Agenda packet, second session — Malibu City Council, September 29, 2025 (part 2 of 2)

Issued Date: 03/07/2022
Ahmad Hamadani
Icon-West, Inc.
520 S Lafayette Park Pl.

Ste. 503
Los Angeles, CA 90027
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION ** (CORRECTION) The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning:

Structure: Antenna Tower Communication Tower
Location: Malibu, CA
Latitude: 34-02-14.19N NAD 83
Longitude: 118-41-22.94W
Heights: 22 feet site elevation (SE)
91 feet above ground level (AGL)
113 feet above mean sea level (AMSL)
This aeronautical study revealed that the structure does not exceed obstruction standards and would not be a hazard to air navigation provided the following condition(s), if any, is(are) met:

As a condition to this Determination, the structure is to be marked/lighted in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M, Obstruction Marking and Lighting, paint/red lights-Chapters 3(Marked),4,5(Red),&15.

Any failure or malfunction that lasts more than thirty (30) minutes and affects a top light or flashing obstruction light, regardless of its position, should be reported immediately to (877) 487-6867 so a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) can be issued. As soon as the normal operation is restored, notify the same number.

This determination expires on 09/07/2022 unless:
(a) the construction is started (not necessarily completed) and FAA Form 7460-2, Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, is received by this office. (b) extended, revised, or terminated by the issuing office. (c) the construction is subject to the licensing authority of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and an application for a construction permit has been filed, as required by the FCC, within 6 months of the date of this determination. In such case, the determination expires on the date prescribed by the FCC for completion of construction, or the date the FCC denies the application. 118

Page 2 of 5 ends

NOTE: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD OF THIS DETERMINATION MUST BE E-FILED AT LEAST 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE. AFTER RE-EVALUATION

OF CURRENT OPERATIONS IN THE AREA OF THE STRUCTURE TO DETERMINE THAT NO

SIGNIFICANT AERONAUTICAL CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED, YOUR DETERMINATION MAY BE ELIGIBLE FOR ONE EXTENSION OF THE EFFECTIVE PERIOD.

This determination of No Hazard is granted provided the following conditional statement is included in the proponent's construction permit or license to radiate:

Upon receipt of notification from the Federal Communications Commission that harmful interference is being caused by the licencee's (permittee's) transmitter, the licensee (permittee) shall either immediately reduce the power to the point of no interference, cease operation, or take such immediate corrective action as is necessary to eliminate the harmful interference. This condition expires after 1 year of interference-free operation.

This determination is based, in part, on the foregoing description which includes specific coordinates, heights, frequency(ies) and power. Any changes in coordinates, heights, and frequencies or use of greater power, except those frequencies specified in the Colo Void Clause Coalition; Antenna System Co-Location; Voluntary Best Practices, effective 21 Nov 2007, will void this determination. Any future construction or alteration, including increase to heights, power, or the addition of other transmitters, requires separate notice to the FAA.This determination includes all previously filed frequencies and power for this structure.

If construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed, you must submit notice to the FAA within 5 days after the construction or alteration is dismantled or destroyed.

This determination does include temporary construction equipment such as cranes, derricks, etc., which may be used during actual construction of the structure. However, this equipment shall not exceed the overall heights as indicated above. Equipment which has a height greater than the studied structure requires separate notice to the FAA.

This determination concerns the effect of this structure on the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace by aircraft and does not relieve the sponsor of compliance responsibilities relating to any law, ordinance, or regulation of any Federal, State, or local government body.

A copy of this determination will be forwarded to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) because the structure is subject to their licensing authority.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact our office at (206) 231-2877, or [email protected].

On any future correspondence concerning this matter, please refer to Aeronautical Study Number 2021- AWP-2365-OE.

Signature Control No: 469732933-516416933 ( DNE )
Nicholas Sanders
Technician
Attachment(s)
Frequency Data
Map(s)
119

Page 3 of 5 ends

cc: FCC
120

Page 4 of 5 ends

Frequency Data for ASN 2021-AWP-2365-OE
LOW

FREQUENCY
HIGH

FREQUENCY

UNIT ERP
ERP
UNIT
39 42 MHz 500 W
142 150 MHz 500 W
142 440 MHz 500 W
150 160 MHz 500 W
220 225 MHz 500 W
476 482 MHz 500 W
482 488 MHz 100 W
482 488 MHz 500 W
769 802 MHz 100 W
121

Page 5 of 5 ends

TOPO Map for ASN 2021-AWP-2365-OE
122

MALIBU TOWNSHIP COUNCIL
PO BOX 803
MALIBU, CA 90265
Civic Guardian Since 1947
June 3, 2024
Attention Chair Mazza and Planning Commission,
Re: Monopole at SMC in Civic Center

Malibu Township Council has been advocating for responsible development since 1947.

MTC comments are in opposition to the recommended action and requests the matter be continued to ascertain facts regarding the height of the former antenna tower for which this subject approval seeks to replace. When reading through the information provided by staff, we see that there are different heights mentioned - 75 ft and 91 feet as the current height so this needs to be clarified. We also request a guarantee of the safety of the proposed pole use. This permit should only be for use of emergency communications and no other entities should be allowed to hook up to this.

The Applicant violated the generous height allowance of maximum 75-feet height above thenexisting grade (variance #14-035) by adding fill material around a raised foundation and retaining wall for its pole structure resulting in an increased height above ground level.

Applicant is now applying for a variance to cure its resultant code violations. The applicant also did not meet its condition of approval for wireless transmission uses on the subject pole and is applying retroactively for Conditional Use Permit for the wireless operations thereon.

As this pole is being erected ONLY for public safety, the pole needs to meet the original condition of approval of 75 ft from grade. With our own inspection (see images #2-6 attached) we note that the pole is at least 4-5 ft above grade and therefore, it is NOT at the original location approved which is SUPPOSED to be at grade. The code says that height needs to be measured from natural or finished grade whichever is lower. Therefore, a minimum of 5 feet should be eliminated from the height of the pole or at least the top tier removed.

The height is measured at 91 ft tall above ground level as stated in the FAA Southwest Regional Office Obstruction Evaluation Group's report dated March 7, 2022 (#7 attached) and it need not be near this high. Given all this discrepancy on the tower height a proper survey needs to be completed from the original existing lowest grade before any approval can occur.
123
2 There is ALREADY existing antennae on the courthouse and a temporary emergency communications antenna tower behind the library at under 30 feet tall where no transmission issues have been reported as far as we know at less than half the height of this pole. (See attached photos #8 & #9). This new pole will NOT provide more radio coverage than these existing antennae. The County must prove it can before overbuilding this huge tower.

The Malibu Fault goes through this area and the fall radius has not been considered in the event of an earthquake. A full study was never completed for this pole in the EIR.

Should the County be able to move forward in the future after proving the necessity of this communications tower and the actual current height then from grade, NOT where it is located now, a variance can allow an antenna or lightning rod on top to bring it to a max of 86 ft high or 81 feet from where it is located now if it is indeed only 75 feet high. Again, the actual CORRECT height needs to be correctly surveyed before any approval can be made. We know it is at the very least 4 feet too high right now due to its unpermitted raised foundation.

The top platform mount needs to be removed and the number of antennas reduced to the bare bones required for fire and emergency communications, nothing more. 19 antennas are too risky and too many for this pole (see attached image #12 of the antenna inventory so far). Also, in attached images #10 & #11 taken from the staff report on p 86 it states, “For the antennas modeled, the areas shown in yellow and blue are exceeding exposure limits for the general public.” So, this needs further investigation and mitigation before any approval. On p 102 it states, “Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the General Public Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas. Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 500% and 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.” These limits are not SAFE so these antennae should be removed.

The pole should be painted a beige color that matches the COLOR OF THE college, and ALL lights must be removed as the FAA does NOT require them. You can currently see the pole not only from Legacy Park but from Pacific Coast Highway in its tall, unsightly glory (see below #13).

MTC requests denial of this application as there are communications towers already in force that are much lower and completing the same tasks. The County cannot try and profit from this HUGE eyesore with all the safety risks caused from this pole.

Thank you for considering ALL this before just rubber stamping an approval without ALL THE FACTS.

Jo Drummond
Malibu Township Council President
124
From: [email protected]
To: Planning Commission
Subject: SMC Radio Tower
Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 4:30:38 PM
Dear Planning Commissioners: The proposed SMC radio antenna tower jeopardizes us and our neighbors at Malibu Canyon Village. The RF’s should not exceed the maximum permissible exposure limits.

Thanks for your attention,
Jack & Deidre Evans
Jack Evans
125
1 Planning Commission
From: Lonnie Gordon >
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Planning Commission; Richard Mollica
Cc: Patricia Salazar; Steve McClary
Subject: Item 5C Communications Tower at SMCC - Planning Commission 6-3-24 Dear Commissioners,
As the Executive Director of MalibuForSafeTech.org, I represent a large number of residents who object to the pole antenna next to the SMCC building for the following reasons:

Our group, as one of the plaintiffs, won a case against the FCC 2 years ago. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit court ruled the Federal Communications Commission failed to provide a reasoned explanation for its determination that its current guidelines adequately protect against harmful effects of exposure to radiofrequency radiation.

The FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment. The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms. The FCC and FDA have yet to respond with any updated information.

As I read in some of the documents, the emissions from these cell sites will be well above FCC standards.

The students who go to SMCC will be exposed everyday to these emissions. I went to the farmers market yesterday, and vendors had their booths right under what might be a multi-cell tower unless you use the precautionary principle and decide to move it, or use the existing macro-tower by the library. Are you willing to go against the science that the court ruled in our favor?
This tower is higher than allowed and sits on an earthquake fault. Although measures are said to have been taken to mitigate the earthquake issue, as we all know, disasters happen. Cell sites on a pole can spontaneously, or from outside effects, catch fire. Electrical telecom fires are unlike any other. The grid must be shut off before any action can be taken to put out the fire and that could take from 30 to 60 minutes. The fall zone for this pole would disastrously impact the SMCC building.

When I spoke with the City and County Planning departments, as well as SMCC and the State Architects 126
2 office, when this pole/antenna receptacle was first built, no one seemed to know anything about it.

According to City Planning Resolution 16-30 it was built to be a communications tower for emergency services, and was supposed to serve the needs of the Sheriff's sub-station and have a community room to serve as an emergency operations center. The sub-station was supposed to be on the first floor of the SMCC building.

Since that is not happening, and the county does not have funds to rebuild the old Sheriff's station, there is really no need for this pole, in this location. There was no need to put in a new transmitter in this location at all since there is a perfectly good one next to the library that transmits to Saddle Peak.

And last, but not least, this tower is an eyesore to the community and should never have been approved.

There are so many statements in Resolution 16-30 that say "to benefit and serve the community". This pole does not serve the community, and in fact detracts from the rural nature of Malibu and puts those in close proximity in danger everyday. Exposure to emissions can accumulate over time, and those who may not be electrosensitive now, can become so.

Malibu does not benefit, in any way, from this pole or the cell sites. Cell sites pay a fee, and that fee would go to the county, not the city. We do not need this pole/tower/antenna. Please make the right decision.

Respectfully,
Ms. Lonnie Gordon
Exec. Director
MalibuForSafeTech.org
www.malibuforsafetech.org
(For the public record)
"The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything".

Albert Einstein
127
1 Planning Commission
From: Lonnie Gordon < >
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 3:18 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Re: Item 5C Communications Tower at SMCC - Planning Commission 6-3-24 Thank you Ana.

On 6/3/2024 2:42 PM, Planning Commission wrote:

Good afternoon,

Correspondence has been forwarded to commissioners for their consideration.

Best,
Ana Veitia (She/Her)
AdministraƟve Assistant | Planning
Office: 310.456.2489
23825 Stuart Ranch Road | Malibu, CA 90265

From: Lonnie Gordon < >
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 2:04 PM
To: Planning Commission <[email protected]>; Richard Mollica <[email protected]>
Cc: Patricia Salazar <[email protected]>; Steve McClary <[email protected]> Subject: Item 5C Communications Tower at SMCC - Planning Commission 6-3-24

Dear Commissioners,
As the Executive Director of MalibuForSafeTech.org, I represent a large number of residents who object to the pole antenna next to the SMCC building for the following reasons:

This was a historic win. The FCC will have to re-open the proceeding and for the first time meaningfully and responsibly confront the vast amount of scientific and medical evidence showing that current guidelines do not adequately protect health and the environment.
128
2 The FCC completely failed to acknowledge, let alone respond to, comments concerning the impact of RF radiation on the environment. The record contains substantive evidence of potential environmental harms. The FCC and FDA have yet to respond with any updated information.

As I read in some of the documents, the emissions from these cell sites will be well above FCC standards.

Electrical telecom fires are unlike any other. The grid must be shut off before any action can be taken to put out the fire and that could take from 30 to 60 minutes. The fall zone for this pole would disastrously impact the SMCC building.

When I spoke with the City and County Planning departments, as well as SMCC and the State Architects office, when this pole/antenna receptacle was first built, no one seemed to know anything about it.

And last, but not least, this tower is an eyesore to the community and should never have been approved. There are so many statements in Resolution 16-30 that say "to benefit and serve the community". This pole does not serve the community, and in fact detracts from the rural nature of Malibu and puts those in close proximity in danger everyday. Exposure to emissions can accumulate over time, and those who may not be electrosensitive now, can become so.

Malibu does not benefit, in any way, from this pole or the cell sites. Cell sites pay a fee, and that fee would go to the county, not the city. We do not need this pole/tower/antenna.

Please make the right decision.
129
3 Respectfully,
Ms. Lonnie Gordon
Exec. Director
MalibuForSafeTech.org
www.malibuforsafetech.org
(For the public record)
"The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything".

Albert Einstein
--
"The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything".

Albert Einstein
130
1 Planning Commission
From: Patricia Neuray
Sent: Tuesday, June 4, 2024 12:59 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Removal of tower near Santa Monica College
Hello,
I am writing this letter to support the complete removal or change of location for the hideous tower that was put next to Santa Monica College. At the very least, it should be a neutral color, and all the HUGE antenna platform mounts and the 19 antennas should be removed. This is really an eyesore that makes the whole area around it very unsightly. It is unbelievable that it was even put there in the first place.

I appreciate your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Patricia Neuray
Patricia Neuray
Co-founder
131
132
133
From: R Y A N
To: Jo Drummond; res02igz; Kraig Hill
Cc: Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring; Richard Mollica; Planning Commission; Patricia Salazar; Gail Duncan; Steve McClary; "i
Subject: Calabasas Lost Hills Ant. TOWER
Date: Saturday, June 1, 2024 7:57:07 PM
Non-painted, lattice antenna TOWER behind Los Angeles County's Lost Hills Sheriff Station. 134

!"#$%#&'()*%+$,-.%/ 0.$123245467789:
0 ;.80<='#>'?".@0#&'() 0<='#*%#&'()-'?",.!A/BC#'&D)$-#$ A=)$-#$*%#&'()-'?",.!A/B <(<--#EF#$+ !<F#$+*%#&'()-'?",.!A/BG&#$$'$A>.%%'++'.$ H&#$$'$A-.%%'++'.$*%#&'()-'?",.!A/B '-I#!=0.&&'-# !%.&&'-#*%#&'()-'?",.!A/BJ?<F<0->&#!" J0->&#!"*%#&'()-'?",.!A/B;"&<!E#?.$ ?<#?.$*%#&'()-'?",.!A/ K#??#-I%<$?+L440MN 45435635O7P5:7K,QHAB45435635O7P5K6K,QHAB45445959O7:5974,QHAB45435P7PO76555:,QHAB 45435P7PO76534K,QHAB45435P7PO76546K,QHABJ-!<<$+I.?L3:1:N,H$ABJ-!<<$+I.?L39:4N,H$AB 457:7754O746P3K,QHAB ® 135
136
137
138
139
1 Gail Duncan
From: R Y A N < >
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 5:23 PM
To: Planning Commission; Gail Duncan; Patricia Salazar; Steve McClary; Richard Mollica; Tyler Eaton Subject: Planning Commission Item 5C - LA County Pole WCF at 23525 Civic Center Way Chair Mazza and Planning Commissioners,
I write a second time to call attention to two points related to the subject Wireless Communication Facility Pole erected by Los Angeles County (County or Applicant) at 23525 Civic Center Way (Pole) which is noncompliant with its Coastal Development Permit and the subject of Hearing tonight.

First, the Commission should deny the discretionary requests to further provide special privilege of heights such that commercial leases can be sold on the Pole. I have direct experience with this fact because I facilitated and coordinated the arrangement for co-location on the former tower at the same location which operated for twenty years. Verizon Wireless transmits for its commercial purposes under new permit from an SCE light pole on Cross Creek Road and a temporary macro facility also at 23525 Civic Center Way immediately East of, and adjacent to, Malibu Library and has done so since 2018.

The library-adjacent location is unobtrusive and already has utilities in-place for commercial operation and a co-location there by Los Angeles County remains a better alternative location – ON THE SAME PARCEL – due to its line-of-sight to off-site Saddle Peak. Such microwave transmission to Saddle Peak would not be obscured by a 35-foot tall building and could transmit from 20 to 30 feet from grade.

