 0.009% 0.0071188%
City Montclair San Bernardino 0.039% 0.0322108%
City Ontario San Bernardino 0.179% 0.1472934%
City Rancho Cucamonga San Bernardino 0.084% 0.0689431%
City Redlands San Bernardino 0.057% 0.0469150%
City Rialto San Bernardino 0.073% 0.0603206%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB APPENDIX 1
10 of 15
City San Bernardino San Bernardino 0.178% 0.1461880%
City Twentynine Palms San Bernardino 0.002% 0.0012605%
City Upland San Bernardino 0.052% 0.0424460%
City Victorville San Bernardino 0.033% 0.0269400%
City Yucaipa San Bernardino 0.016% 0.0128772%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Yucca Valley San Bernardino 0.003% 0.0021228%
County San Diego County San Diego 5.706% 6.980% 5.9309748% City Carlsbad San Diego 0.128% 0.1050485%
City Chula Vista San Diego 0.189% 0.231% 0.1961456%
City Coronado San Diego 0.044% 0.0359095%
City El Cajon San Diego 0.113% 0.0933582%
City Encinitas San Diego 0.061% 0.074% 0.0630289%
City Escondido San Diego 0.145% 0.1192204%
City Imperial Beach San Diego 0.014% 0.0118283%
City La Mesa San Diego 0.055% 0.068% 0.0575593%
City Lemon Grove San Diego 0.022% 0.0183911%
City National City San Diego 0.080% 0.0656808%
City Oceanside San Diego 0.213% 0.1753428%
City Poway San Diego 0.062% 0.0511040%
City San Diego San Diego 1.975% 2.416% 2.0531169%
City San Marcos San Diego 0.089% 0.0733897%
City Santee San Diego 0.033% 0.0268401%
City Solana Beach San Diego 0.017% 0.0138564%
City Vista San Diego 0.052% 0.0425144%
Consolidated San Francisco San Francisco 3.026% 3.702% 3.1457169% County San Joaquin County San Joaquin 1.680% 2.055% 1.7460399% City Lathrop San Joaquin 0.009% 0.0075394%
City Lodi San Joaquin 0.053% 0.0439484%
City Manteca San Joaquin 0.054% 0.0443454%
City Ripon San Joaquin 0.013% 0.0104219%
City Stockton San Joaquin 0.313% 0.383% 0.3256176%
City Tracy San Joaquin 0.084% 0.0692047%
County San Luis Obispo County San Luis Obispo 0.816% 0.999% 0.8484126% DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB APPENDIX 1
11 of 15
City Arroyo Grande San Luis Obispo 0.024% 0.0199053%
City Atascadero San Luis Obispo 0.029% 0.0240680%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) San Luis Obispo 0.043% 0.0353456% City Grover Beach San Luis Obispo 0.017% 0.0137881%
City Morro Bay San Luis Obispo 0.020% 0.0160922%
City San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo 0.077% 0.0637841%
County San Mateo County San Mateo 1.074% 1.313% 1.1159599% City Belmont San Mateo 0.021% 0.0169860%
City Burlingame San Mateo 0.019% 0.0152537%
City Daly City San Mateo 0.044% 0.0363880%
City East Palo Alto San Mateo 0.013% 0.0103982%
City Foster City San Mateo 0.020% 0.0166101%
City Half Moon Bay San Mateo 0.004% 0.0031638%
City Hillsborough San Mateo 0.013% 0.0110029%
City Menlo Park San Mateo 0.015% 0.0126209%
City Millbrae San Mateo 0.013% 0.0105836%
City Pacifica San Mateo 0.016% 0.0130625%
City Redwood City San Mateo 0.056% 0.0463511%
City San Bruno San Mateo 0.021% 0.0172161%
City San Carlos San Mateo 0.013% 0.0108885%
City San Mateo San Mateo 0.052% 0.0425841%
City South San Francisco San Mateo 0.043% 0.0353943%
County Santa Barbara County Santa Barbara 1.132% 1.385% 1.1768968% City Carpinteria Santa Barbara 0.001% 0.0008938%
City Goleta Santa Barbara 0.004% 0.0028969%
City Lompoc Santa Barbara 0.047% 0.0389379%
City Santa Barbara Santa Barbara 0.122% 0.1004559%
City Santa Maria Santa Barbara 0.058% 0.0479179%
County Santa Clara County Santa Clara 2.404% 2.941% 2.4987553% City Campbell Santa Clara 0.014% 0.0112566%
City Cupertino Santa Clara 0.008% 0.0066824%
City Gilroy Santa Clara 0.025% 0.0202891%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

APPENDIX
1 12 of 15
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Los Altos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103338%
City Los Gatos Santa Clara 0.013% 0.0103220%
City Milpitas Santa Clara 0.036% 0.0298120%
City Morgan Hill Santa Clara 0.015% 0.0124619%
City Mountain View Santa Clara 0.041% 0.0334608%
City Palo Alto Santa Clara 0.039% 0.0323080%
City San Jose Santa Clara 0.294% 0.360% 0.3054960%
City Santa Clara Santa Clara 0.067% 0.0549723%
City Saratoga Santa Clara 0.004% 0.0034161%
City Sunnyvale Santa Clara 0.053% 0.0434069%
County Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz 0.783% 0.957% 0.8135396% City Capitola Santa Cruz 0.020% 0.0168191%
City Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 0.143% 0.1180348%
City Scotts Valley Santa Cruz 0.015% 0.0126525%
City Watsonville Santa Cruz 0.063% 0.0520136%
County Shasta County Shasta 1.095% 1.339% 1.1380191%
City Anderson Shasta 0.024% 0.0198896%
City Redding Shasta 0.284% 0.2334841%
City Shasta Lake Shasta 0.004% 0.0031993%
County Siskiyou County Siskiyou 0.228% 0.279% 0.2373393% County Solano County Solano 0.760% 0.6260795%
City Benicia Solano 0.031% 0.0253903%
City Dixon Solano 0.016% 0.0130849%
City Fairfield Solano 0.109% 0.0897317%
City Suisun City Solano 0.021% 0.0176183%
City Vacaville Solano 0.119% 0.0976497%
City Vallejo Solano 0.167% 0.1373644%
County Sonoma County Sonoma 1.218% 1.490% 1.2661290%
City Healdsburg Sonoma 0.032% 0.0266929%
City Petaluma Sonoma 0.081% 0.0667507%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB APPENDIX 1
13 of 15
City Rohnert Park Sonoma 0.041% 0.0340759%
City Santa Rosa Sonoma 0.184% 0.1519070%
City Sonoma Sonoma 0.022% 0.0183438%
City Windsor Sonoma 0.016% 0.0129298%
County Stanislaus County Stanislaus 1.722% 1.4182273%
City Ceres Stanislaus 0.041% 0.0340260%
City Modesto Stanislaus 0.217% 0.1788759%
City Newman Stanislaus 0.006% 0.0046964%
City Oakdale Stanislaus 0.018% 0.0145531%
City Patterson Stanislaus 0.015% 0.0126590%
City Riverbank Stanislaus 0.010% 0.0085699%
City Turlock Stanislaus 0.065% 0.0531966%
County Sutter County Sutter 0.306% 0.374% 0.3179548%
City Yuba City Sutter 0.074% 0.0606242%
County Tehama County Tehama 0.213% 0.261% 0.2216654%
City Red Bluff Tehama 0.014% 0.0117771%
County Trinity County Trinity 0.082% 0.101% 0.0855476%
County Tulare County Tulare 0.809% 0.990% 0.8410949%
City Dinuba Tulare 0.014% 0.0116929%
City Exeter Tulare 0.004% 0.0032479%
City Farmersville Tulare 0.003% 0.0027879%
City Lindsay Tulare 0.007% 0.0057111%
City Porterville Tulare 0.021% 0.0171845%
City Tulare Tulare 0.037% 0.0302273%
City Visalia Tulare 0.066% 0.0545872%
County Tuolumne County Tuolumne 0.486% 0.594% 0.5047621% County Ventura County Ventura 2.192% 2.681% 2.2781201%
City Camarillo Ventura 0.002% 0.0012815%
City Fillmore Ventura 0.002% 0.0020294%
City Moorpark Ventura 0.008% 0.0067337%
Participating
Subdivision
Classification
Participating Subdivision County Abatement
Percentage
Plaintiff
Subdivision
Percentage
Weighted
Allocation
Percentage
City Oxnard Ventura 0.156% 0.190% 0.1617338%
City Port Hueneme Ventura 0.021% 0.0174145%
City San Buenaventura (Ventura) Ventura 0.085% 0.0702181% DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB APPENDIX 1
14 of 15
City Santa Paula Ventura 0.014% 0.0119072%
City Simi Valley Ventura 0.065% 0.0533043%
City Thousand Oaks Ventura 0.022% 0.0179902%
County Yolo County Yolo 0.357% 0.437% 0.3713319%
City Davis Yolo 0.055% 0.0451747%
City West Sacramento Yolo 0.066% 0.0544321%
City Woodland Yolo 0.058% 0.0477904%
County Yuba County Yuba 0.214% 0.262% 0.2225679%
City Marysville Yuba 0.014% 0.0112079%
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB 1 APPENDIX 2
Cost Reimbursement Procedure

1. Additional defined terms:
a) Costs means the reasonable amounts paid for the attorney and other City Attorney and County Counsel staff time for individuals employed by a Plaintiff Subdivision at the contractual rate, inclusive of benefits and overhead, together with amounts paid for court reporters, experts, copying, electronic research, travel, vendors, and the like, which were not previously reimbursed and which were paid or incurred (i) prior to December 31, 2022 in litigation against any Opioid Defendant and/or (ii) in negotiating and drafting any CA Allocation Agreement(s) concerning a settlement with any Opioid Defendant(s).

Costs does not include attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses incurred by private contingency fee counsel. No part of the CA Abatement Accounts Fund will be used to reimburse Costs.
b) First Claims Date means October 1, 2023 or when all applications for reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, Section XI and Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, or Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, have been finally determined under the provisions of those agreements, whichever comes first. c) Special Master means a retired judicial officer or former public lawyer, not presently employed or retained by a Plaintiff Subdivision, who will aggregate, review, and determine the reasonable Costs to be awarded to each Plaintiff Subdivision that submits a claim for reimbursement of Costs. The Special Master will be selected by a majority vote of the votes cast by Plaintiff Subdivisions, with each such subdivision having one vote. d) Plaintiff Subdivision Committee means the committee of Plaintiff Subdivisions that will review and approve the invoices submitted by the Special Master reflecting his or her reasonable time and expenses.

2. Cost Reimbursement to Plaintiff Subdivision
a) Purpose. Substantial resources have been expended to hold Opioid Defendants accountable for creating and profiting from the opioid crisis, and this effort has been a significant catalyst in creating National Opioid Settlements with various manufacturers, distributors, and chain pharmacies.
///
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB 2 b) Claims Procedure.
i. If a Plaintiff Subdivision is eligible to seek reimbursement of Costs, in whole or in part, from funds available under Section IX and Exhibit R of the Kroger Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Section XIV and Exhibit R of the Teva Settlement Agreement, Section XIII and Exhibit R of the Allergan Settlement Agreement, Section X and Exhibit R of the CVS Settlement Agreement, Section IX and Exhibit R of the Walmart Settlement Agreement, Section X or Exhibit R of the Distributor Settlement Agreement, or Section XI or Exhibit R of the Janssen Settlement Agreement, it must first make a timely application for reimbursement from such funds. To allow sufficient time for determination of those applications, no claim for Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund under this Agreement may be made before the First Claims Date. ii. A Plaintiff Subdivision that wishes to be reimbursed from the CA Subdivision Fund must submit a claim to the Special Master no later than forty-five (45) days after the First Claims Date. The Special Master will then compile and redistribute the aggregated claim totals for each Plaintiff Subdivision via email to representatives of all the Plaintiff Subdivisions. A claim for attorney and staff time must list, for each attorney or staff member included in the claim, the following information: name, title, total hours claimed, hourly rate (including, if sought, benefits and share of overhead), and narrative summarizing the general nature of the work performed by the attorney or staff member. For reimbursement of “hard” costs, the subdivision may aggregate across a category (e.g., total for travel costs). It is the intention of the Plaintiff Subdivisions that submission of documents related to reimbursement of Costs does not waive any attorney-client privilege or exemptions to the California Public Records Act.
iii. The Special Master may request, at his or her sole option, additional documents or details to assist in the final award of Costs.
iv. The Special Master will review claims for reasonableness and will notify each Plaintiff Subdivision of the final determination of its claim, and will provide a list of all final awards to all Plaintiff Subdivisions by email or, upon request, via First Class U.S. Mail. Any Plaintiff Subdivision may ask the Special Master to reconsider any final award within twenty-one (21) days. The Special Master will make a final determination on any such reconsideration request within thirty (30) days of receipt. v. Any decision of the Special Master is final and binding, and will be considered under the California Arbitration Act, Code of Civil Procedure section 1280 et seq. as a final arbitration award. Nothing in this agreement is intended to expand the scope of judicial review of the final award for errors of fact or law, and the Parties agree that they may only seek to vacate the award if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates one of the factors set forth in Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2, subdivision (a). Plaintiff Subdivisions will have fourteen (14) days after all final awards are made, together with any final determination of a request for DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB 3 reconsideration, to seek review in the Superior Court of California, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure, section 1285, where the State has filed its Consent Judgment. vi. The Special Master will prepare a report of Costs that includes his or her fees and expenses at least ninety (90) days before the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Special Master’s preparation of a report of Costs does not discharge a Plaintiff Subdivision’s reporting requirement under Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
vii. A member of the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee, which is a CA Participating Subdivision, will submit to the Settlement Fund Administrator and Kroger a report of the fees and expenses incurred by the Special Master pursuant to Section V(B)(2) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.
c) Claims Priority and Limitation.
i. The Special Master will submit invoices for compensation of reasonable fees and expenses to the Plaintiff Subdivision Committee no later than ninety (90) days prior to the Payment Date for each Annual Payment. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will promptly review and, if reasonable, approve the Special Master’s invoice for compensation. The Plaintiff Subdivision Committee will submit approved invoices to the Settlement Fund Administrator for payment. The Special Master’s approved invoices have priority and will be paid first from the CA Subdivision Fund before any award of Costs, subject to the limitation in Section 2.c.v below. ii. Final Awards of Costs that do not exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid next in priority after the Special Master’s approved invoices.
iii. Final Awards of Costs in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) will be paid proportionally from the funds remaining in that year’s Annual Payment. iv. Any claim for Costs that is not paid in full will be allocated against the next year’s distribution from the CA Subdivision Fund, until all approved claims for Costs are paid in full.
v. In no event will more than 50% of the total CA Subdivision Fund received in any year be used to pay Costs or the Special Master’s approved invoices. vi. In no event shall more than $28 million of the total CA Subdivision Funds paid pursuant to the Kroger Settlement Agreement, Walgreens Settlement Agreement, Teva Settlement Agreement, Allergan Settlement Agreement, Distributor Settlement Agreement, CVS Settlement Agreement, Janssen Settlement Agreement, and the Walmart Settlement Agreement be used to pay Costs.

DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB 4 d) Collateral Source Payments and Third-Party Settlement. i. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision is awarded compensation, in whole or in part, by any source of funds created as a result of litigation against an Opioid Defendant for its reasonable Costs, it will reduce its claim for Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund by that amount. If a Plaintiff Subdivision has already received a final award of Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund, it will repay the fund up to the prior award of Costs via a payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator or notify the Settlement Fund Administrator that its allocation from the next and subsequent Annual Payments should be reduced accordingly. If the Plaintiff Subdivision is repaying any prior award of Costs, that repayment will occur as soon as is feasible after the Plaintiff Subdivision’s receipt of Cost funds from the collateral source, but no more than 90 days after its receipt from the collateral source. The Settlement Fund Administrator will add any repaid Costs to the CA Subdivision Fund. Any Plaintiff Subdivision that has submitted for reimbursement to any national fund and has not received a final determination by the First Claims Date may request that the settlement administrator withhold some or all of its payment from the CA Subdivision Fund in order to avoid repayment.
ii. In the event a Plaintiff Subdivision reaches a monetary settlement or compromise against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement, the monetary portion of such settlement, net of fees paid to outside contingency fee counsel and of funds earmarked strictly for abatement, will be credited against its Costs and the subdivision will be ineligible to recover those credited Costs from the CA Subdivision Fund. Plaintiff Subdivisions negotiating monetary settlements or compromises against any Opioid Defendant outside of the National Opioid Settlement will negotiate for funds to repay any Costs it previously received from the CA Subdivision Fund or for Costs it otherwise might be eligible to claim from the CA Subdivision Fund. If such a settlement is paid after all final approved claims for Costs by all Plaintiff Subdivisions are satisfied in full, the settling subdivision will reimburse the CA Subdivision Fund in that amount by making payment to the Settlement Fund Administrator to add to the CA Subdivision Fund in a manner consistent with the repayments described in section 2.d.i above.

DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB 1 APPENDIX 3

CALIFORNIA-SUBDIVISION BACKSTOP AGREEMENT
On August 6, 2021, Judge Polster of the US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio issued an Order (the Order), docket number 3814, in In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL 2804, addressing contingent attorney fee contracts between political subdivisions eligible to participate in the Kroger Settlement and their counsel.

In light of the Order, and at the request of [SUBDIVISION], the [SUBDIVISION], its counsel [COUNSEL], and the California Attorney General, on behalf of the State of California, are entering into this California-Subdivision Backstop Agreement (Backstop Agreement). [SUBDIVISION] and [COUNSEL] intend this Backstop Agreement to constitute a State BackStop Agreement as that term is used in the Order and in Exhibit R (Agreement on Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, and Expenses) of the Kroger Settlement Agreement.

Pursuant to this Backstop Agreement, [SUBDIVISION] may, subject to the limitations of the Kroger Settlement Agreement and CA Kroger Allocation Agreement, as well as any other limitations imposed by law, use funds that it receives from the Kroger Settlement CA Subdivision Fund to pay a contingent fee to [COUNSEL]. Any such payment from [SUBDIVISION] to [COUNSEL], together with any contingency fees that [COUNSEL] may receive from the national Attorney Fee Fund, will not exceed a total contingency fee of [PERCENTAGE NOT TO EXCEED 15%] of the total gross recovery of [SUBDIVISION] from the Kroger Settlement.
[COUNSEL] certify that they first sought fees and costs from the Attorney Fee Fund created under the Kroger Settlement Agreement before seeking or accepting payment under this backstop agreement. [COUNSEL] further certify that they are not seeking and will not accept payment under this backstop agreement of any litigation fees or costs that have been reimbursed through prior settlements or judgments.

The Attorney General is executing this agreement solely because the definition of “State BackStop Agreement” in Exhibit R of the Kroger Settlement Agreement requires such agreements to be between “a Settling State” and private counsel for a participating subdivision. Neither the California Attorney General nor the State of California have any obligations under this Backstop Agreement, and this Backstop Agreement does not require the payment of any state funds to [SUBDIVISION], [COUNSEL], or any other party.
[DATE] [SUBDIVISION SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [COUNSEL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
[DATE] [ATTORNEY GENERAL SIGNATURE BLOCK]
DocuSign Envelope ID: BC8870D6-FBA2-49B9-A89B-8D793E209ADB

Agenda Item # 4.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Uhring and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Joseph Smith, Contract Planner
Reviewed by: Richard Mollica, Planning Director
Approved by: Steve McClary, City Manager
Date prepared: June 25, 2024 Meeting date: July 8, 2024 Subject: Amendments to the Malibu Local Coastal Program Sign Regulations RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 24-37 (Attachment 1) finding the proposed amendments exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), approving the California Coastal Commission (CCC) suggested modifications to Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 20-001, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) sign regulations, and repealing Resolution No. 21- 16; 2) After the City Attorney reads the title of the ordinance, introduce on first reading Ordinance No. 520(Attachment 2), finding the proposed code amendments exempt under CEQA, approving the CCC suggested modifications to LCPA No. 20-001, an amendment to the LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) sign regulations, and repealing Ordinance No. 483; 3) Direct staff to schedule a second reading and adoption of Ordinance No. 520 for the August 12, 2024 Regular City Council meeting; and 4) Direct staff to submit the LCPA to the CCC for certification.

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item was not included in the Adopted FY 2023-24 Strategic Priority Project List. Staff continue to work on ongoing projects and normal business while the FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Plan is finalized.

DISCUSSION: On April 13, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-16 (Attachment 3) approving LCPA No. 20-001 to delete text in LUP Policies 2.80 and 2.81.

On April 26, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 483 (Attachment 4) approving LCPA No. 21-002 to delete text in Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Sections 3.15.3 and

3.15.4. The amendments were in response to litigation brought to the City in October 2020 City Council Meeting
07-08-24
Item

4.A.
1

Agenda Item # 4.A.
which alleged that LIP Section 3.15.3(X) and paragraphs 3, 5, and 9 of LIP Section

3.15.4(C) violate residents’ right to speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.1 Staff determined that LUP Policies 2.80 and 2.81 contain the same or substantially similar restriction on signs as the restriction challenged in LIP Section

3.15.3(X). The LCPA is being processed to avoid any implementation that might infringe on residents’ constitutional rights.

On March 13, 2024, the CCC conducted a public hearing on LCPA No. 20-001 and conditionally approved the LCPA subject to four suggested modifications to LUP and LIP text (Attachment 5). For reference, staff has included a redlined version of the LUP and LIP text as modified by the CCC in Attachment 6. No changes to the General Plan or MMC are associated with this LCPA.

Because the LCPA was modified by the CCC, the LCPA must come back to the Council for consideration. The Council has until September 13, 2024, six months following CCC’s action, to either accept the modified LCPA or withdraw the LCPA. If the Council does not act within six months, the LCPA would not become effective. If the Council desires to change the modified LCPA, the LCPA would not become effective and staff would need to restart the LCPA process at the Council’s direction.

If the Council accepts the modified LCPA, the Council will need to adopt a resolution (Attachment 1) and ordinance (Attachment 2). The resolution would amend LUP text and the ordinance would amend LIP text pursuant to the CCC’s suggested modifications. If adopted, the resolution and ordinance would be transmitted to the CCC Executive Director for a final determination that the Council’s acceptance is consistent with the CCC’s action in March 2024. The modified LCPA would only become final when the CCC Executive Director reports its determination to the CCC at its next regularly scheduled meeting after receipt of the City’s resolution and ordinance. Once reported, the LCPA becomes effective and is part of the City’s LCP.

The CCC’s approval of the amendment included four suggested modifications as summarized below (Attachment 5). Per the CCC’s staff report for the March 13, 2024 hearing, “The LCPA, as suggested to be modified, will provide a clear, objective policy and development standard basis for the City’s review of sign CDP applications” (Attachment 6).

Suggested Modification 1 (LUP): Modifies LUP Policy 2.81 to clarify that the requirements of this policy are standards that a proposed sign would have to meet rather than a prohibition of a sign that would not meet the standard. As CCC explains, “This is a subtle difference but one that makes clear that the purpose and impact of these provisions is not to prohibit signage or prevent speech, but only to ensure that it is not misused in a manner 1 Dennis Seider and Leah Seider, as Trustees of the Seider Family Trust v. City of Malibu (Case No. 2:20-cv-8781).
2

Agenda Item # 4.A.
that is false and results in a denial of public rights. In short, there is a path forward to CDP approval for signs that avoid unacceptable impacts to legitimate public access rights and recreational opportunities by conforming to the requirements of the LCP. Further, modifying Policy 2.81 in this way will provide the City decision maker, general public, and CDP applicants with clarity on what signs can be approved” (Attachment 6).

Suggested Modification 2 (LIP): Adds a new criterion #12 to LIP Section 3.15.4(C) to be used when reviewing sign requests. CCC found that the City’s deletion of LIP Section

3.15.3(X) from the list of prohibited signs is appropriate if new criterion #12 is added to LIP Section 3.15.4(C). Note that the City’s original LCPA did not amend this LIP subsection.

Suggested Modification 3 (LIP): Amends LIP Section 3.15.6(B)(3) to ensure internal consistency in the LIP is maintained by modifying sign requirements and retaining the certified section’s inclusion of trails and parklands as lands where the public’s right of access cannot be restricted. Note that the City’s original LCPA did not amend this LIP subsection.

Suggested Modification 4 (LIP): Amends LIP Section 12.9(D) to ensure internal consistency in the LIP is maintained by modifying sign requirements. Note that the City’s original LCPA did not amend this LIP subsection.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The City has analyzed the amended LCPA and finds that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, CEQA does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA. This action is for an amendment to the LCP, wherein the updated LCPA must be certified by the CCC before it takes effect. On March 13, 2024, the CCC took action to conditionally certify the City’s LCPA, with amendments to the LUP as previously adopted by Resolution No. 21-16 and the LIP as previously adopted by Ordinance No. 483 (CCC File Reference LCPA No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B). The City has analyzed the amendments and finds that the activities and approvals are necessary by the City for the adoption of the LCPA in order to obtain final certification of the LCPA by the CCC.

PUBLIC NOTICE: Pursuant to LIP Section 19.3.2, the minimum length of time for public notice of an LCPA is 10 days prior to the hearing. On June 27, 2024, a Notice of Public Hearing (Attachment 7) was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed to all interested parties.

ALTERNATIVES: The Council has until September 13, 2024, six months following CCC’s action, to either accept the modified LCPA or withdraw the LCPA. If the Council does not act within six months, the LCPA will not become effective. If the Council desires to change the modified LCPA, the LCPA would not become effective and staff would need to restart the LCPA process at the Council’s direction.
3

Agenda Item # 4.A.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution No. 24-37

2. Ordinance No. 520

3. Resolution No. 21-16

4. Ordinance No. 483

5. CCC Modifications to City LCPA (redlined version)

6. CCC Certification Documents

7. Public Hearing Notice

4 Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. 24-37

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, AND APPROVING THE CALIFORNIA

COASTAL COMMISSION SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL
COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 20-001, AN AMENDMENT TO

THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN SIGN
REGULATIONS, AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 21-16
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On April 15, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-16 approving Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 20-001 to amend Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) Policies 2.80 and 2.81 regarding signage regulations.

B. On March 13, 2024, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) took action to conditionally certify the City’s LCPA for Resolution No. 21-16 with amendments (CCC File Reference LCPA No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B).

C. On June 27, 2024, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu indicating that the City Council would a hold public hearing on July 8, 2024, and such notice was mailed to interested parties.

D. On July 8, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Resolution amending LCPA No. 20-001, as adopted by Resolution No. 21-16 on April 15, 2021, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and related information.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

The City Council has analyzed the amended LCPA and finds that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA. This action is for an amendment to the LCP, wherein the updated LCPA must be certified by the CCC before it takes effect. On March 13, 2024, the CCC took action to conditionally certify the City’s LCPA, with amendments to the LUP as previously adopted by Resolution No. 21-16 (CCC File Reference LCPA No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B). The City Council has analyzed the amendments and finds that the activities and approvals are necessary by the City for the adoption of the LCPA in order to obtain final certification of the LCPA by the CCC. 5 Attachment 1
SECTION 3. Acknowledgement of CCC’s Resolution of Certification.

The City of Malibu hereby acknowledges receipt of the CCC’s Resolution of Certification of City of Malibu LCPA No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations), including any suggested modifications therein.

SECTION 4. Local Coastal Program Amendments.

Pursuant to LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 19.5(B), the LUP is amended as follows:

A. LUP Policy 2.80: No change. This LUP policy shall remain as modified by Resolution No. 21-16, and shall read as follows.

In consultation and coordination with the State Lands Commission, all unauthorized or illegal development, including signs, which encroach onto State tidelands should be identified and removed.

B. LUP Policy 2.81 shall be replaced in its entirely as follows, as recommended by the CCC:

2.81. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

SECTION 5. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

The amendments to the LCP meet the requirements of and are in conformance with the goals, objectives, and purposes of the LCP and California Coastal Act (the Act) pursuant to the conditional certification by the CCC on March 13, 2024:

A. Section 30210 of Chapter 3 of the Act requires the State to advance the public right of access to coastal resources, including through local coastal programs, in a manner consistent with the rights of private property owners.

B. As relevant here, the Legislature’s statement of goals in Section 30001.5(c) of the Act also declares an intent to maximize public access to the coast “consistent with constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.”
C. Chapter 2 incorporates the Act’s public access policies, including Section 30210, as qualified by a concern to protect property owners’ constitutional rights. 6 Attachment 1
D. LUP Policies 2.80 and 2.81 of the LUP contain restrictions on property owners’ right to post signs on private property that are substantially similar to the restriction in LIP section

3.15.3(X), and removing these restrictions is not inconsistent with the LCP or with Chapter 3 of the Act. The additional modifications to LUP Policy 2.81 ensure consistency with the LCP and Chapter 3 of the Act, and will provide a clear, objective policy and development standard basis for the City’s review of coastal development permit applications for signs.

SECTION 6. Approval and Repealing Resolution No. 21-16.

Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves LCPA No. 20-001, amending the LUP as modified by the CCC and Resolution No. 21-16 is hereby repealed and any amendments to the LUP authorized by Resolution No. 21-16 are superseded by the amendments set forth in Section 4 of this resolution.

SECTION 7. Submittal to California Coastal Commission.

The City Council hereby directs staff to submit the LCPA, as amended, to the CCC per Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 13544(c).

SECTION 8. Effectiveness.

The LCPA approved in this Resolution shall become effective only upon certification by the CCC of this amendment to the LCP.

SECTION 9. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 8th day of July, 2024. _____________________________
STEVE UHRING, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
Date: _______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, City Attorney
7 Attachment 1
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the Malibu Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure.
8 Attachment 2
ORDINANCE NO. 520

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU FINDING PROPOSED CODE

AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT, APPROVING THE CCC SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS TO LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 20-001, AN

AMENDMENT TO THE LCP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SIGN
REGULATIONS, AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 483
OThe City Council of the City of Malibu does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings.

A. On April 26, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 483 approving Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA) No. 20-001 to amend Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 3.15 regarding signage regulations.

B. On March 13, 2024, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) took action to conditionally certify the City’s LCPA for Ordinance No. 483 with amendments (CCC File Reference LCPA No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B).

C. On June 27, 2024, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu indicating that the City Council would a hold public hearing on July 8, 2024, and such notice was mailed to interested parties.

D. On July 8, 2024, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and introduced on first reading the proposed Ordinance amending LCPA No. 20-001, as adopted by Ordinance No. 483 on April 26, 2021, reviewed and considered written reports, public testimony, and related information.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

The City Council has analyzed the amended LCPA and finds that pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA. This action is for an amendment to the LCP, wherein the updated LCPA must be certified by the CCC before it takes effect. On March 13, 2024, the CCC took action to conditionally certify the City’s LCPA, with amendments to the LIP as previously adopted by Ordinance No. 483 (CCC File Reference LCPA No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B). The City Council has analyzed the amendments and finds that the activities and approvals are necessary by the City for the adoption of the LCPA in order to obtain final certification of the LCPA by the CCC.

SECTION 3. Acknowledgement of CCC’s Resolution of Certification.

The City of Malibu hereby acknowledges receipt of the CCC’s Resolution of Certification of City of Malibu LCPA No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations), including any suggested modifications therein.
9 Ordinance No. 520

_____________________
SECTION 4. Local Coastal Program Amendment.

Pursuant to LIP Section 19.5(B), the LIP is amended as follows:

A. LIP Section 3.15.3(X): No change. This LIP subsection shall remain as modified by Section 2 of Ordinance No. 483.

Subsection (X) of Section 3.15.3 of the LIP is hereby repealed and will be marked as such:
“[Repealed]”.

B. That LIP Section 3.15.4(C) criteria shall be modified to add a new subpart 12, as recommended by the CCC:

12. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

C. That LIP Section 3.15.6(B)(3) be replaced in its entirely as follows, as recommended by the CCC:

3. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, deed restricted areas that grant public access, trails, or parklands). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

D. That LIP Section 12.9(D) be replaced in its entirely as follows, as recommended by the CCC:

D. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront or on public beach unless authorized by a Coastal Development Permit. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.
10 Ordinance No. 520

_____________________
SECTION 5. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

Based on evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby finds that LCPA No. 20- 001 meets the requirements of, and is in conformance with, the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (the Act) as follows:

A. Section 30210 of Chapter 3 of the Act requires the State to advance the public right of access to coastal resources, including through local coastal programs, in a manner consistent with the rights of private property owners.

B. As relevant here, the Legislature’s statement of goals in Section 30001.5(c) of the Act also declares an intent to maximize public access to the coast “consistent with constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.”
C. Chapter 2 of the Malibu LUP incorporates the Act’s public access policies, including Section 30210, as qualified by a concern to protect property owners’ constitutional rights.

D. LIP Section 3.15.3(X) and paragraphs 3, 5, and 9 of LIP Section 3.15.4(C) restrict property owners’ right to post signs on private property, and removing these sections is not inconsistent with the LCP or with Chapter 3 of the Act. The amendments to LIP Sections

3.15.6(B)(3) and 12.9(D) ensure consistency with the LCP and Chapter 3 of the Act, and will provide a clear, objective policy and development standard basis for the City’s review of coastal development permit applications for signs.

SECTION 6. Approval and Repealing Ordinance No. 483.

Based on the evidence in the record, the City Council hereby approves LCPA No. 20-001, amending the LUP as modified by the CCC and Ordinance No. 483 is hereby repealed and any amendments to the LUP authorized by Ordinance No. 483 are superseded by the amendments set forth in Section 4 of this ordinance.

SECTION 7. Submittal to California Coastal Commission.

The City Council hereby directs staff to submit the LCPA, as amended, to the CCC per Title 14, California Code of Regulations Section 13544(c).

SECTION 8. Effectiveness.

The LCPA approved in this Ordinance shall become effective only upon certification by the CCC of this amendment to the LCP.

SECTION 9. Severability.

If any section, subsection, provision, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be illegal or otherwise invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall be severable, and shall not affect or impair any remaining section, subsection, 11 Ordinance No. 520

_____________________
provision, sentence, clause, phrase or word included within this Ordinance, it being the intent of the City that the remainder of this Ordinance shall be and shall remain in full force and effect, valid, and enforceable.

SECTION 10. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and enter it into the book of original ordinances.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ____ day of ____ 2024. ____________________________
STEVE UHRING, Mayor
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
Date: _______________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the Malibu Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure.
12 RESOLUTION NO. 21-16

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU

AMENDING THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM LAND USE PLAN

SIGN REGULATIONS (LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NO. 19-001) AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order, and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings.

A. On October 22, 2020, the City of Malibu was served with a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that the sign regulations in the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)— specifically, Section 3.15.3(X) and paragraphs 3, 5, and 9 of Section 3.15.4(C) of the LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP)—violate residents’ rights to speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

B. The City does not oppose the right of residents to protect their private property or to exercise their freedom of speech.

C. On November 9, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-60, initiating a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA), to consider the challenged provisions of the LIP in light of private property owners’ constitutionally protected rights, as recognized in the California Coastal Act, and to determine if amendments to the Malibu LCP are necessary.

D. City Council Resolution No. 20-60 also directed the Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of LIP Chapter 19.

E. On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability of LCP Documents was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Malibu.

F. On March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on LCPA No. 20-00 1, at which time it reviewed and considered the Commission Agenda Report, public testimony, and related information in the record, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-22, recommending that the City Council adopt LCPA No. 20-001, which includes amendments to both the LIP and the LCP Land Use Plan (LUP).

G. On March 25, 2021, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu, stating that the City Council would hold a public hearing on April 15, 2021 to consider the proposed amendments.

H. On April 12, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on LCPA No. 20-001, including Resolution No. 21-16 and Ordinance No. 483, and reviewed and considered the staff report, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

Attachement 3
13 Resolution No. 21-16

SECTION 2. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 20-00 1
Pursuant to Section 19.5(A) of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), the LCP Land Use Plan (LUP) is amended as follows:

A. Section 2.80 of the LUP is hereby amended to read as follows:
“In consultation and coordination with the State Lands Commission, all unauthorized or illegal development, including signs, which encroach onto State tidelands should be identified and removed.”
B. Section 2.81 of the LUP is hereby amended to read as follows:
“No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit.”
SECTION 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

Based on evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby finds that LCPA No. 20- 001 meets the requirements of, and is in conformance with, the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (the Act) as follows:

A. Section 30210 of Chapter 3 ofthe Act requires the State to advance the public right of access to coastal resources, including through local coastal programs, in a manner consistent with the rights of private property owners.

B. As relevant here, the Legislature’s statement of goals in Section 30001.5(c) of the Act also declares an intent to maximize public access to the coast “consistent with constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.” C. Chapter 2 incorporates the Act’s public access policies, including Section 30210, as qualified by a concern to protect property owners’ constitutional rights.

D. Section 2.80 and Section 2.81 of the LUP contain restrictions on property owners’ right to post signs on private property that are substantially similar to the restriction in LIP section 3.15.3(X), and removing these restrictions is not inconsistent with the LCP or with Chapter 3 of the Act.

SECTION 4. Environmental Review.

The City Council has analyzed the project proposal described herein and makes the following findings. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA, and thus does not apply to this application.

This application is for an amendment to the LCP, which must be certified by the California Coastal Commission before it takes effect.
14 Resolution No. 2 1-16

SECTION 5. Approval.

Subject to the contingency set forth in Section 7, the City Council hereby adopts the amendments to the LUP in this Resolution as part of LCPA No. 20-00 1.

SECTION 6. Submittal to California Coastal Commission.

Pursuant to Section 19.7.1 of the LIP, the City Council hereby directs the City Planning Director to submit this Resolution as part of LCPA No. 20-001 for certification by the California Coastal Commission.

SECTION 7. Effectiveness.

As part ofLCPANo. 20-00 1, this Resolution shall become effective only upon certification by the California Coastal Commission.

SECTION 8. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 12th1 day ofApril 2021.