Secondly, the Applicant inserted its chosen word "emergency" before describing its proposed pole – as if such reference had a defined legal criteria for exemption from law or any basis for approval other than fact in the record. I served then Councilmember Joan House as unofficial deputy and accompanied Councilmember House in her capacity as appointed Commissioner to Los Angeles County's Emergency Preparedeness Commission which met at various locations around Los Angeles County. During such meetings, much was learned about the utility infrastructure and contingency plans for natural disasters and emergencies. In the matter of this Pole, no such facts are in record, or added to the record for this Hearing, to support the contention that this facility would be stand-by infrastructure to operate only during emergency. Further, no facts are in record to warrant the normal, everyday use by the Applicant would cease during any emergency. Thus this Pole does not qualify as a primary emergency facility as was falsely-portrayed in 2016 and continues today. Any operable infrastructure would be utilized during an emergency and emergency facilities on wheels – for emergency communications – are part of established disaster plans, including Disaster Communications Service (which I was a member of DCS 10/12) and previously transmitting. DCS has a mobile truck for such purposes and it staged at Bluffs Park per SEMS Plan and operational tests. While any height pole COULD include emergency components, such were not identified in the record, nor justified requiring transmission at over 50-feet elevation.

Thirdly, the Pole is visual blight, whether painted a neutral and non-contrasting color or pattern. The location is between the street and the primary building on the parcel and of primary consideration and use by the Applicant. Consider the microwave transmitters pointing across the second story windows of Santa Monica College's (SMC) classrooms and the subject of recent design modification before you tonight; EVERY class at SMC would become a microwave cooking class by mere attendance. While Commissioners are discouraged 140
2 from considering radio-frequency hazards, be cognizant of the signage requirements and proximity from transmitters, including Occupational Safety and Health's extensive measures for workers that only briefly occupy the site. Reference was made that SMC is 18-feet from the Pole. While the core of the pole is one thing, the triangular platforms extend out substantially.

The CUP must be denied because the Applicant violated the CDP and constructed a non-compliant structure; it is ineligible for WCF use. The requisite alternatives analysis will show the Applicant's other WCF-transmitting location – East of Malibu Library – is a superior alternative that mitigates the need for height above 50 feet. A WCF at Malibu Library could be conditioned as a stealth facility or "fake tree".  Visual blight is real.
 Violating Conditions of Approval occurred.
 Expiration of the option to expand use of the Pole for WCF function occurred.  The Applicant knew its configuration was in violation and proceeded as it chose, nonetheless, with expectation that a political over-ride would occur.
 Deliberate violation and contrived circumvention of applicable law requires consequences and accountability.

The Applications should be denied. A Revocation Hearing should be scheduled for the 2016 Pole entitlements. The Pole should be removed promptly during any re-design/application.

Ryan Embree
141
1 Planning Commission
From: R Y A N < >
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 4:00 PM
To: Planning Commission; Steve McClary; Richard Mollica; Lonnie ; Malibu Township Council; Jo Drummond; Patt Healy; '
Subject: P.C. Item 5C for June 3, 2024 - County Wireless Communication Pole 23525 Civic Center Way Attachments: PA210421.JPG
Everyone,
Los Angeles County (County or Applicant) has not established the true height of the prior wireless transmission facility (WCF) on structural antenna tower (Tower) purposely demolished by the Applicant. The Applicant obtained approval for a different WCF on a freestanding pole – not as its own CDP but buried in the EIR/CDP for construction of the entire Santa Monica College's (SMC) buildings comprising its Malibu campus. Despite the County's intended use of a new pole for expanded and intensified WCF uses unrelated to SMC's building uses, those additional uses, and expanded commercial uses for co-location by more than one commercial WCF entity, the expanded uses were not disclosed or justified by intended use other than listing radio frequency (RF) bands. For instance, the Applicant's intent to transmit VIDEO over directional microwave frequencies to fixed-locations not included, disclosed, or evaluated, constitutes a NETWORK RELAY STATION unlike the prior uses undisclosed in 2016 prior to issuance of CDP 13-056 and related entitlements for SMC's project.

I am very familiar with the prior Tower having walked under it, looked at, walked-by, parked near, oor driven past it for 40 years. I facilitated the project to add cellular transmitter halfway up it in 1997 for what would later become Verizon Wireless. I sincerely doubt that tower was 70-feet to its flat top. I attach a photo of it that I took in October 21, 2007, after the Canyon Fire caused by a Wireless Communication Facility on Southern California Edison power pole failed on Malibu Canyon Road approximately four miles away and caused power outage and massive fire across the Civic Center area as it burned to the Pacific Ocean, including Malibu Colony Plaza and homes on the beach.

It was the height of the Tower as asserted by the Applicant to be 70-feet in the record as some form of comparative justification to obtain special privilege for an otherwise non-compliant by then-Malibu Municipal Code for an oversized WCF on . In government planning terms, there is no such thing. The demolished tower was replaced by a dissimilar Pole of higher dimension and plotted at various locations on the parcel inconsistent with the visual location contained in the record (in the side yard of Santa Monica College's building so as the base and lowest 35-feet of the pole would be obscured behind the 35'-10" high SMC building itself as viewed midpoint in the combined front parking lot/front-yard/front-yard-setback area. The non-compliant WCF tower build by the applicant if fully visible from base-to-top from the public sidewalk and front yard area of SMC inconsistent with the colored site plan depicting the Pole and its proximity to the CDP's other permitted structure/SMC building. The current Pole does not comport to the submitted documents in the record for the CDP and will never comply at its current location whether painted a different color or not.

By comparison to the prior Tower, IF the current pole is only 75 feet, the removed tower was likely near 60- feet high of structure and not 70-feet.

Further causing controversy is the violation to SMC's CDP that the Pole height be limited to 75-feet from existing grade; the Pole is atop a raised foundation several feet above then-existing grade and is thus non142 2 compliant by the additional elevation above grade and which increases the Pole's height above sea level as recorded by the Federal Aviation Administration in permit. Although the Pole fails to comply with several requirements, stipulations, laws, and codes, it must come down REGARDLESS, to remove the additional height above grade which extends its total height above sea level – and with respect to the adjacent SMC building structures limited to 35-feet, 10-inches in total height.

The City should DENY the Application because of the several, intentional, violations comprising the currentbuild Pole and its siting on the parcel.

Obviously MISSING INFORMATION, comprising intentional or negligent omissions, is verifiable third-party record information to confirm the height of the former Tower as held by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the County that built it, and the Federal Communications Commission. The FAA and FCC should have the height of the former tower on file by prior permits. When this data is obtained publicly, a Revocation Hearing may be required for falsification of the application for CDP and CUP because the 2016 CDP was based on representations and assertions contained in the record as basis of height limitation approval for the Pole. Los Angeles County should have empirical evidence in its public files because the County purchased the parts that comprised the structure and had it constructed. Thus, the height of the former tower may have been withheld, and false statements made by the Applicant, to decisionmakers in this these matters which remain highly controversial, contested, and unresolved. Such omission, by government agencies that maintain the records and data, has continued.

I took the attached photo during the aftermath of the October 2007 Canyon Fire that was caused by the combination of a telecom facility and Southern California Edison power distribution along the canyon for street lighting, etc. (The big power for Malibu crosses over the canyon on much taller metal towers.) The former one-story (above grade) Sheriff Station/rented Malibu City Hall building was about 16-feet high with flat roof. The steps leading up from the parking lot were less than 6 feet. The parking lot and adjacent driveway leading to the rear parking lot were directly-adjacent to the base of the previous Tower and atop about an 8-inch curb. Thus, the roof of the old Sheriff building directly adjacent to the prior Tower is about 22 to 23-feet above the base of the tower (existing grade as stipulated for height measurement in SMC's CDP).

Expand the image and measure the distance from the base of the driveway wall (still there) to the flat roof and 22 feet. Extrapolate the remaining distance above the Sheriff Station's roof and you'll conclude the removed Tower was closer to 60-feet without appurtenances.

Further, there are architectural plans on file with the City of Malibu for the 1997 construction of the independent building immediately north of the previous Tower to house the then-AirTouch back-up batteries, amplifiers, and radio equipment. The "elevation" of that building was carefully planned due to the flood-plain issues in the Civic Center. I know because that was my project which started in 1992. So there are reference points of rooftop heights available independent of the permits and build contracts, and parts configuration comprising the height of the former Tower. The height of Verizon Wireless building immediately north of the Tower on the same "grade" should be available in photographic records as well.

The tower had both flashing red ight atop AND color-blocked paint. The Tower was located essentially at the same location at the Pole – perhaps slightly closer to Civic Center Way. The several interations of FAA flipflops on the flashing red light and paintjob could flip-flop back in the future to require the flashing light and paintjob – either by similar justification of "mistake" or future rule-making. The HEIGHT of the WCF is of issue regarding these two issues as it relates to proximity to the existing nearby air station "helipad". 143
3 Obviously, someone, or people, misrepresented facts to various regulatory agencies in order to get a taller pole approved at their preferred location. Then those people worked the FAA over to get the FAA's previously-conditioned flashing light and high-contrast paintjob retracted. These flip-flop reversals and political magic are BIG RED FLAGS.