MII~KE WERSON, Mayor
ATTEST:

KELSEYftEftIJOH~’c~ii~gcf~ Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

JOHN!iOTTI,
///~ ~
Interim City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the Malibu Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure.
15 Resolution No. 21-16

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 21-16 was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Malibu at the Regular meeting thereof held on the 12th day of April 2021 by the following vote:

AYES: 5 Councilmembers: Farrer, Silverstein, Uhring, Grisanti, Pierson NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
1uiV~f~d~~
KELSEY P~TTIJOHN, Acting City Clerk
(seai)
16 ORDINANCE NO. 483

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MALIBU AMENDING THE LOCAL

COASTAL PROGRAM LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN SIGN

REGULATIONS AS PART OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT
NO. 21-001 AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of Malibu does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings.

A. On October 22, 2020, the City of Malibu was served with a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that the sign regulations in the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP)— specifically, Section 3.15.3(X) and paragraphs 3, 5, and 9 of Section 3.15.4(C) of the LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP)—violate residents’ rights to speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

B. The City does not oppose the right of residents to protect their private property or to exercise their freedom of speech.

C. On November 9, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20-60, initiating a Local Coastal Program Amendment (LCPA), to consider the challenged provisions of the LIP in light of private property owners’ constitutionally protected rights, as recognized in the California Coastal Act, and to determine if amendments to the Malibu LCP are necessary.

D. City Council Resolution No. 20-60 also directed the Planning Commission to schedule a public hearing on the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of LIP Chapter 19.

E. On February 18, 2021, a Notice of Public Hearing and Notice of Availability of LCP Documents was published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Malibu.

F. On March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on LCPA No. 20-001, at which time it reviewed and considered the Commission Agenda Report, public testimony, and related information in the record, and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 21-22, recommending that the City Council adopt LCPA No. 20-001, which includes amendments to both the LIP and the LCP Land Use Plan (LUP).

G. On March 25, 2021, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu, stating that the City Council would hold a public hearing on April 15, 2021 to consider the proposed amendments.

H. On April 15, 2021, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on LCPA No. 20-001, including Resolution No. 21-16 and Ordinance No. 483, and reviewed and considered the staff report, written reports, public testimony, and other information in the record.

Attachment 4
17 Ordinance No. 483

SECTION 2. Local Coastal Program Amendment.

Pursuant to Section 19.5(B) of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP), the LIP is amended as follows:

A. Subsection (X) of Section 3.15.3 of the LIP is hereby repealed and will be marked as such: “[Repealed]”.

B. Paragraphs 3, 5, and 9 of Subsection (C) of Section 3.15.4 of the LIP are hereby repealed and will be marked as such: “[Repealed]”.

SECTION 3. Local Coastal Program Amendment Findings.

Based on evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby finds that LCPA No. 20- 001 meets the requirements of, and is in conformance with, the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (the Act) as follows:

A. Section 30210 of Chapter 3 of the Act requires the State to advance the public right of access to coastal resources, including through local coastal programs, in a manner consistent with the rights of private property owners.

B. As relevant here, the Legislature’s statement of goals in Section 30001.5(c) of the Act also declares an intent to maximize public access to the coast “consistent with . constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.” C. Chapter 2 of the Malibu LUP incorporates the Act’s public access policies, including Section 30210, as qualified by a concern to protect property owners’ constitutional rights.

D. LIP Section 3.15.3(X) and paragraphs 3, 5, and 9 of LIP Section 3.15.4(C) restrict property owners’ right to post signs on private property, and removing these sections is not inconsistent with the LCP or with Chapter 3 of the Act.

SECTION 4. Environmental Review.

The City Council has analyzed the project proposal described herein and makes the following findings. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.9, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply to activities and approvals by the City as necessary for the preparation and adoption of an LCPA, and thus does not apply to this application.

This application is for an amendment to the LCP, which must be certified by the California Coastal Commission before it takes effect.

SECTION 5. Approval.

Subject to the contingency set forth in Section 8, the City Council hereby adopts the amendments to the LIP in this Ordinance as part of LCPA No. 20-001. 18 Ordinance No. 483

SECTION 6. Submittal to California Coastal Commission.

Pursuant to Section 19.7.1 of the LIP, the City Council hereby directs the City Planning Director to submit this Ordinance as part of LCPA No. 20-001 for certification by the California Coastal Commission.

SECTION 7. Severability.

Should any section, subsection, clause, or provision of this Ordinance for any reason be held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining portions of this Ordinance; it being hereby expressly declared that this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, and phrase hereof would have been prepared, proposed, approved, and ratified irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 8. Effectiveness.

As part of LCPA No. 20-001, this Ordinance shall become effective only upon certification by the California Coastal Commission.

SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th~
PAUL G S NTI, Mayor
ATTEST:
(sc~ai)
Date:

APPROVED AS TO FORM:
,%(26~4t
JOHN’COTTI, Interim City Attorney
Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result of the public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.010 of the Malibu Municipal Code and Code of Civil Procedure.
19 Ordinance No. 483

I CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE NO. 483 was passed and adopted at the Regular City Council meeting of April 26, 2021, by the following vote:

AYES: 5 Councilmembers: Farrer, Silverstein, Uhring, Grisanti, Pierson NOES: 0
ABSTAIN: 0
ABSENT: 0
KELSErETTIJOHN, Aeting ~iTy~1~rk / (seal)
20 Attachment 5
Proposed Amendments to Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 20-001 per CCC Suggested Modifications to LCPA No. 20-001
The City’s proposed amendment language to the certified LCP as adopted by Resolution No. 21- 16 and Ordinance No. 483 is shown in straight type. Language approved by the CCC to be modified is shown in redline strikethrough and underline.

LUP Chapter 2 – Public Access and Recreation
LUP Policy 2.80
No modifications by CCC. This LUP policy remains as modified by Section 2 of Resolution No. 21-16 adopted by the City Council on April 13, 2021.

LUP Policy 2.81

2.81. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.
21 LIP Chapter 3 – Zoning Designations and Permitted Uses LIP Chapter 12 – Public Access Ordinance
LIP Section 3.15.3, Subsection X
No modifications by CCC. This LIP subsection remains as modified by Section 2 of Ordinance No. 483 adopted by the City Council on April 26, 2021.

LIP Section 3.15.4(C)

12. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

LIP Section 3.15.6(B)(3)

3. Any sign which purport to restrict public access to State tidelands or public vertical and lateral easement areas, trails or parklands or to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, deed restricted areas that grant public access, trails, or parklands). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

LIP Section 12.9(D)
D. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront or on public beach unless authorized by a Coastal Development Permit. Any sign which purport to restrict public access to State tidelands or public vertical and lateral easement areas, trails or parklands or to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.
22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001-2801
VOICE (805) 585-1800
April 4, 2024
Richard Mollica, Planning Director
City of Malibu
Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
Dear Mr. Mollica:

On March 13, 2024, the Coastal Commission approved LCP Amendment LCP-4-MAL-21- 0049-1-Part B, with suggested modifications. The Commission’s resolution of certification is contained in the staff report dated February 29, 2024. The suggested modifications, as approved by the Commission, are attached to this correspondence.

Section 13544 of the Commission’s Administrative Regulations requires that after certification the Executive Director of the Commission shall transmit copies of the resolution of certification and any suggested modifications and findings to the governing authority, and any interested persons or agencies. Further, the certification shall not be deemed final and effective until all of the following occur:
(a) The local government with jurisdiction over the area governed by the Local Coastal Program, by action of its governing body: (1) acknowledges receipt of the Commission’s resolution of certification, including any terms or modifications suggested for final certification; (2) accepts and agrees to any such terms and modifications; and (3) agrees to issue coastal development permits for the total area included in the certified Local Coastal Program.

Unless the local government takes the action described above, the Commission’s certification with suggested modifications shall expire six months from the date of Commission’s action.
(b) The Executive Director of the Commission determines in writing that the local government’s action and the notification procedures for appealable development require pursuant to Article 17, Section 2 are legally adequate to satisfy any specific requirements set forth in the Commission’s certification order.
(c) The Executive Director reports the determination to the Commission at its next regularly scheduled public meeting as required by the Commission’s regulations in order to allow for the amended LCP to be certified in that form (see Section 13544 of the Commission’s Administrative Regulations).

Attachment 6
23 2
(d) Notice of the certification of the Local Coastal Program Amendment shall be filed with the Secretary of Resources Agency for posting and inspection as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21080.5(d)(2)(v).

Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions regarding this matter. The Commission and staff greatly appreciate the City’s cooperation and assistance in this matter.

Authorize on behalf of the California Coastal Commission by:

Dr. Kate Huckelbridge
Executive Director
By: Barbara Carey
District Manager
24 1

FINAL SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS APPROVED BY THE
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ON MARCH 13, 2024
City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LCP-4- MAL-21-0049-B (Sign Regulations)
Existing language of the certified LCP is shown in straight type.

Language deleted by the City of Malibu is shown as strikethrough.

The Commission’s additions are double underlined, and the Commission’s deletions are shown in double strikethrough.

Suggested Modification No. 1
LUP Policy 2.81 shall be modified as follows:

2.81 No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

Suggested Modification No. 2
LIP Section 3.15.4 (C) Criteria shall be modified as follows to add a new subpart 12:

12. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.
25 2
Suggested Modification No. 3
LIP Section 3.15.6 (B)(3) shall be modified as follows:

3. Any sign which purport to restrict public access to State tidelands or public vertical and lateral easement areas, trails or parklands or to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, deed restricted areas that grant public access, trails, or parklands). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

Suggested Modification No. 4
LIP Section 12.9 (D) shall be modified as follows:

D. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront or on public beach unless authorized by a Coastal Development Permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral or vertical access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed. 26 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001-2801
VOICE (805) 585-1800
FAX (805) 641-1732
Date: March 11, 2024
To: Commissioners and Interested Parties
From: South Central Coast District Staff
Subject: Staff Report Addendum for Agenda Item W10a, City of Malibu LCPA No.

LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
A. Summary of Staff Recommendation
The following 3 paragraphs should substitute for the second and third paragraphs on Page 1 of the staff report to provide additional information summarizing the proposed LCPA and suggested modifications.

The City LCPA staff report states that the amendment was initiated in November 2020 in response to the lawsuit Dennis Seider and Leah Seider, as Trustees of the Seider Family Trust v. City of Malibu filed in October 2020, alleging that LIP Section 3.15.3(X) is an unconstitutional regulation of sign content and that LIP Section 3.15.4(C) (subparagraphs 3, 5, and 9) require broadly subjective determinations and are an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The City specifically proposes to modify LUP Policy

2.80 and LUP Policy 2.81, and to delete LIP Provision 3.15.3(X) and LIP Section 3.15.4(C) (subparagraphs 3, 5, and 9).

No modifications are recommended for the LCPA’s proposed changes to LUP Policy 2.80 or to LIP Section 3.15.4(C) (subparagraphs 3, 5, and 9).

With regard to LUP Policy 2.80, it is appropriate to delete the requirement to remove existing (at the time of LCP certification in 2002) unpermitted signs at Broad Beach because the signs were removed or destroyed since that time and so the specific reference to them in Policy 2.80 is no longer needed. With regard to LIP Section 3.15.4(C) (subparagraphs 3, 5, and 9), staff notes that the three criteria are arguably not overly broad in that they relate (with the possible exception of public health or welfare) to LUP policies regarding hazards and visual resources. Nonetheless, these provisions may be deleted because LIP Section 3.15.4 (C)(2) will remain and it requires that any sign is consistent with the certified LCP. The LCP contains other policies and provisions (e.g., LUP Policies 6.30 and 6.31, LIP Sections 6.5 and 9.4) related to protecting life from hazards and protecting visual resources that, when met, will ensure that signs do not affect public safety and will ensure visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas.

Staff recommends four suggested modifications to the proposed LCPA that apply to LUP Policy 2.81, and LIP Sections 3.15.3(X), 3.15.4 (C), 3.15.6 27 2
(B)(3), and 12.9(D). Given that the subject LUP policy and the four LIP provisions contain very similar wording, the suggested modifications do too.

Following is the existing certified wording the LCPA proposes to delete from LUP Policy 2.81:

B. Exhibits
The staff report exhibits (on the Exhibit Tab) have been updated to include the Malibu City Council staff report (Exhibit 3) and the final City Council resolution and ordinance approving the LCPA (Exhibit 4). These documents were inadvertently omitted from the exhibits
28 STATE OF CALIFORNIA – NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001
(805) 585-1800
W10a
DATE: February 29, 2024
TO: Commissioners and Interested Persons
FROM: Steve Hudson, District Director
Barbara Carey, District Manager

SUBJECT: City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Amendment No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1- Part B (Sign Regulations) for March 13, 2024 Commission Meeting

SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City of Malibu’s (“City”) proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment No.

LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B consists of changes to the both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) portions of its certified LCP to delete policies and provisions prohibiting certain types of signs and requiring the removal of a specific group of signs. The full text of the City’s proposed amendment is included as Exhibit 1 of this report. Staff recommends, first, that the Commission, after public hearing, deny the proposed LUP amendment as submitted and approve the proposed LUP amendment subject to suggested modifications. The modifications are necessary to ensure that the proposed LUP amendment is consistent with the Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act.