Before any reconsideration of a Pole on June 3, 2024, the condition of factual proof that the former tower's structure was 70-feet high above then-grade is essential basis because of the controversy and omission of data necessary to have made that finding which became an overall justification for the now-requested over 90-feet of WCF use.

The FAA and FCC permits are available and will be obtained as proof, as will CPRA from the County for the prior Tower, so the Planning Commission may be wasting its time tonight.

Further, how the Pole has survived in place for 2 years without a flashing light is scandalous public administration involving the FAA, County, and City. There should be no favors coming from the Feds in this matter as the helipad likely remained licensed and authorized for use in the interim.

There are lots of public policy blunders surrounding this unnecessarily-high, improperly-located Pole. Lots of secrecy and behind-closed-doors meetings, including one between the Supervisor's office and the City. This Application must STOP NOW and be DENIED before it goes further down the rabbit hole.

Who approved and authorized the elevated grade and base foundation for the current pole? Who changed the location of the Pole for which, now, the applicant and FAA claim there were misrepresentations or mistakes?
Who approved and authorized the painting of the Pole?
Who approved the painting expense?
Who approved and authorized the electrification of the Pole for flashing red lights? Who approved the purchase and installation of those prohibited lights?
Who certified the elevation of the height of the current pole above sea level? The fall-zone/radius of the entire WCF includes potential to fully block the adjacent driveway to the rear parking area/helipad/future Sheriff Sub-Station designated parking. Blocking-in emergency responders' normal vehicular access is stupid. That basic metric of the City's full Wireless Communication Facitlities Ordinance were skirted by the Applicant. Now that the Applicant's option to file for CUP has expired, combined with the Applicant's violative construction, a full CDP Hearing and compliance with Malibu's WCF ordinance are warranted.

Ryan Embree
144
145
1 Planning Commission
From: Scott Dittrich <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 11:56 PM
To: Planning Commission; Steve McClary; Richard Mollica; Lonnie; Malibu Township Council; Jo Drummond; Patt Healy
Cc: R Y A N
Subject: 5-C the Tower
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Richard and Planning Commissioners,
I had a thought as we left the hearing tonight that might be worthwhile sending along to the County guys trying to come up with an effective solution that will be less obtrusive.

The LASD spokesman admitted that the current temporary tower worked fine in transmissions from and to Saddle Peak. That tower is not obtrusive like the giant monopole. Could the County tech team consider a two tower solution, with the second tower only needing to have line of sight to Rolling Hills? It might therefore be placed on top of the college building and, using a traditional latticed design, and be much less intrusive and cost very little? Obviously the team from the County was trying to stand for approving the existing tower as the only solution and halfheartedly offered some minor fixes, but our two construction experts on the commission knew better than accept their statements that relocating would entail huge construction expense.

I do worry that the County is locked in to the existing tower and that you and the Council will come under considerable pressure. They will ignore the fact that they failed to get approval prior to construction. As, I think, Chair Mazza pointed out, the only reason for the monopole’s current site is that it is next to the college. As to the health impact on staff at the college from close in microwave transmissions, that is a frightening thought, but one above my pay grade.

Sincerely,
Scott Dittrich
146
County of Los Angeles
Emergency
Communications Facility Project
Malibu Civic Center
23519-23555 W. Civic Center Way, Malibu
April 21, 2025
147
Emergency Communications Facility Project
City of Malibu Approval History
Santa Monica College (SMC) construction of the County of Los Angeles emergency communications facility (ECF) was approved at 75 feet by the City of Malibu Planning Commission on February 29, 2016.

Following Planning Commission approval, ECF construction was approved by City Council on April 11, 2016.

Various Approved Permits:

Coastal Development Permit (CDP) was issued in 2016 for ECF construction. (Resolution No. 16-30 certified EIR No. 16-001 and approved CDP No. 13-056, CUP No. 13-011 for an educational facility in an Institutional Zone, VAR No. 14-035 for the ECF up to 75 feet, and
Demolition Permit No. 13-028 for demolition of existing structures). 148
h
Emergency Communication Facility Location
and LARICS Sites
149
Emergency Communications Facility Project
June 3, 2024 Planning Commission Requests
Request 1: Conduct a study to explore the relocation of the Emergency Communications Facility Line-of-sight requirements
ECF location must have permanently clear line of sight to the County facilities at Rancho Palos Verdes and Saddle Peak
Zone of clearance requirement
ECF location must be above and beyond a singular and perfectly narrow line of sight to assure full signal integrity (Fresnel Zone Clearance)
Current location and position creates adequate clearance for all foreseeable obstructions facing both microwave links, ensuring functionality and redundancy.

Current location is necessary to avoid blockages created by mature trees that are directly adjacent to the new SMC Campus, a row of mature trees along Highway 1, and several mature trees that are located on private properties along the coastline.

Any re-location of the ECF is likely to require a re-registration and re-license of appropriate FCC licenses that have already been acquired, and re-license is not guaranteed, as microwave frequencies are a finite resource.

Main Communication Room (MCR) room (built specifically for hosting telecommunications equipment) is in a fixed and unmodifiable location in adjacent SMC building. Coaxial and waveguide cables, which are routed in specifically are free of numerous or abrupt bends connect the ECF to the MCR room. 150
Budget Basics
Request 2: Conduct a study to explore a height reduction to the ECF. County is reducing the ECF height to 75' maximum including antennas and apparatus.

Request 3: Reduce the topmost level where antennas are to be mounted. (A reduction in mass to the topmost antenna mounting platform.)
Uppermost parapet on the ECF is to be replaced with a smaller profile parapet mounting system.

Request 4: Color change to the ECF to "earthtone". County will re-paint monopole to color selected by City of Malibu.

FAA originally required current striped colors, but FAA issued amended determination to repaint color.

Emergency Communication Facility Project
June 3, 2024 Planning Commission Requests
cont'd.
151
Emergency Communication Facility
Project Historical and Design Revisions
Historical 50-year-old trellis tower that was demolished in January 2019 to make way for the new ECF measured at 87 feet 6 inches.
152
Emergency Communication Facility Project Historical and Design Revisions cont'd.

Approved ECF design from 2016 had a maximum height of 86 Feet 8 Inches. 153
Approved Emergency Communications Tower TOWER
-
- ELEV ARCADE
Monopole Project Historical and Design
Revisions
Emergency Communication Facility Project Historical and Design Revisions (Previous 2024 design)
Revised ECF design had a maximum height of 86' - 8" but no antennas above 75'. 154
Emergency Communication Facility Project
Historical and Design Revisions (Comparison of original to proposed) re-designed the ECF to a shorter, more condensed size and height. 155
Original Emergency Communications Tower Monopole Project Historical and Design Revisions
Emergency Communication Facility Project
Historical and Design Revisions (grade requirements)
Historic tower and current ECF elevated out of
floodplain
156
Original Emergency Communications Tower Monopole Project Historical and Design Revisions
Emergency Communications Facility Project
Historical and Design Revisions (grade requirements) cont'd.

Historic Malibu Courthouse elevated out of floodplain
157
Emergency Communications Facility Project Color Options New Emergency Communications Facility will be repainted to earthtone selected by City. 158
Summary of rationale for current location of
Emergency Communications Facility and Alternative Locations Alternative Locations Survey: Fire Stations
Base of new ECF having an area of 441 SF is too large for construction at nearby Fire Stations.

Fire Station 70
Has very limited space to accommodate ECF, equipment shelter, and ease of maintenance. Fire Station 88 Has very limited space to accommodate ECF, equipment shelter, and ease of maintenance.

Has line of sight to the new ECF at SMC, but the environmental clearance, nearby community support, and ability to obtain permits is extremely low.

Next to residential area and commercial buildings
Fire Station 71
Too far in physical distance, would need additional receiver/satellite at Fire Station to receive signal.

Any other locations other than Malibu Civic Center:

Pose risk of losing the FCC licenses that have already been acquired for use.

Do not meet line of sight and/or height requirements, and proximity to MCR 159
Fire Station 88
160
Summary for Current Location and Purpose of
New Emergency Communications Facility
A one-for-one replacement ECF situated as closely to the previous location of the old tower is vital in order:

To provide increased and updated public safety communications functionalities as the old tower, i.e., Sheriff's day-to-day, sub-EOC, Command Post, and Sheriff's radio infrastructure.

To be on a County-owned property with sufficient space where an ECF can be constructed.

To preserve the line-of-sight requirements to retain reliable connectivity to Saddle Peak and Rancho Palos Verdes.

To be near the on-SMC campus main communication room that was designed specifically for radio equipment with backup emergency power.

To be near the new Sheriff's sub-station and new Emergency Operations Center.

To avoid the risk posed to the existing FCC licenses that have already been acquired for use of this ECF.