Staff further recommends that the Commission, after public hearing, deny the proposed LIP amendment as submitted and approve that proposed amendment with suggested modifications as well. The modifications are necessary to ensure that the proposed LIP amendment conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified LUP, as amended. The motions to accomplish these recommendations are found on Pages 6-9 of this staff report.

The City LCPA staff report states that the amendment was initiated in November 2020 in response to the lawsuit Dennis Seider and Leah Seider, as Trustees of the Seider Family Trust v. City of Malibu filed in October 2020, alleging that LIP Section 3.15.3(X) is an unconstitutional regulation of sign content (and that LIP Sections 3.15.4(C) (subparagraphs 3, 5, and 9)) require broadly subjective determinations and are an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech.

Staff recommends four modifications to the proposed LCPA. Given that the subject LUP policy and three LIP provisions contain very similar wording, the suggested modifications do too. Following is the existing certified wording the LCPA proposes to delete from LUP Policy 2.81:
29 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
2 2.81 No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted.

This policy is meant to apply to two different types of signs that can each impact public access. The first case (“signs which purport to identify the boundary between state tidelands and private property”) is meant to address the issue of signs that contain inaccurate or false claims about the boundary between private property and lands to which the public has the right of access (public trust lands and lateral public access easements). For instance, a sign that purports to identify a boundary between private and public property on a beach as a fixed line would not be accurate (absent a boundary agreement between the property owner and the State Lands Commission or a fixed boundary adjudicated by a court of law) because the boundary is in fact ambulatory, being located where the plane of mean high water intersects with the land, and thus changing both with sea level and with the changes in beach profiles. See Lechuza Villas West v. Coastal Commission (1997), 60 Cal.App.4th 218. Similarly, a sign that does not acknowledge an existing vertical or lateral public access easement or deed restriction affecting the private property portion of a beachfront lot would also be inaccurate. The second case (“signs… which indicate that public access to state tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted) relates to signs that don’t identify a boundary but indicate falsely or inaccurately that public access is not available or subject to restrictions.

Suggested Modification 1 revises the language of LUP Policy 2.81 to be more clear and specific. The policy, as modified, requires that signs do not restrict public access to lands where the public has a right of access. This can include state tidelands or private property where there is an existing vertical or lateral public access easement or deed restriction.

The requirement means that signs cannot state that there is a restriction to public access where none exists. The State has a compelling interest in ensuring that speech is not used to mislead the public by denying the existence of existing public rights. The policy, as modified, also details requirements for signs that are intended to identify a boundary between lands where the public has a right of access and private property where the public has no right of access. Such signs are required to be accurate and not misleading, including that if a boundary is ambulatory, that fact along with the existence and nature of the public rights must be clearly conveyed. Again, the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that such information is not conveyed in a manner that is inaccurate and falsely denies the public the exercise of their legal rights.

The requirements of Policy 2.81, as modified by Suggested Modification 1 are written as standards that a proposed sign needs to meet rather than a prohibition of a sign that doesn’t meet the standard. This is a subtle difference but one that makes clear that the purpose and impact of these provisions is not to prohibit signage or prevent speech, but only to ensure that it is not misused in a manner that is false and results in a denial of public rights. In short, there is a path forward to CDP approval for signs that avoid unacceptable impacts to legitimate public access rights and recreational opportunities by 30 LCP-4-MAL-22-0043-1 (MMHS Campus Specific Plan)
3 conforming to the requirements of the LCP. Further, modifying Policy 2.81 in this way will provide the City decision maker, general public, and CDP applicants with clarity on what signs can be approved.

The City’s proposed deletion of LIP Section 3.15.3(X) from the list of prohibited signs is appropriate when coupled with the addition of a new criterion for review of signs as a new LIP Section 3.15.4 (C)(12). The addition of this section is required by Suggested Modification 2.

It is necessary to make changes to LIP Section 3.15.6 (B)(3) to ensure internal LCP consistency (even though the LCPA proposed no change to this section). Suggested Modification 3 modifies sign requirements and retains the certified section’s inclusion of trails and parklands as lands where the public’s right of access cannot be restricted.

Finally, Suggested Modification No. 4 requires changes to the sign requirements in LIP Section 12.9(D) to again ensure internal LCP consistency (even though the LCPA proposed no change here).

The LCPA, as suggested to be modified, will provide a clear, objective policy and development standard basis for the City’s review of sign CDP applications. So, staff recommends that the Commission find that the LUP amendment, only if modified as suggested, will meet the requirements of, and be in conformity with, the access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; and the LIP amendment, only if modified as suggested, conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the access and recreation policies of the certified Land Use Plan, as amended.

The standard of review for the changes to the Land Use Plan is whether the amendment meets the requirements of and is consistent with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The standard of review for the proposed changes to the Local Implementation Plan is whether the amendment conforms with and is adequate to carry out the provisions of the Land Use Plan portion of the certified City of Malibu LCP as amended. 31 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
4 Table of Contents
I. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW........................................................................... 5 A. Standard of Review..................................................................................................... 5 B. Procedural Requirements............................................................................................ 6 C. Public Participation...................................................................................................... 6 II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, MOTIONS, AND RESOLUTIONS FOR THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT.................................................................... 6 A. DENIAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED......................... 6 B. CERTIFICATION OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IF MODIFIED............... 7 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, MOTIONS, AND RESOLUTIONS FOR THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT......................................... 8 A. DENIAL OF THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AS SUBMITTED...................... 8 B. APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ................................................................................ 8 IV. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ON THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT 9 V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ON THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT............................................................................................... 10 VI. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE LUP/LIP AMENDMENT, AS SUBMITTED,

AND APPROVAL OF THE LUP/LIP AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED AS
SUGGESTED................................................................................................ 11 A. Amendment Description and Background................................................................. 11 B. Malibu LCP Background............................................................................................ 14 C. Public Access and Recreation................................................................................... 15 D. Hazards and Scenic and Visual Resources .............................................................. 24 E. California Environmental Quality Act......................................................................... 27 Exhibits
Exhibit 1 – City Proposed LCP Amendment Text Changes in Strikethrough/Underline Exhibit 2 – City LCPA Staff Report
32 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
5 I. PROCEDURAL OVERVIEW
A. Standard of Review
The Coastal Act provides:

The Commission shall certify a land use plan, or amendments thereto, if it finds that a land use plan meets the requirements of, and is in conformity with, the policies of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 30200) … (Section 30512(c)) The local government shall submit to the Commission the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and, where necessary, other implementing actions that are required pursuant to this chapter… (Section 30513)
…The Commission may only reject zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, or other implementing actions on the grounds that they do not conform with, or are inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified land use plan. If the Commission rejects the zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, or other implementing actions, it shall give written notice of the rejection, specifying the provisions of the land use plan with which the rejected zoning ordinances do not conform, or which it finds will not be adequately carried out together with its reasons for the action taken… (Section 30513)
The Commission may suggest modifications in the rejected zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, or other implementing actions, which, if adopted by the local government and transmitted to the commission, shall be deemed approved upon confirmation by the executive director... (Section 30513) Any proposed amendments to a certified local coastal program shall be submitted to, and processed by, the commission in accordance with the applicable procedures and time limits specified in Sections 30512 and 30513… (Section 30514(b))
Pursuant to Section 30512(c) and 30514(b), the standard of review that the Commission utilizes in reviewing the adequacy of the proposed amendment to the City’s certified land use plan (LUP) is whether the proposed amendment is consistent with, and meets the requirements of, the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. The standard of review for the proposed amendment to the City’s certified local implementation plan (LIP), pursuant to Sections 30513 and 30514(b) of the Coastal Act, is whether the proposed amendment is in conformance with, and adequate to carry out, the provisions of the LUP portion of the City’s certified local coastal program (LCP).
33 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
6 B. Procedural Requirements
If the Commission certifies the LCP amendment as submitted, no further City Council action will be necessary pursuant to Section 13544(b)(2) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Should the Commission deny the LCP Amendment, as submitted, without suggested modifications, no further action is required by either the Commission or the City Council, and the LCP amendment is not effective, pursuant to Section 13542(f). Should the Commission deny the LCP Amendment, as submitted, but then approve it with suggested modifications, then the City Council may consider accepting the suggested modifications and submitting them by resolution to the Executive Director for a determination that the City Council’s acceptance is consistent with the Commission's action. In that scenario, pursuant to Section 13544(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, the modified LCP Amendment will become final when the Executive Director reports the determination that the local government's action is legally adequate to the Commission at its next regularly scheduled public meeting. If the City Council does not accept the suggested modifications within six months of the Commission’s action, then the LCP amendment remains uncertified and not effective.

C. Public Participation
Section 30503 of the Coastal Act requires public input in the preparation, approval, certification, and amendment of any LCP. The City held public hearings on this amendment and received oral and written comments regarding the proposed changes from concerned parties and members of the public. The hearings were duly noticed, consistent with the provisions of Section 13515 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notice of the Coastal Commission’s consideration of the subject amendment has been distributed to all known interested parties.

II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, MOTIONS, AND

RESOLUTIONS FOR THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT
Following public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff recommendation is provided.

A. DENIAL OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT AS SUBMITTED
MOTION I:

I move that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Amendment No. LCP-4-MAL-21- 0049-1-Part B as submitted by the City of Malibu.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL:

Staff recommends a NO vote. Failure of this motion will result in denial of the Land Use Plan amendment as submitted and the adoption of the following resolution and findings. 34 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
7 The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners.

RESOLUTION TO DENY AS SUBMITTED:

The Commission hereby denies certification of the City of Malibu Land Use Plan Amendment No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B as submitted by the City of Malibu and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the amendment as submitted does not meet the requirements of and is not in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Certification of the Land Use Plan amendment would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the land use plan amendment as submitted.

B. CERTIFICATION OF THE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT IF

MODIFIED
MOTION II:

I move that the Commission certify Land Use Plan Amendment No. LCP-4-MAL-21- 0049-1-Part B for the City of Malibu if it is modified as suggested in this staff report.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS:

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in certification of the amendment with suggested modifications and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the appointed Commissioners.

RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTER MODIFICATIONS:

The Commission hereby certifies the City of Malibu Land Use Plan Amendment No.

LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B, if modified as suggested, and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the amendment with the suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act. Certification of the Land Use Plan amendment, if modified as suggested, complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen any significant adverse effects of the land use plan amendment on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the land use plan amendment may have on the environment.
35 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
8 III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION, MOTIONS, AND

RESOLUTIONS FOR THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION

PLAN AMENDMENT
Following public hearing, staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolutions and findings. The appropriate motion to introduce the resolution and a staff recommendation is provided prior to each resolution.

A. DENIAL OF THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AS SUBMITTED MOTION I:

I move that the Commission reject Local Implementation Plan Amendment No.

LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B as submitted by the City of Malibu.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL:

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in denial of the Implementation Plan Amendment as submitted and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

RESOLUTION TO DENY AS SUBMITTED:

The Commission hereby denies certification of the Local Implementation Plan Amendment No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B as submitted by the City of Malibu and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the Local Implementation Plan Amendment, as submitted, does not conform with, and is inadequate to carry out, the provisions of the certified Land Use Plan, as amended. Certification of the Local Implementation Plan Amendment would not meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, as there are feasible alternatives and mitigation measures that would substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts on the environment that will result from certification of the local implementation plan amendment as submitted.

B. APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT

WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS
MOTION II:

I move that the Commission certify Local Implementation Plan Amendment No.

LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B for the City of Malibu if it is modified as suggested in this staff report.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS:

Staff recommends a YES vote. Passage of this motion will result in certification of the 36 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
9 local implementation plan amendment with suggested modifications and adoption of the following resolution and findings. The motion passes only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Commissioners present.

RESOLUTION TO CERTIFY WITH SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS:

The Commission hereby certifies the Local Implementation Plan Amendment No. LCPLCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B for the City of Malibu, if modified as suggested, and adopts the findings set forth below on the grounds that the local implementation plan amendment with the suggested modifications will meet the requirements of and be in conformity with the policies of the Land Use Plan as amended. Certification of the local implementation plan amendment, if modified as suggested, complies with the California Environmental Quality Act, because either 1) feasible mitigation measures and/or alternatives have been incorporated to substantially lessen the any significant adverse effects of the land use plan amendment on the environment, or 2) there are no further feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that would substantially lessen any significant adverse impacts which the local implementation plan amendment may have on the environment.

IV.SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ON THE LAND USE PLAN

AMENDMENT
The Commission finds and suggests that the following suggested modification to the proposed LUP amendment is necessary to ensure the LUP is consistent with the Coastal Act. Existing language of the certified Local Implementation Plan is shown in straight type. Language proposed to be deleted by the City of Malibu in this amendment is shown as strikethrough. The Commission’s additions are double underlined, and language the Commission is proposing be deleted is shown in double strikethrough.