Short RF cabling runs are necessary to meet system performance metrics, and the on-campus MCR was designed specifically for radio equipment. 161
From: Jo Drummond
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; [email protected]; Skylar Cc: Patt Healy; R Y A N; Jan Ravlich; Emily Ravlich; Wade Major; Scott Dittrich; Bill Sampson; Ann Doneen; Lonnie Gordon; Dru Ann Jacobson; Mari Ellen; Colin Drummond; Rosemarie Ihde; Mariela Guastavino; Kraig Hill; Charlotte Frieze; Sam Hall Kaplan; Jefferson Wagner; Georgia Goldfarb; Barbara Burke; Hans Laetz Subject: Item 4A / SMC ANTENHA POLE - 23525 Civic Center Drive Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 6:35:49 AM
Attachments: 7275.pdf
losthillssheririffstation.webp
MTCoppositionsmcantennapole.pdf
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
Please see attached re: the item on the SMC antenna pole. We take issue withe the fact that the staff report did not come out until last Thursday, Since 1947, the Malibu Township Council has advocated for responsible development that protects the rural character and safety of our community.

Once again, the County is failing to honor our local codes, placing residents and visitors at risk. Most notably, the staff report on page 29 (attached and highlighted) acknowledges that the base of the proposed antenna pole begins at least three feet above finished grade due to FEMA floodplain requirements. This means the total height is 78 feet, not the approved 75 feet. Page 50 measures from the base of the pole, not from the lowest grade depicted in the drafted images on page 54, which clearly show a higher elevation. The nearby college, inexplicably, was not required to comply with FEMA standards.

Even more concerning are the electromagnetic emissions. The Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Compliance Report by Site Safe (Dec. 13, 2024), cited on page 66, states:
"For the antennas modeled, the areas shown in yellow and blue are exceeding exposure limits for the general public..."

Page 67 ends

exposure limits, extending into the college and surrounding areas. This pole must be placed at least 50–100 feet away from sensitive public spaces: the college, Labor Exchange, Legacy Park, the public library - frequented by children, Farmers Market, nearby malls, the chili cookoff site, etc.. The required warning signage should, by these standards, appear inside nearby buildings.

This installation is not essential. Existing antennas on the courthouse and a 30-foot, temporary tower behind the library (securely caged and unobtrusive) already serve the area. The tower at the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station is less imposing than the proposed structure. The County has yet to provide evidence that this new pole improves radio coverage.

Additionally, the site lies near the Malibu Fault Line, and no analysis of the pole’s fall radius in the event of seismic activity has been presented. At the last hearing, Dennis 4/21/25
162
Smith highlighted that the pole’s anchor bolts are exposed and easily accessible—an unacceptable security risk.

Expanding this structure with even more high-emission devices would only amplify the danger. The County must not continue profiting from a hazardous and unsightly installation. We respectfully urge you to deny this application. Adequate and far less intrusive solutions already exist.

Should the project proceed, we ask that the County:

Reduce the total height of the pole,
Relocate it behind the college,
Paint it a neutral color,
Limit the number of antennae, and do not permit any 3rd party commercial uses If needed, allow only a slender extension atop the pole, not exceeding 75 feet from finished, lowest grade
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.

Respectfully,
Jo Drummond
Malibu Township Council
https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/7275?fileID=77306 163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
Pole
Behind
Library
Is not
Visible
To
public
from
street
view
180
181
182
183
184
185
From: K Hill
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A. Civic center doesn"t need a lighthouse Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 12:51:07 AM
Commissioners,
Greetings to all from the sunny, hot Ojai Valley. Reminder: get ready to not take for granted May Gray and June Gloom in the 'Bu.

Here are couple of observations about the Civic Center tower and proposed CUP.

First, the existing tower was never permitted. The tower included in the CDP was referenced as being similar to the previously existing tower, which was an open-lattice style. Notwithstanding all the water under the bridge since then, the fact remains that the only tower permitted would be an open-lattice style. The compromise that Richard Mollica made to allow the existing tower to remain with modifications was based in politics not law. Therefore it could still be challenged on legal grounds.

Second, a lattice-style tower would be sufficient, except that the County’s overly-robust design gives away their future intent – manifest regardless of what they might say – to host additional, 3rd-party facilities. That use was not contemplated in the CDP; the tower's sole purpose is for emergency communications. So, if you would approve a CUP for any modified version of the existing tower, be sure to include an express restriction on 3rd-party commercial uses. Certainly the majority of Malibu residents are not interested in having their views and rural character sold off to the highest bidder.

Yours,
K
4/21/25
186
From: Lonnie Gordon
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Subject: Public Safety Systems Permit – Clarification on Applicable Regulations Item 4.A Date: Sunday, April 20, 2025 5:20:41 PM
Dear Members of the Malibu Planning Commission,
I am writing to provide important clarifications regarding the regulatory framework applicable to the permit application for public safety systems currently under review. Given the nature of this permit, key provisions in the Telecommunications Act (TCA) and federal law that typically govern personal wireless service facilities do not apply in this case.

Exemption from Federal Wireless Facility Restrictions
This permit application pertains to public safety systems, not personal wireless service facilities. As such, the restrictive provisions outlined in TCA Sec. 704 and 47 USC §332(c)(7) do not apply—a position supported by telecommunications attorney Scott McCollough, who has successfully challenged outdated federal health guidelines.

Malibu’s Authority to Deny the Permit Based on Health and Environmental Concerns The prohibition on regulating based on environmental effects under §332(c)(7)(B)(iv) does not apply in this case.

Malibu retains the legal authority to deny this permit based on health and environmental effects, even if exposures fall within FCC limits.

Exemptions from Federal Constraints on Local Oversight
The FCC shot clocks do not apply.

The effective prohibition restriction does not apply.

The nondiscrimination restriction does not apply.

The federal requirement for a written decision does not apply.

The federal cause of action in §332(c)(7)(v) does not apply.

Future Collocation Concerns:

Once approved, cell companies may seek to negotiate a lease with the county and collocate on the approved site.

This scenario raises serious health concerns for individuals sensitive to EMF (electromagnetic fields).

Potential Impact: The presence of such installations near schools would be particularly harmful. Attending school in close proximity to these facilities could feel akin to being 4/21/25
187
in a microwave oven due to the concentrated EMF exposure.

At that point, TCA Sec. 704 and the Spectrum Act would apply, necessitating additional regulatory oversight.

The staff report’s recommendation that any future collocation come back for a separate permit review is correct but can be strengthened further.

Additional Considerations for Permit Conditions
Since this location does not fall under federal mandates requiring the county to allow placement, Malibu could go further in conditioning permit approval. Specifically:

Malibu could impose a condition that restricts the county from leasing collocation space to cell companies to ensure compliance with broader community planning goals.

Conclusion
Given the implications of this permit approval, I urge the Planning Commission to carefully consider these points and ensure that local control remains a priority in this decision-making process. I request that this item be continued to give you time to review alternative sites as Skylar, Dennis, John and Kraig stated in a previous meeting.

Thank you for your time and consideration. Please make your decision based on the input from our legal counsel, and all of the Malibu residents who have voiced their objections to this huge and unnecessary eyesore since it was first erected.

Best regards,
Ms. Lonnie Gordon
Executive Director
MalibuForSafeTech.org
www.MalibuForSafeTech.org
(This email is submitted as public comment. Please include it in the official record.) -- "The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything".

Albert Einstein
188
From:

To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; [email protected]; Skylar; Jo Drummond Cc: R Y A N; Jan Ravlich; Emily Ravlich; Wade Major; Scott Dittrich; Bill Sampson; Ann Doneen; Lonnie Gordon; Dru Ann Jacobson; Mari Ellen; Colin Drummond; Rosemarie Ihde; Mariela Guastavino; Kraig Hill; Charlotte Frieze; Sam Hall Kaplan; Jefferson Wagner; Georgia Goldfarb; Barbara Burke; Hans Laetz Subject: Re: Item 4A / SMC ANTENHA POLE - 23525 Civic Center Drive Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 6:44:58 AM
Excellent! Thanks Jo
On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 06:34:29 AM PDT, Jo Drummond > wrote:

Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
4/21/25
189
190
From: Scott Dittrich
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; ; Skylar Cc: Patt Healy; R Y A N; Jan Ravlich; Emily Ravlich; Wade Major; Bill Sampson; Ann Doneen; Lonnie Gordon; Dru Ann Jacobson; Mari Ellen; Colin Drummond; Rosemarie Ihde; Mariela Guastavino; Kraig Hill; Charlotte Frieze; Sam Hall Kaplan; Jefferson Wagner; Georgia Goldfarb; Barbara Burke; Hans Laetz; Jo Drummond; Haylynn Conrad; Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Wade Major Subject: Re: Item 4A / The Tower
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:12:51 AM
Dear Commissioners,
You represent the citizens of Malibu and are our voice. Neither the consultant nor staff in our building department appreciate the difficult fight Malibu has had to protect ourselves from becoming an urban clutter beach city like Newport or Santa Monica. But you know and know why our mission and vision statements embody the values of our citizens and of our constant battle to protect the rural character we hold so dear. We rely on you for protection.

This tower was built by those same forces that caused us to rise up and become a separate municipality back in 1990 and 91. Arrogantly the County ignored what had been permitted. They called it an “emergency” even though there was no immediate need. They designed the structure so that it could eventually be leased to various telecom companies.

When citizens rightly complained and demanded the tower be removed and pointed out the violations of the original permit in terms of size and location and color the City sent it back to the County and asked for alternatives. In these meetings it was pointed out that there were several alternatives that existed that did not violate the terms of the original permit and that were much less obtrusive.

The current plan of removing the antennas on top is not sufficient to meet the permit. Worse, the design chips away at everything that makes Malibu unique. The location is still in violation and the consultant did not seem to weigh alternatives that would not compromise our environment.

Several speakers in the last round of meetings warned that building staff would never go against the County. It is up to you to protect Malibu residents and our visitors.

Thank you,
Scott Dittrich
4/21/25
191
CUP No. 22-004
Los Angeles County Sheriff Emergency
Communications Facility Use
23525 Civic Center Way
APN 4458-022-906
Planning Commission
April 21, 2025
Item 4A
192
Legend
Project Site
193
••
194
•••
195
• CUP No. 22-004 for the use of the emergency
communications tower;
• Lowering the existing tower height back to the
originally approved 75 feet; and
• Painting the tower a color compatible with the
surrounding environment.
196
197
198
199
200
201

18. Any wireless communication carrier must obtain City approval before attempting to collocate on this tower. Collocation without City approval will result in a violation of this permit.

18. At the applicant’s request, a deed restriction shall be recorded that prohibits the tower from being leased or used by any entity other than the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of the County providing emergency communications for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. This restriction prevents detrimental aesthetic effects that would result related to increased height or massing, which were not evaluated in the Coastal Development Permit approving the original design and height of the tower.

The property owner shall submit the proposed deed restriction to the City for review and approval prior to recordation to ensure conformity with this condition. Following City approval, the deed restriction shall be recorded without delay and before use of the tower commences.
202
• Height
• Colors
• Location
• Lattice vs. Monopole
203

SUMMARY

CONSIDER THE PROJECT AND DIRECT

STAFF TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION

WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION

DECISION
204
205
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
N඗ගඑඋඍ ඗ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 29, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA for the project identified below. Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.

APPEAL NO. 25-005 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 25-38 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 22-004 to allow for an emergency communication facility at the Los Angles County Sheriff’s substation on the Santa Monica College-Malibu Campus to be utilized by the County of Los Angeles LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 23525 Civic Center Way / 4458-022-906 / Institutional (I) APPLICANT / OWNER: M6 Consulting / County of Los Angeles APPELLANT: Jyoti Drummond on behalf of the Malibu Township Council APPLICATION FILED: December 7, 2022
APPEAL FILED: April 30, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: State Clearinghouse No. 2012051052 CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
The final EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2012051052, was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA to examine the potential environmental effects of the original project, including the proposed height and operation of the Emergency Communications Tower. The proposed Conditional Use Permit does not constitute a substantial change that would require a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15163 nor an addendum pursuant to CEQA Section 15164.

A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.

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

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

YOLANDA BUNDY, Community Development Director Date: September 4, 2025 Exhibit 11
206

Page 1 of 1 ends

Supplemental Council
Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Approved by: Candace Bond, Interim City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: September 23, 2025 Meeting date: September 29, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 Regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 22-004 – An application for a conditional use permit to allow for an emergency communication facility to serve the Los Angeles County Sheriff's substation located at the Santa Monica Community College site (23525 Civic Center Way, APN 4458- 022-906; County of Los Angeles; Appellants, Malibu Township Council) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider Resolution No. 25-50 (Exhibit 1) and Appeal No. 25-005, determine if the project complies with the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) and the California Environmental Quality Act, and 1) direct staff to return with a resolution matching the Council’s decision; or 2) adopt the attached draft resolution denying the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission decision approving Conditional Use Permit No. 22- 004 to allow for an emergency communication facility at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's substation on the Santa Monica College-Malibu Campus to be utilized by the County of Los Angeles within the Institutional zoning district at 23525 Civic Center Way (County of Los Angeles).

DISCUSSION: The agenda report and original draft resolution were published on September 19, 2025 for the September 29, 2025, City Council hearing on this matter. Staff has included additional language within the findings sections of the resolution for the Council’s consideration. No changes to the project nor the staff report were made.

EXHIBITS: Revised Draft Council Resolution No. 25-50
City Council Meeting
09-29-25
Item

5.A.

RESOLUTION NO. 25-50

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MALIBU

DETERMINING THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, DENYING APPEAL NO. 25-005 AND APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 22-004 TO ALLOW FOR AN

EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION FACILITY AT THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SHERIFF’S SUBSTATION ON THE SANTA MONICA COLLEGE–

MALIBU CAMPUS TO BE UTILIZED BY THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES WITHIN THE INSTITUTIONAL ZONING DISTRICT AT 23525 CIVIC

CENTER WAY (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)
The City Council of the City of Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On February 29, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 13-056 for the Santa Monica College-Malibu Campus (SMC-MC) which included the Sheriff substation and the Emergency Communication Facility (ECF) tower. A condition of approval required that the ECF use be permitted under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) prior to the installation of the tower.

B. On December 7, 2022, an application for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 22- 004 was submitted to the Planning Division by the applicant, County of Los Angeles, to allow for a new emergency communication facility (ECF) at the Sheriff substation on the SMC-MC site located at 23525 Civic Center Way.

C. On February 20, 2024, the applicant submitted a Coastal Development Permit Amendment (CDPA) No. 24-003 and Variance No. 24-006 for an increased height to the ECF tower approved under CDP No. 13-056.

D. On May 9, 2024, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property E. On June 6, 2024, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record. The Planning Commission continued the item to a date uncertain so that the applicant could modify the proposed project to address issues that were raised.

F. On March 7, 2025, the applicant submitted revised materials bringing the tower into compliance with CDP No. 13-056, withdrawing the CDPA and Variance applications, seeking only the CUP application for use of the tower.

G. On March 13, 2025, a Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property regarding the CUP application.

H. On April 7, 2025, the Planning Commission continued the item to the April 21, 2025 Regular Planning Commission Meeting.

I. On April 21, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other Resolution No 25-50

Page 2 of 10 ends

______________________
information in the record. The Planning Commission approved Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 for the subject project.

J. On April 30, 2025, an appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 was filed by the Malibu Township Council.

K. On September 4, 2025, a Notice of City Council Public Hearing was mailed to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property.

L. On September 29, 2025, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, reviewed and considered the staff report, public testimony, and other information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council has analyzed the proposed project. The Final EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2012051052, was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA to examine the potential environmental effects of the project including the proposed height and operation of the ECF tower.

It was adopted by the City on February 29, 2016. The 75-foot-tall tower was included in the original plans analyzed under the Final EIR. The actions proposed to be taken by the applicant will bring the tower into compliance with the CDP approved for the project, and no substantial changes are proposed that would require a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15163 nor an addendum pursuant to CEQA Section 15164. The EIR has already been adopted by the City and certified.

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

The appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s decision should not have been granted for numerous reasons. These claims are not supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record; to the contrary, the evidence in the record supports the findings required. The City Council has considered all of the evidence in the record, including all written correspondence, and all evidence presented at the hearing before the City Council as well as the two Planning Commission hearings on the matter. The City Council makes the following findings, denying the appeal and approving the project:

The appellant contends that the radio frequency emissions proposed from the ECF are not safe, that these issues were not disclosed at the Planning Commission hearing, and that neither the EIR nor City staff reports analyzed the intended use to connect to other regional towers. The applicant submitted a Radio Frequency / Electromagnetic Energy Emissions (RF/EME) Report which was evaluated by the staff and the City’s RF/EME consultant who found the proposed ECF tower will be in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations. A live RF/EME study is required prior to operation of the tower which will ensure FCC compliance is maintained.

The issue was described in the City’s staff reports for both the June 3, 2024, and April 21, 2025, Planning Commission meetings and was also considered by the City Council. The City Council adopted conditions related to radio frequency safety. The EIR for the 2016 approval and the subsequent City hearings analyzed the use of the tower for the Sheriff substation. The tower was part of the larger project which includes the Sheriff substation and SMC-MC.

Resolution No 25-50

Page 3 of 10 ends

______________________
The appellant contends that the currently constructed tower is over the height limit (75 feet) due to its location in a floodplain area. The ECF tower was properly sited in the correct location pursuant to the approved plans evaluated in the approved CDP No. 13-056, Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30. The tower was built beyond the approved 75-foot height, but the applicant is remedying the issue by bringing the tower and all of its appurtenances down to 75 feet, consistent with the approved CDP. The issue considered by the Council is the proposed use of the tower— the height and physical structure of the tower has already been approved and is not before the Council as part of this application. However, the Council directed the County to paint the tower a color to blend in with the surrounding environment to be consistent with the 2016 approval.