Suggested Modification No. 1
LUP Policy 2.81 shall be modified as follows:

2.81 No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.
37 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
10 V. SUGGESTED MODIFICATIONS ON THE LOCAL

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AMENDMENT
The Commission finds and suggests three modifications to the proposed LIP amendment to ensure consistency with the LUP, as amended, as shown below. Existing language of the certified Local Implementation Plan is shown in straight type. Language proposed to be deleted by the City of Malibu in this amendment is shown as strikethrough. Language recommended by the Commission to be inserted is shown in double underlined. Language recommended by the Commission to be deleted is shown in double strikethrough.

Suggested Modification No. 2
LIP Section 3.15.4 (C) Criteria shall be modified as follows to add a new subpart 12:

12. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

Suggested Modification No. 3
LIP Section 3.15.6 (B)(3) shall be modified as follows:

3. Any sign which purport to restrict public access to State tidelands or public vertical and lateral easement areas, trails or parklands or to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, deed restricted areas that grant public access, trails, or parklands). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed. 38 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
11 Suggested Modification No. 4
LIP Section 12.9 (D) shall be modified as follows:

D. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront or on public beach unless authorized by a Coastal Development Permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral or vertical access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access). Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

VI.FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF THE LUP/LIP AMENDMENT, AS

SUBMITTED, AND APPROVAL OF THE LUP/LIP

AMENDMENT, IF MODIFIED AS SUGGESTED
The following findings support the Commission’s denial of the proposed Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan amendment as submitted, and approval of the Land Use Plan and Local Implementation Plan Amendment if modified as suggested (detailed in Sections IV. and V. Suggested Modifications above).

The Commission hereby finds and declares as follows:

A. Amendment Description and Background
The City of Malibu’s (“City”) proposed Local Coastal Program (LCP) Amendment No.

LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B consists of changes to both the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) portions of its certified LCP to delete or modify policies and provisions regarding signs. The proposed amendment would delete a portion of two LUP policies and delete subparts of two LIP sections that the City concluded would constitute an unconstitutional regulation of the content of signs. The full text of the City’s proposed amendment is included as Exhibit 1 of this report.

The City of Malibu submitted the subject LCP Amendment (LCPA) to the Commission on July 7, 2021, and the submittal was determined to be incomplete. After receiving additional information from the City, the amendment submittal was deemed complete and filed on November 15, 2022. At its February 2023 meeting, the Commission extended the deadline for action on this Part B of the LCP amendment submittal for a period not to 39 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
12 exceed one year from the original deadline of March 29, 2023.

The City LCPA staff report states that the amendment was initiated in November 2020 in response to the lawsuit Dennis Seider and Leah Seider, as Trustees of the Seider Family Trust v. City of Malibu (“Seider v. City of Malibu”) filed in October 2020, alleging that LIP Section 3.15.3(X) is an unconstitutional regulation of sign content (and that LIP Sections

3.15.4(C) (subparagraphs 3, 5, and 9)) require broadly subjective determinations and are an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. That litigation is described in more detail below.

The City Council adopted Resolution 21-16 and Ordinance 41-83 on April 12, 2021, to approve the LUP and LIP amendments. In each, the City made the general finding that:
“The City does not oppose the right of residents to protect their private property or to exercise their freedom of speech”.

Additionally, the City Council adopted the following Local Coastal Program Amendment findings in support of its action on the LUP amendment (and substantially the same findings for the LIP amendment):

Based on evidence in the whole record, the City Council hereby finds that LCPA No. 20-001 meets the requirements of, and is in conformance with, the LCP and the policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act (the Act) as follows:

A. Section 30210 of Chapter 3 of the Act requires the State to advance the public right of access to coastal resources, including through local coastal programs, in a manner consistent with the rights of private property owners.

B. As relevant here, the Legislature’s statement of goals in Section 30001.5(c) of the Act also declares an intent to maximize public access to the coast “consistent with . . . constitutionally protected rights of private property owners.” C. Chapter 2 incorporates the Act’s public access policies, including Section 30210, as qualified by a concern to protect property owners’ constitutional rights.

D. Section 2.80 and Section 2.81 of the LUP contain restrictions on property owners’ right to post signs on private property that are substantially similar to the restriction in LIP section 3.15.3(X), and removing these restrictions is not inconsistent with the LCP or with Chapter 3 of the Act.

In addition to the staff report, resolution and ordinance, the City submitted a Coastal Act Consistency Analysis for the LCPA on October 20, 2022.

Related City of Malibu Permit History1
In 2020, Dennis Seider contacted Bonnie Blue, the City Planning Manager at that time, to inquire about obtaining CDP approval for a sign that would say, as Mr. Seider put it:
“…something like “PRIVATE PROPERTY FROM THIS SIGN __ FEET SEAWARD AFTER 1 The discussions between Mr. Seider and City staff noted in this section were detailed in the Seider v. City of Malibu complaint. Commission staff were not a party to any of the discussions. 40 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
13 WHICH THE PUBLIC HAS A LATERAL ACCESS ALONG THE SHORE or something similar that is unambiguous and is still useful to the beach going public”. The Planning Manager replied that: “[a]ccording to the LCP, a sign like this is not allowed. I’ve included the code section below. If you wanted to apply anyway, a CDP would be needed.” The cited code section was LIP Section 3.15(X).

Mr. Seider considered submitting a CDP application to the City, and he and Ms. Blue exchanged additional email correspondence about the application process. He did not ultimately apply for a CDP to place a sign on his property. He stated that he was unwilling to do so because the City’s Uniform Application requires that an applicant sign an indemnification clause that states that:

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

Mr. Seider refused to agree to this clause but was informed by the Planning Manager that an application could not be accepted without the agreement. As such, the Seiders did not apply to the City for a CDP to allow a beachfront sign.

Staff notes that the City staff provided Mr. Seider with City staff’s perspective on the correct interpretation of LIP Section 3.15.3(X) with regard to a sign idea without having the specific information that would otherwise be provided in a CDP application. The Seiders did not apply for a CDP, so no analysis or recommendation was carried out and no decision was made by the City. As such, it remains unknown how the City decisionmaking body would have interpreted the policies and provisions in question or applied them to a specific proposal, or whether, had the City found the proposal to be unapprovable as submitted, it could have required feasible alternatives or mitigation measures to achieve consistency of the proposed sign with the LCP.

Dennis Seider and Leah Seider, as Trustees of the Seider Family Trust v. City of Malibu
In October 2020, the Seiders filed a complaint in Federal District Court against the City challenging LIP Section 3.15.3(X) and LIP Sections 3.15.4(C) (subparagraphs 3, 5, and 9) as unconstitutional, alleging that LIP Section 3.15.3(X) is an unconstitutional regulation of sign content and that LIP Sections 3.15.4(C) (3, 5, and 9) require broadly subjective determinations and are an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. Further, the complaint alleges that the City’s indemnification clause substantially burdens the Seider’s free speech rights because they cannot apply for a sign CDP without agreeing to incur an unknown liability.
41 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
14 Specifically, the complaint [Dennis Seider and Leah Seider, as Trustees of the Seider Family Trust v. City of Malibu (“Seider v. City of Malibu”)] includes five claims: (1) violation of the First Amendment, on the basis that Section 3.15.3(X) of Malibu’s LIP is a content based speech restriction; (2) violation of the First Amendment, on the basis that Section

3.15.4(C) of Malibu’s LIP is an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech; (3) unconstitutional condition imposed by the permit application’s indemnification clause; (4) unconstitutional infringement on Plaintiffs’ free speech rights imposed by the permit application’s indemnification clause; and (5) ultra vires (if the LIP does not prohibit the Seider’s potential signs, then the City acted outside its authority).

As is explained above, the City indicated that it began its efforts related to this LCPA in response to that litigation.

B. Malibu LCP Background
The LCP was adopted by the Commission in 2002. Prior to that time, the Commission had CDP authority and primary responsibility to enforce the Coastal Act within the City. In the period leading up to the certification of the LCP, the Commission was aware of numerous unauthorized postings of signs illegally attempting to limit, or erroneously indicating restrictions on, public access that was legally allowed on beachfront private properties in the Malibu area, for example as a result of a public access easement. The Commission routinely conditioned CDPs for new development on beachfront parcels to prohibit the placement of such false or misleading signs. The LCP includes policies and provisions (including those that are part of the subject LCPA) that establish standards for signs in order to prohibit such false statements and protect public access and recreation, as well as to protect visual resources.

In certifying the LCP, the Commission made the following findings regarding public access impacts from unpermitted signs and other development:

Public access to beaches and trails in Malibu would also be facilitated by the removal of unpermitted physical development, like signs and fences on the beach which inhibit public use of state tidelands as well as dedicated public lateral and vertical easements. Many beaches in Malibu contain numerous signs stating “Private Beach” or “Private Property”. Such signs mislead and intimidate the public from legal beach access. In particular, signs portraying the boundary between public and private property as a fixed line are inaccurate since the line where the mean high tide intersects the beach is an ambulatory boundary that constantly moves to correspond to changes in the beach profile and daily tide flows. In some cases, these signs may be placed on public land. In recent permit decisions for beachfront development, the Commission has imposed a special condition which forbids the placement of any sign containing language which can be interpreted as limiting access to the public beach. In addition, existing signs, fences, or other obstacles which have been illegally placed on a beach or on state tidelands need to be identified and removed, where necessary to protect public access. 42 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
15 C. Public Access and Recreation
Article X, Section 4 of the California Constitution states:

No individual or partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted to exclude the right of way to such water whenever it is required for any public purpose, nor to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall always be attainable for the people thereof.

Section 30001.5 of the Coastal Act states, in part, that:

The Legislature further finds and declares that the basic goals of the state for the coastal zone are to:
…
(c) Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners…
The following Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act are applicable.

Section 30210 of the Coastal Act states:

In carrying out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution, maximum access, which shall be conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.

Section 30211 of the Coastal Act states:

Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through use or legislative authorization, including, but not limited to, the use of dry sand and rocky coastal beaches to the first line of terrestrial vegetation.

Section 30214 of the Coastal Act states:
(a) the public access policies of this article shall be implemented in a manner that takes into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on the facts and circumstances in each case including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Topographic and geologic site characteristics.
(2) The capacity of the site to sustain use and at what level of intensity. 43 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
16 (3) The appropriateness of limiting public access to the right to pass and repass depending on such factors as the fragility of the natural resources in the area and the proximity of the access area to adjacent residential uses. (4) The need to provide for the management of access areas so as to protect the privacy of adjacent property owners and to protect the aesthetic values of the area by providing for the collection of litter.
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of this article be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public’s constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution. Nothing in this section or any amendment thereto shall be construed as a limitation on the rights guaranteed to the public under Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.
…
In addition, the following Land Use Plan (LUP) policies of the City’s certified LCP are applicable in this case.

Land Use Plan Policy 2.1 states:

The shoreline, parklands, beaches and trails located within the City provide a wide range of recreational opportunities in natural settings which include hiking, equestrian activities, bicycling, camping, educational study, picnicking, and coastal access. These recreational opportunities shall be protected, and where feasible, expanded or enhanced as a resource of regional, state and national importance.

Land Use Plan Policy 2.2 states:

New development shall minimize impacts to public access to and along the shoreline and inland trails…
Land Use Plan Policy 2.3 states:

Public prescriptive rights may exist in certain areas along the shoreline and trails within the City. Development shall not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through historic use or legislative authorization. These rights shall be protected through public acquisition measures or through permit conditions for new development, which incorporate measures to provide or protect access when there is substantial evidence that prescriptive rights exist.

Land Use Plan Policy 2.5 states:

New development shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts to public access and recreation along the shoreline and trails. If there is no feasible alternative that can eliminate or avoid all access impacts, then the alternative that would result in the least significant adverse impact shall be required. Impacts may be mitigated through the dedication of an access or trail easement where the 44 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
17 project site encompasses an LCP mapped access or trail alignment, where the City, County, State, or other public agency has identified a trail used by the public, or where there is substantial evidence that prescriptive rights exist. Mitigation measures required for impacts to public access and recreational opportunities shall be implemented prior to or concurrent with construction of the approved development.

Land Use Plan Policy 2.6 states:

Mitigation shall not substitute for implementation of a feasible project alternative that would avoid impacts to public access.

Land Use Plan Policy 2.73 states:

Maximum public access shall be provided in a manner which minimizes conflicts with adjacent uses.