The appellant contends that they only had three days to prepare for the Planning Commission hearing and that it affected the community’s ability to respond. Two hearings were conducted at the Planning Commission regarding the CUP for the tower. While the staff report for the second hearing was published four days before the hearing, the proposed uses for the tower have long been known. While staff tries to publish items further in advance, when possible, the publication in this case still complies with the Brown Act and all legal requirements. The public notice for the appeal was issued by the City to all property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the project site on September 4, 2025. The 21-day noticing window prior to the City Council meeting is consistent with the MMC, and the appellant has had ample opportunity to provide evidence and arguments to the Council who reviewed the matter on a de novo basis. With the inclusion of the City Council meeting, there have been three public hearings on the proposed project and sufficient time for the public and the Council to deliberate over the matter. The Planning Commission and City Council hearings were fair, impartial and all of the evidence has been evaluated by the City.

The appellant contends that the discrepancy in height, lack of evidence within the EIR, and lack of legal procedure forced the recusal of one Planning Commissioner. The EIR for the SMC-MC project included the ECF tower. The Final EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2012051052, was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA to examine the potential environmental effects of the original project including the proposed height and operation of the ECF tower. The 75-foottall tower and its proposed use were included in the original project materials analyzed under the Final EIR. The actions proposed to be taken by the applicant will bring the tower into compliance with the CDP approved for the project, and no substantial changes are proposed that would require a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15163 or an addendum pursuant to CEQA Section 15164. The EIR has already been adopted by the City and certified. Additionally, the Planning Commissioner recused herself because she had not reviewed the record from the June 3, 2024, meeting before the April 21, 2025, meeting. As the decision had to be made on the complete record, she was unfortunately unable to participate. The vote approving the decision was 3-1 from the remaining Commissioners.

The appellant contends that the EIR did not study the broader communication network across the Santa Monica Mountains and that the emissions emanating from the tower would be unsafe for college students since the tower is close to a college building. As mentioned above, the Final EIR was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA to examine the potential environmental effects of the original project including the proposed height and operation of the ECF tower. The 75-foot-tall tower and its proposed use were included in the original project materials analyzed under the Final EIR. The EIR has already been adopted by the City and certified. The City reviewed the site for FCC compliance as it relates to RF/EME emissions and found the site to be in compliance with federal law.

Resolution No 25-50

Page 4 of 10 ends

______________________
The appellant contends that no public health or environmental safety expert was consulted to assess the broader implications of the tower. The City’s RF/EME consultant reviewed the proposed RF/EME emissions and determined that the project will comply with FCC requirements.

Additionally, the project was adequately analyzed for environmental impacts within the aforementioned EIR and at the numerous public hearings which date back to 2016. The City approvals have included mitigation measures consistent with the EIR and federal, state, and local laws.

The appellant contends that the Planning Commission hearings were inadequate because the Commission did not engage with people opposing the project. A fair and impartial hearing took place at both Planning Commission hearings on the project. The Planning Commissioners deliberated over the preponderance of evidence and approved the project. The Planning Commission allowed each concerned party to speak for three minutes in accordance with the standard procedures for Planning Commission public hearings. Substantial written correspondence and materials were also submitted prior to the meetings which were considered by the Planning Commission and City Council as well. All participants were provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, the City Council’s review was de novo, and all interested parties had an additional opportunity to provide written and oral evidence and testimony.

The appellant contends that other alternatives were not properly examined and that alternatives exist which should be considered including satellite and radio options and even locating the site behind the existing County government buildings. Multiple alternatives were discussed by the Planning Commission and City Council. The applicant’s alternatives study explored why other locations were not suitable to achieve the line of site necessary for the tower’s maximum efficiency. A Los Angeles County Sheriff substation is located onsite and the proposed ECF tower will help daily emergency communication operations. The ECF tower and its operation will provide a public benefit to the City and help ensure communication lines are in full effect. Malibu is subject to many dangers, most recently the 2025 Palisades Fire which impacted a third of the City geographically. This ECF tower will provide necessary emergency communication lines for first responders within the region and throughout Southern California.

The appellant contends that the EIR failed to study the broader regional impacts and the project did not follow protocols consistent with CEQA. As mentioned previously, the EIR for the SMCMC project included the ECF tower and was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA to examine the potential environmental effects of the original project including the proposed height and operation of the ECF tower. The actions proposed to be taken by the applicant will bring the tower into compliance with the CDP approved for the project, and no substantial changes are proposed that would require a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15163 or an addendum pursuant to CEQA Section 15164. The EIR has already been adopted by the City and certified.

The appellant contends that the project was not properly analyzed as a Wireless Communications Facility, per MMC Chapter 17.46. MMC Section 17.46.020(B) exempts “The placement or modification of facilities by the city or by any other agency of the state solely for public safety purposes” from needing to meet the requirements of the chapter. Nevertheless, staff still required an RF/EME report to ensure the City can properly analyze the site for compliance with federal law as it relates RF/EME safety. The City’s Wireless consultant will conduct a final inspection and measure the live RF/EME results onsite to ensure compliance with federal law.

Resolution No 25-50

Page 5 of 10 ends

______________________
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project, written correspondence and the hearing on September 29, 2025, as well as the evidence provided to the Planning Commission for the June 3, 2024, and April 21, 2025, Planning Commission meetings, and pursuant to the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the City Council adopts the findings of fact, denying Appeal No. 25-005, and approving CUP No. 22-004 to allow for a new emergency communication facility at the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s substation on the Santa Monica College-Malibu Campus to be utilized by the County of Los Angeles within the Institutional Zoning District at 23525 Civic Center Way. The required findings are made herein.

A. Conditional Use Permit Findings (MMC Section 17.66.080)

1. The subject application will permit an ECF within an Institutional (I) zoning district. The use is a conditionally permitted use in the zoning district pursuant to MMC Section

17.34.030(L). Pursuant to MMC Section 17.34.010, Institutional zones are designated for uses that accommodate public and quasi-public uses and facilities. Those uses include emergency communications and services and governmental facilities. The ECF will provide a necessary emergency communication line to facilitate communication and response by first responders and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (LASD).

2. The existing site hosts a college campus and Los Angeles County Sheriff substation. The project will improve the communication infrastructure by installing an emergency radio line that will facilitate communication and response by emergency responders. The new ECF will not impede public access and will expand public emergency communication within the City, which meets the integrity and character of the zoning district. The Institutional Zone is designated to host emergency communication and service facility uses that serve a public function. The proposed use fits this purpose, and complements the uses present, in particular the LASD substation.

3. The subject site is physically suitable for the proposed use. Having hosted the existing public infrastructure since before cityhood, and now again through the construction of the college campus and Sheriff substation, the site can continue to be a valuable asset to the City and its patrons and helps provide necessary communication lines for emergency responders. Of note, the tower replaces a previously existing tower that provided similar services. The new tower replaces is and will bolster the emergency communication capabilities of the City.

4. The proposed use is compatible with the existing land uses. Existing public infrastructure has been present at the site since before cityhood, including a tower that exceeded the height of the project. The use will help provide necessary public infrastructure to the surrounding neighborhoods by facilitating a LASD substation which is currently absent in the City.

The proposed project will help expand emergency communications within the City and County.

5. The proposed use is compatible with the existing and future land uses. The upgraded infrastructure will help provide a wide-ranging communication system to existing and future emergency responses by supporting a communication hub across the region for first responders. The necessary communication lines will expand emergency communications between emergency responders within the City and County. Also, for the reasons described in the previous paragraph, the proposed use is compatible with existing and future uses.

Resolution No 25-50

Page 6 of 10 ends

______________________

6. The SMC-MC project has adequate water and sanitation meeting all applicable State and federal laws. The ECF tower will not add or takeaway the site’s capacity to provide sanitation, water, or other public utilities. The tower does not block any neighboring site from solar access. The applicant will be bringing the site into compliance with the conditions of approval for CDP No. 13-056 which will help to preserve views by utilizing colors that help the tower blend in with the surrounding environment.

7. No changes to the site’s access or circulation for pedestrians or vehicles are proposed. Access will still be maintained via public roads shared between the City and the State.

Public access is not affected by the proposed use, and public access to the tower is not required or anticipated. LASD personnel and maintenance personnel who need to access it will be small in number and needed only rarely. Adequate parking is located onsite for such personnel.

8. The subject property is designated as an Institutional zoning district within the General Plan. The proposed development will help protect both public and private interests of patrons within the City by providing a much-needed communication line for emergency responders. The proposed development provides emergency communication lines to that provide emergency responders better ability to serve the community and provide patrons additional emergency resources from impending natural and human-caused disasters and calamities which are in line with the City’s goals related to public safety. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and general land uses of the Malibu general plan.