Upon California’s admission to the Union as a sovereign state on September 9, 1850, the state became the owner of the beds of all navigable waters to hold in trust for the public (hence the names “Public Trust lands” or “sovereign lands”). As part of the Act for the Admission of the State of California into the Union, Congress included the condition that:
“…all navigable waters within the said State shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to the citizens of the United States…”2 This provision has been implemented by subsequent state constitutional provisions, statutes, and judicial decisions aimed at protecting the public’s right to access and use navigable waters.3 For coastal and other tidally influenced waters, the public has the right to access and use lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark as located by the mean high tide line except where there has been fill or artificial accretion. Acceptable uses of sovereign (Public Trust) lands include but are not limited to scientific study, preservation of lands in their natural state, passive and water-related recreation, such as walking, hiking, wading, swimming, boating, etc.4
The protection of these public trust lands and the assurance of public access to them lies at the heart of Coastal Act policies requiring the implementation of a public access program, the minimization of impacts to access, and the provision of access, where applicable, through the regulation of development. To carry out the requirement of Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution: “that access to the navigable waters of this State shall be always attainable for the people thereof”, Coastal Act Section 30210 provides that maximum access and recreational opportunities be provided consistent with public safety, public rights, private property rights, and natural resource protection.

Coastal Act Section 30211 requires that development not interfere with the public’s right of access to the sea where acquired through the enumerated means. Furthermore, 2 Act of Sept. 9, 1850, ch. 50, 9 Stat. 452, 453
3 California State Lands Commission, A Legal Guide to The Public’s Rights to Access And Use California’s Navigable Waters, 2017
4 https://www.slc.ca.gov/public-engagement/#pubtrust
45 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
18 Coastal Act Section 30212 requires that public access from the nearest public roadway to the shoreline and along the coast be provided in new development projects with certain exceptions such as public safety, military security, resource protection, and where adequate access exists nearby. Certain minor types of development also do not require the provision of access. Finally, Coastal Act Section 30214 provides that the implementation of the public access policies shall take into account the need to regulate the time, place, and manner of public access depending on such circumstances as topographic and geologic characteristics, the need to protect natural resources, proximity to adjacent residential uses, etc. Further, Coastal Act Section 30214 states that it is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies of Chapter 3 be carried out in a reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public’s constitutional right of access pursuant to Section 4 of Article X of the California Constitution.

Notwithstanding the public’s rights to access public trust lands, there are often impediments to reaching those lands from public roads, trails, or paths, or to passing along the shoreline. These include topography; hazardous areas; existing patterns of permitted development such as residential, commercial, or other types of structures; as well as unpermitted development. Unpermitted development that has impeded public beach access in Malibu includes: the placement of fences, gates, and other physical obstructions (such as structures, walls, trees, and landscaping); the use of private security services (including with off-road vehicle patrols) to instruct people to leave the beach; the placement of signs that restrict public access; red-curbing and placement of no parking signs that eliminate public parking that would otherwise be available to beach visitors. The placement of signs on beachfront structures which state: "Private Beach’ or "Private Property" or contain any similar message prohibiting public use of the beach, while often inaccurate, have caused members of the public to believe that they do not have the right to use the shoreline. In effect, these signs have served to undermine the public's rights to use public lands that are protected by the California Constitution and the Coastal Act.

As discussed above, the public has the right to access and use lands waterward of the ordinary high water mark as located by the mean high tide line. So, a sign on a beach that states “private beach” is inaccurate because it does not acknowledge that parts of the beach are in fact not private. Similarly, a sign that purports to identify a boundary between private and public property on a beach as a fixed line would not be accurate (absent a boundary agreement between the property owner and the State Lands Commission or a fixed boundary adjudicated by a court of law) because the boundary is in fact ambulatory, being located where the plane of mean high water intersects with the land, and thus changing both with sea level and with the changes in beach profiles. See Lechuza Villas West v. Coastal Commission (1997), 60 Cal.App.4th 218. Similarly, a sign that does not acknowledge an existing vertical or lateral public access easement or deed restriction affecting the private property portion of a beachfront lot would also be inaccurate.

It should also be acknowledged that there are areas, including some sandy beach areas, that are fully private, in the sense that the public has no right to access them, and the 46 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
19 owners of such property have a right to indicate as much in a truthful way, both based on property law and free speech principles. Additionally, Coastal Act Policies 30210 and 30214 state that public access is to be implemented in a manner that respects private property rights.

The LCP as it currently exists contains many LUP policies and LIP standards that require the provision of maximum public access and protection of existing public access, including, but not limited to, the removal of unpermitted development from public trust lands, as well as the siting and design of new development so it is located as far landward as feasible, is not located on public trust lands, and does not adversely impact public access.

The public access policies and standards that are specific to signs state that signs posted on beachfront properties or on a beach must be authorized through a CDP.

Additionally, signs that purport to identify the boundary between public trust lands and private property shall not be permitted. Further, signs that indicate that public access to public trust lands is restricted cannot be permitted.

Proposed Change to LUP Policy 2.80
The LCPA includes changing LUP Policy 2.80 to delete the second sentence as shown here:

2.80. In consultation and coordination with the State Lands Commission, all unauthorized or illegal development, including signs, which encroach onto State tidelands should be identified and removed. In particular, and in coordination with the State Lands Commission, existing signs at Broad Beach which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property that are determined to be unpermitted development should be removed.

The City proposes to delete this part of LUP Policy 2.80 because it contains language (“purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property”) that the City’s consistency analysis states regulates the content of signs. The City also proposes to delete similar language in Policy 2.81 and LIP Section 3.15.3 (X).

The Commission agrees that it is appropriate to delete the subject requirement to remove existing (at the time of LCP certification in 2002) unpermitted signs at Broad Beach, but for a different reason. The unpermitted signs in question included multiple signs and posts on the beach that detailed a purported fixed location for the MHTL. The sign posts were often within the wave uprush zone presenting a public safety hazard. These signs were removed or destroyed since that time and so the specific reference to them in Policy 2.80 is no longer needed. No modifications to the City’s proposal are suggested for LUP Policy 2.80.
47 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
20 Proposed Changes to LUP Policy 2.81, LIP Sections 3.15.3 (X), 3.15.6(B)(3), and

12.9(D)
The City proposes to delete the following language which comprises both the second of two sentences in LUP Policy 2.81 and the entirety of LIP Section 3.15.3 (X):

Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted.

Further, there are two other certified LIP sections [3.15.6(B)(3) and 12.9.(D)] that contain requirements similar to the LCPA proposed changes in LIP Section 3.15.3(X). The City Council did not adopt changes to these two additional sections as part of its action on the subject LCPA. City staff subsequently recognized the similarity in these two sections and requested that Commission staff consider adding suggested modifications to make these changes:

3.15.6 (B)(3) Any sign which purport to restrict public access to State tidelands or public vertical and lateral easement areas, trails or parklands or to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property shall not be permitted.

12.9 (D) No signs shall be posted on a beachfront or on public beach unless authorized by a Coastal Development Permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral or vertical access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted.

The language in these two LIP subsections is closely related to that contained in LUP Policy 2.81 and LIP Section 3.15.3(X), which the proposed LCPA would delete. The Commission agrees that in order to ensure internal LCP consistency, modifications should be suggested for LIP Sections 3.15.6(B)(3) and 12.9.(D) (although not the ones that City staff requested). In order to avoid repetition, suggested modifications to the LCPA proposed changes and these two LIP sections will be discussed together here.

As described in detail above, the City proposes the LCPA in response to the Seider v.

City of Malibu case, in which the plaintiffs allege that LIP Section 3.15.3(X) violates residents’ rights to speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The City Council found that: “The City does not oppose the right of residents to protect their private property or to exercise their freedom of speech”, although no findings were made about how this provision or LUP Policies 2.80 or 2.81 violate resident’s rights or if there are feasible alternatives beside wholesale deletion of the existing policies. In approving the LCPA, the City Council found that it is consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act and the LCP, because these policies require maximum public access, consistent with the constitutionally protected rights of private property owners, citing the state’s goals in Coastal Act Section 30001.5(C), Section 30210 of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act, and LUP Chapter 2, which incorporates the Coastal Act’s public access policies, including Section 30210, as qualified by a concern to protect property owners’ 48 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
21 constitutional rights.

Additionally, the consistency analysis provided by City staff states that the proposed changes would remove language that regulates signs based on content and instead regulates, through the CDP process, beachfront signs using time, place, and manner restrictions. The analysis further states that retaining the requirements for signs on beachfront properties to obtain a CDP will allow the City to ensure that any approved sign will be located on private property and will not impact public access. The analysis states that the City’s review of a sign CDP could include conditions and/or mitigation measures to avoid impacts to public access, such as locating signs inland of the MHTL, monitoring signs over time to ensure they remain on private property, and:
… to avoid potential confusion and the perception that access is restricted on that part of the beach, the CDP could be conditioned to require the proposed sign to indicate both the area to be used only by the private property owner, as well as clearly stating the areas available for use by the public, including hours and contact information for the agency with jurisdiction over that beach area. This additional information on the sign would serve to avoid any potential adverse impacts on the right to public access by informing visitors and residents that public access is not restricted on the public beach.

Section 30210 does require that maximum public access be provided consistent with private property rights. Further, Coastal Act Section 30214 states that it is the intent of the Legislature that the public access policies be carried out in a way that balances the rights of the individual property owner with the public’s constitutional right of access. This balance can be provided without restricting public access to state tidelands, or to other lands where the public has a right of access, such as public trust lands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access.

The Commission finds that the LUP amendment, as proposed, is not consistent with the access and recreation policies of the Coastal Act because deleting sign policies and standards will not ensure that maximum public access will be provided or that existing public access will be protected. As proposed, the LCPA would remove the existing LCP policies and standards that are most specific to signs. So, while the LCPA would still include the requirement that signs require a CDP, the deletion of any actual sign standards from the LCP would make it less clear how sign proposals are to be reviewed and less objective how the decision-making bodies would interpret and apply the remaining access and recreation policies and standards to sign CDP applications. The Commission also finds it is not necessary to completely delete the subject standards regarding beachfront signs to address constitutional issues regarding free speech. The Commission finds that it is necessary to instead clarify the existing policy and provisions to guide the City in its consideration of sign CDPs to ensure that both public access rights and private property rights are protected. This approach is taken in the suggested modifications.
49 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
22 Suggested Modifications to proposed LUP Policy 2.81, LIP Sections 3.15.3 (X),

3.15.6(B)(3), and 12.9(D)
The Commission suggests four modifications to the proposed LCPA. Given that the subject LUP policy and three LIP provisions contain similar wording, the suggested modifications do too. Following is the existing certified wording the LCPA proposes to delete from LUP Policy 2.81:

2.81 No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted.

This policy is meant to apply to two different types of signs that can each impact public access. The first case (“signs which purport to identify the boundary between state tidelands and private property”) is addressing the issue raised by the Commission in its findings for LCP adoption: “signs portraying the boundary between public and private property as a fixed line are inaccurate since the line where the mean high tide intersects the beach is an ambulatory boundary…”. The use of the verb “purport” in this policy is important to note. Purport as a verb has the meaning of making a claim when the claim may not be true. So, this part of the policy means that a sign that includes a boundary that is false or inaccurate shall not be permitted. The second case (“signs… which indicate that public access to state tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted) relates to signs that don’t identify a boundary but indicate falsely or inaccurately that public access is not available or subject to restrictions.

Suggested Modification 1 revises the language of LUP Policy 2.81 to be more clear and specific. As modified, the language would be as follows (the sentences are numbered for ease of reference but would not appear this way in the LCP):

1. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit.

2. Signs shall not restrict public access to lands to which the public has a right of access (including, but not limited to, state tidelands, vertical or lateral public access easements, or deed restricted areas that grant public access).

3. Signs on beachfront properties which purport to identify the boundary between lands to which the public has a right of access and private property over which there are no such rights must be accurate and not misleading, and where such boundary is ambulatory (such as where it is defined based on the location of the MHTL) the ambulatory nature of the boundary and the existence and nature of the applicable public rights must be clearly conveyed.

The first sentence is existing certified language that the City is not proposing to alter and that will be retained in this policy. Sentence 2 requires that signs do not restrict public 50 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
23 access to lands where the public has a right of access. This can include state tidelands or private property where there is an existing vertical or lateral public access easement or deed restriction. The requirement means that signs cannot state that there is a restriction to public access where none exists. The State has a compelling interest in ensuring that speech is not used to mislead the public by denying the existence of existing public rights. Sentence 3 details requirements for signs that are intended to identify a boundary between lands where the public has a right of access and private property where the public has no right of access. Such signs are required to be accurate and not misleading, including that if a boundary is ambulatory, that fact along with the existence and nature of the public rights must be clearly conveyed. Again, the State has a compelling interest in ensuring that such information is not conveyed in a manner that is inaccurate and falsely denies the public the exercise of their legal rights.

Both Sentence 2 and Sentence 3 are written as standards that a proposed sign needs to meet rather than a prohibition of a sign that doesn’t meet the standard. This is a subtle difference but one that makes clear that the purpose and impact of these provisions is not to prohibit signage or prevent speech, but only to ensure that it is not misused in a manner that is false and results in a denial of public rights. In short, there is a path forward to CDP approval for signs that avoid unacceptable impacts to legitimate public access rights and recreational opportunities by conforming to the requirements of the LCP. Further, modifying Policy 2.81 in this way will provide the City decision maker, general public and CDP applicants with clarity on what signs can be approved.

The City’s proposed deletion of LIP Section 3.15.3(X) from the list of prohibited signs is appropriate when coupled with the addition of Sentences 2 and 3 as criteria for review of signs as a new Section 3.15.4 (C)(12). The addition of this section is required by Suggested Modification 2.

It is necessary to make changes to LIP Section 3.15.6 (B)(3) to ensure internal LCP consistency (even though the LCPA proposed no change to this section). Suggested Modification 3 adds Sentences 2 and 3 and retains the certified section’s inclusion of trails and parklands as lands where the public’s right of access cannot be restricted.

Finally, Suggested Modification No. 4 requires changes to LIP Section 12.9(D) to again ensure internal LCP consistency (even though the LCPA proposed no change here). In this section, the certified Sentence 1 is retained and Sentences Number 2 and 3 are added.

Conclusion
The Commission finds that Suggested Modification One (1) is necessary to ensure that the proposed LUP amendment will ensure that maximum public access is provided consistent with the rights of private property owners, consistent with Section 30210 of the Coastal Act, and that signs will not interfere with the public’s right to access the sea, consistent with Section 30211 of the Coastal Act. Further, Suggested Modifications 2 through 4 (2-4) are necessary to ensure that the proposed LIP amendment will conform with and be adequate to carry out the policies of the LUP, as amended. The Commission further finds that the LCPA, as suggested to be modified, provides a clear, objective 51 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
24 policy and development standard basis for the City’s review of sign CDP applications.

With regard to the issue of the consistency of content-based sign restrictions in the LCPA, as suggested to be modified, with First Amendment rights to free speech, the Commission finds that the policy and provisions are necessary to strike the proper balance between allowing private property owners to protect their rights and ensuring that the public can access lands where they have rights of access. The Commission further finds that there is a compelling state interest in protecting public access to sovereign lands, as evidenced by the Congressional condition of statehood that “…all navigable waters within the said State shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said State as to the citizens of the United States…”, and by the California Constitution that requires in Section 4 of Article X that:

No individual or partnership, or corporation, claiming or possessing the frontage or tidal lands of a harbor, bay, inlet estuary, or other navigable water in this State, shall be permitted… to destroy or obstruct the free navigation of such water; and the Legislature shall enact such laws as will give the most liberal construction to this provision, so that access to the navigable waters of this State shall always be attainable for the people thereof.

Further, the compelling state interest is demonstrated in the Legislature’s declaration of the State’s goal (found in Coastal Act Section 30001.5) to “Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners…”. Finally, the Commission finds that the amended LUP policy and LIP provisions with the suggested modifications are narrowly drawn to achieve the protection of public access. The purpose and impact of these provisions is not to prohibit signage or prevent speech, but only to ensure that it is not misused in a manner that is false and results in a denial of public rights.

For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the LUP amendment, only if modified as suggested, will meet the requirements of, and be in conformity with, the access and recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act; and the LIP amendment, only if modified as suggested, conforms with, and is adequate to carry out, the access and recreation policies of the certified Land Use Plan, as amended.

D. Hazards and Scenic and Visual Resources
The following Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act are incorporated in their entirety into the City’s certified Land Use Plan.

Section 30251 of the Coastal Act states:

The scenic and visual qualities of coastal areas shall be considered and protected as a resource of public importance. Permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the 52 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
25 character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. New development in highly scenic areas such as those designated in the California Coastline reservation and Recreation Plan prepared by the Department of Parks and Recreation and by local government shall be subordinate to the character of its setting.

Section 30253 of the Coastal Act states:

New development shall:
(1) Minimize risks to life and property in areas of high geologic, flood, and fire hazard. …
In addition, the following LUP policies are applicable in this case:

Land Use Plan Policy 4.2 states:

All new development shall be sized, designed and sited to minimize risks to life and property from geologic, flood, and fire hazard.

Land Use Plan Policy 6.1 states:

The Santa Monica Mountains, including the City, contain scenic areas of regional and national importance. The scenic and visual qualities of these areas shall be protected and, where feasible, enhanced.

Land Use Plan Policy 6.5 states:

New development shall be sited and designed to minimize adverse impacts on scenic areas visible from scenic roads or public viewing areas to the maximum feasible extent…
Land Use Plan Policy 6.12 states:

All new structures shall be sited and designed to minimize impacts to visual resources by:
a. Ensuring visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas. …
Land Use Plan Policy 6.30 states:

Signs shall be designed and located to minimize impacts to visual resources.

Signs approved as part of commercial development shall be incorporated into the design of the project and shall be subject to height and width limitations that ensure that signs are visually compatible with surrounding areas and protect scenic views.
53 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
26 Land Use Plan Policy 6.31 states:

Placement of signs other than traffic or public safety signs, utilities, or other accessory equipment that obstruct views to the ocean, beaches, parks, or other scenic areas, from public viewing areas and scenic roads shall be prohibited.

As part of the subject LCPA, the City proposes to delete subsections 3, 5, and 9 of LIP Chapter 3.15.4 (C) as follows:

C. Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in reviewing an application for a sign permit:

2. That the sign is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program, general plan and the provisions of the Municipal Code;

3. That the sign is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare;

5. That the size, shape, color, and placement of the sign is compatible with the neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area;

9. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to any residential district does not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential area.

The City found that these three criteria for the review of sign CDPs: “restrict property owners’ right to post signs on private property, and removing these sections is not inconsistent with the LCP or with Chapter 3 of the Act”. Seider v. City of Malibu alleges that the criteria contained in subsections 3, 5, and 9 are “broadly subjective determinations” that give City officials “unbridled discretion to deny a sign CDP,” and thereby result in an unconstitutional prior restraint on speech. The LCPA staff report and findings don’t provide any detail on whether the City agrees with this allegation, but the City does propose to delete these criteria to “avoid any implementation that might infringe on residents’ constitutional rights”. Staff notes that even though the City proposes to delete these three criteria from the LIP, they remain as part of the separate Malibu Municipal Code and are therefore still part of the standard of review for non-CDP sign permits.

The Commission finds that the three criteria are arguably not overly broad in that they relate (with the possible exception of public health or welfare) to LUP policies regarding hazards and visual resources. Nonetheless, the Commission finds that these provisions may be deleted because LIP Section 3.15.4 (C)(2) will remain as part of the LCP. This criterion requires that any sign is consistent with the certified LCP. The LCP contains other policies and provisions (e.g., LUP Policies 6.30 and 6.31, LIP Sections 6.5 and 9.4) related to protecting life from hazards and visual resources that, when met, will ensure that signs do not affect public safety and will ensure visual compatibility with the character of surrounding areas. As such, no modifications are suggested for the proposed changes to LIP Section 3.15.4 (C).

For the reasons stated above, the Commission finds that the LIP amendment conforms with and is adequate to carry out the hazards and visual resource policies of the certified Land Use Plan.
54 LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
27 E. California Environmental Quality Act
Section 21080.9 of the California Public Resources Code—within the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)—exempts local governments from the requirement of preparing an environmental impact report (EIR) in connection with its activities and approvals necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal program.

Instead, the CEQA responsibilities are assigned to the Coastal Commission; however, the Commission's LCP review and approval program has been found by the Resources Agency to be functionally equivalent to the EIR process. Thus, under CEQA Section 21080.5, the Commission is not obligated to prepare an EIR for each LCP action.

Nevertheless, the Commission is required, in approving an LCP submittal, to find that the approval of the proposed LCP, as amended, does conform with CEQA provisions, including the requirement in CEQA section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) that the amended LCP will not be approved or adopted as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen any significant adverse impact which the activity may have on the environment. 14 C.C.R. §§ 13540(f) and 13555(b).

The City’s proposed LCP amendment consists of a Land Use Plan amendment and Local Implementation Plan amendment. As discussed above, the Land Use Plan amendment has been found not to be in conformance with Chapter 3 policies of the Coastal Act. To resolve the concerns identified, suggested modifications have been made to the proposed amendment. With the incorporation of the suggested modifications, the Land Use Plan amendment is in conformity with the Coastal Act. The proposed Local Implementation Plan amendment is not in conformance with and is not adequate to carry out the Land Use Plan. With the incorporation of the Commission’s suggested modifications, the Local Implementation Plan amendment is in conformity with the Land Use Plan as amended. The suggested modifications minimize or mitigate any potentially significant environmental impacts of the LCP amendment. If modified as suggested, the Commission finds that approval of the LCP amendment will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act.

The Commission finds that for the reasons discussed in this report if the LCP amendment is modified as suggested, there are no additional feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available that could substantially reduce any adverse environmental impacts. The Commission further finds that the proposed LCP amendment, if modified as suggested, is consistent with Section 21080.5(d)(2)(A) of the Public Resources Code.
55 STATE OF CALIFORNIA - NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, GOVERNOR

CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION

SOUTH CENTRAL COAST DISTRICT OFFICE
89 SOUTH CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 200
VENTURA, CA 93001-2801
VOICE (805) 585-1800
FAX (805) 641-1732
W10a
City of Malibu Local Coastal Program Amendment
No. LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Sign Regulations)
March 13, 2024
Exhibits
Table of Contents
Exhibit 1 – City LCPA Proposed Text Changes
Exhibit 2 – City LCPA Planning Commission Staff Report
Exhibit 3 – City LCPA City Council Staff Report
Exhibit 4 – City LCPA Final Resolution and Final Ordinance 56 Proposed Changes to the Local Coastal Program:

Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 20-001
These changes correspond with City Council Ordinance No. 483 Action: Adopted Resolution No. 21-16 amending the Local Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP) Sections 2.80 and 2.81 and adopted Ordinance No. 483 amending the LCP Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Local Implementation Plan Sections 3.15.3(X) and 3.15.4(C) as part of LCPA No. 20-001 and found the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act to avoid any implementation that might infringe on residents’ constitutional rights.

Land Use Plan
Changes in strikethrough/underline
A. Amend LUP Chapter 2 (Public Access and Recreation), Section C (Land Use Policies), Subsection 3 (Shoreline Access), Item 80 to read as follows:

2.80. In consultation and coordination with the State Lands Commission, all unauthorized or illegal development, including signs, which encroach onto State tidelands should be identified and removed. In particular, and in coordination with the State Lands Commission, existing signs at Broad Beach which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property that are determined to be unpermitted development should be removed.

B. Amend LUP Section 2.81 to read as follows:

2.81. No signs shall be posted on a beachfront property or on public beach unless authorized by a coastal development permit. Signs which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands and private property or which indicate that public access to State tidelands or public lateral access easement areas is restricted shall not be permitted.

Local Implementation Plan
Changes in strikethrough/underline
C. LIP Chapter 3.15.3 (Prohibited Signs), Subsection X is hereby amended to read as follows:
[Repealed] “Signs which restrict public access to State tidelands, public vertical or lateral access easement areas, or which purport to identify the boundary between State tidelands, and private property shall not be permitted.” D. LIP Chapter 3.15.4 (Permit Requirements and Procedure), Subsection C (Criteria) is hereby amended to repeal items 3, 5, and 9, and to read as follows:

Exhibit 1
City LCPA Proposed Text Changes
LCP-4-MAL-21-0049-1-Part B (Signs)
57 C. Criteria. The following criteria shall be used in reviewing an application for a sign permit:

1. That any business sign is necessary for the applicant’s enjoyment of substantial trade and property rights;

2. That the sign is consistent with the certified Local Coastal Program, general plan and the provisions of the Municipal Code;

3. That the sign is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare;

4. That the size, shape, color, and placement of the sign is compatible with the building it identifies;

5. That the size, shape, color, and placement of the sign is compatible with the neighborhood and other lawful signs in the area;

6. That both the location of the proposed sign and the design of its visual elements (lettering, words, figures, colors, decorative motifs, spacing, and proportions are legible under normal viewing conditions prevailing where the sign is to be installed;

7. That the location and design of the proposed sign does not obscure from view or unduly detract from existing or adjacent signs;

8. That the location and design of the proposed sign, its size, shape, illumination, and color are compatible with the visual characteristics of the surrounding area so as not to detract from or cause depreciation of the value or quality of adjacent properties; and

9. That the location and design of a proposed sign in close proximity to any residential district does not adversely affect the quality or character of such residential area.

10. Signs shall be designed and located to minimize impacts to scenic areas from scenic roads and public viewing areas.

11. Signs approved as part of commercial development shall be incorporated into the design of the project and shall be subject to height and width limitations to ensure that signs are visually compatible with surrounding areas.
58