9. The proposed use complies with all applicable requirements of state and local law, including safety requirements regulated by the FCC and is conditioned to comply with any required approvals, permits, and licenses from the City of Malibu and other related agencies.

10. The proposed use will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare. To the contrary, it will help enhance emergency communication capabilities and response within the City. It serves the public interest and is likely to save lives and facilitate quicker and more effective response to emergencies.

11. The project has been previously reviewed for safety regarding earth movement, flooding, and liquefaction. The plans were reviewed and approved by the Division of the State Architect and determined to be in compliance with State building code. The site is within an identified flood hazard zone, but the design of the SMC-MC project mitigated any potential flooding impacts by raising the grade of the SMC-MC building, Sheriff substation, and the ECF tower. The design was reviewed and approved under CDP No. 13-056 and the Final EIR for that project. This project, solely for the use of the tower, does not propose to change any of the implications related to earth movement, liquefaction, flooding, or any other risk.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

1. 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 Resolution No 25-50

Page 7 of 10 ends

______________________
City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this project.

2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:
a. CUP No. 22-004 for the use of the emergency communications tower; b. Lowering the existing tower height back to the originally approved 75 feet in substantial conformance with the 2016 approval (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30); and
c. Painting the tower a color compatible with the surrounding environment in substantial conformance with the 2016 approval (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30).

3. Except as specifically changed by conditions of approval, the proposed development shall be constructed in substantial conformance with the approved scope of work, as described in Condition No. 2 and depicted on plans on file with the Community Development Department date stamped March 7, 2025. The proposed development shall further comply with all conditions of approval stipulated in this resolution and Department Review Sheets attached hereto. In the event project plans conflict with any condition of approval, the condition shall take precedence.

4. This CUP and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owners sign, notarize and return the Acceptance of Conditions Affidavit accepting the conditions set forth herein. Said document shall be recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder and a certified copy of said recordation shall be filed with the Community Development Department within 10 days of the effective date of the approval.

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

6. All structures shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu as applicable.

Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

7. Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Community Development Director, provided such changes achieve substantially the same results and the project is still in compliance with the MMC and the LCP. Revised plans reflecting the minor changes and additional fees shall be required.

8. The property owner shall comply with all provisions of the MMC and LCP.

Construction

9. Construction hours shall be limited to Monday through Friday from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. No construction activities shall be permitted on Sundays or City-designated holidays.

10. Construction management techniques, including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources, shall be employed Resolution No 25-50

Page 8 of 10 ends

______________________
as feasible and appropriate. All trucks leaving the construction site shall adhere to the California Vehicle Code. In addition, construction vehicles shall be covered when necessary; and their tires rinsed prior to leaving the property.

11. All new development, including construction, grading, and landscaping shall be designed to incorporate drainage and erosion control measures prepared by a licensed engineer that incorporate structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control the volume, velocity and pollutant load of storm water runoff in compliance with all requirements contained in LIP Chapter 17, including:
a. Construction shall be phased to the extent feasible and practical to limit the amount of disturbed areas present at a given time.
b. Grading activities shall be planned during the southern California dry season (April through October).
c. During construction, contractors shall be required to utilize sandbags and berms to control runoff during on-site watering and periods of rain in order to minimize surface water contamination.
d. Filter fences designed to intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity of runoff shall be employed within the project site.

12. For the transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or material, which requires the use of oversized-transport vehicles on State highways, the applicant / property owner is required to obtain a transportation permit from the California Department of Transportation.

13. When the ECF tower and all appurtenances have been installed, a site survey shall be prepared and stamped by a licensed civil engineer or architect that states the finished ground level elevation and the highest tower member elevation. Prior to the commencement of operation of the ECF tower, said document shall be submitted to the City’s Community Development Department for review and sign off on framing.

Color and Materials

14. The ECF tower and all appurtenances attached to the tower shall be an earth tone color that blends with the surrounding landforms and vegetation. Color shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development prior to application of structure exterior finish.

Lighting

15. No exterior lighting is permitted with this approval. No lighting shall be installed on the ECF tower without approval from the City.

Prior to Use

16. The applicant shall request a final Community Development Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department.

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

Resolution No 25-50

Page 9 of 10 ends

______________________
Site Specific Conditions

18. A live radio frequency – electromagnetic energy (RF-EME) emissions report is required to be submitted after installation of the antennas. The live RF-EME study shall be conducted in the presence of the City Community Development Department and a report documenting the results of the study shall be submitted to the City prior to use of the ECF tower. The ECF tower must be in compliance with federal law at all times.

19. At the applicant’s request, a deed restriction shall be recorded that prohibits the tower from being leased or used by any entity other than the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of the County providing emergency communications for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. This restriction prevents detrimental aesthetic effects that would result related to increased height or massing, which were not evaluated in the Coastal Development Permit approving the original design and height of the tower. The property owner shall submit the proposed deed restriction to the City for review and approval prior to recordation to ensure conformity with this condition. Following City approval, the deed restriction shall be recorded without delay and before use of the tower commences.

20. The applicant will present a security plan to the City that will reasonably protect the tower.

Fixed Conditions

21. This CUP runs with the land and binds all future owners of the property.

22. Violation of any of the conditions of this approval shall be cause for revocation and termination of all rights there under.

23. This conditional use permit shall become subject to revocation should the use for which the conditional use permit was granted cease for six successive calendar months after the start of operations, except in the case of natural disaster.

24. If it has cause to believe that grounds for modification or revocation may exist, the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing upon the question of modification or revocation of this conditional use permit pursuant to MMC Section 17.66.100(C). The conditional use permit may be revoked if the Planning Commission finds that one or more of the following conditions exists:
a. The conditional use permit was obtained in a fraudulent manner. b. The use for which the conditional use permit was granted has ceased or was suspended for at least six successive calendar months, except in the case of natural disaster. c. One or more of the conditions found within this resolution have not been substantially met.

Resolution No 25-50

Page 10 of 10 ends

______________________
SECTION 6. The City Council shall certify the adoption of this resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 29th day of September, 2025. _____________________________
MARIANNE RIGGINS, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
KELSEY PETTIJOHN, City Clerk
(seal)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________
TREVOR RUSIN, 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 MMC and Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Malibu at or prior to the public hearing.

Page 1 of 1 ends

Supplemental
Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Approved by: Candace Bond, Interim City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: September 25, 2025 Meeting date: September 29, 2025 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 Regarding Conditional Use Permit No. 22-004 – An application for a conditional use permit to allow for an emergency communication facility to serve the Los Angeles County Sheriff's substation located at the Santa Monica Community College site (23525 Civic Center Way, APN 4458- 022-906; County of Los Angeles; Appellants, Malibu Township Council) RECOMMENDED ACTION: Continue the item to a date uncertain.

City Council Meeting
09-29-25
Item

5.A.

Page 1 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Rob DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer Approved by: Candace Bond, Interim City Manager
Date prepared: September 8, 2025 Meeting date: September 29, 2025 Subject: Civic Center Water Treatment Facility Phase 2 Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive an update on the Civic Center Water Treatment Facility (CCWTF) Phase 2 project.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for this project's design and engineering was included in previous fiscal years through a funding agreement with HRL Laboratories. The HRL agreement is fully encumbered. However, additional costs may be necessary to modify the design based on the revised Septic Prohibition Map. Staff will bring a funding recommendation to Council after the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Regional Water Quality Control Board is approved and executed by all parties.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item supports the CCWTF Phase 2 priority 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: On November 5, 2009, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) approved a resolution prohibiting the use of septic systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area. On September 21, 2010, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) approved the action taken by the Regional Board, thereby amending the State Basin Plan that included the septic prohibition. The State Basin Plan established certain dates by which properties in the Civic Center area were required to cease discharge and provided for a municipally owned wastewater treatment facility to be constructed. All properties within the Civic Center area were to be connected to the wastewater treatment facility.

On June 27, 2011, an MOU was executed between the City, the Regional Board and State Board regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan Amendment for the Civic Center City Council Meeting
09-29-25
Item

6.A.
1

Page 2 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

Area Prohibition. The MOU created three separate implementation phases with specific deadlines.

MOU Amendment No. 1
The MOU was amended in December 2014 to extend certain dates, specifically for the implementation of Phase 1. Under the amended MOU, properties in Phase 1 of the Prohibition Area (primarily the commercial core of the Civic Center area) were required to connect to a centralized wastewater treatment facility by June 2017. Phase 2 properties (primarily residential) were required to connect to the centralized wastewater treatment facility by November 2022. The MOU includes a third phase that may be implemented but depends on the outcome of the first 2 phases.

MOU Amendment No. 2
During the design phase of Phase 1, it was discovered that specific dates included in the MOU required another modification to align with the project’s state funding. On January 11, 2017, the MOU was amended a second time with the following changes:
• Phase 1:
o Changed completion date from June 30, 2017, to September 30, 2018 • Phase 2:
o Changed completion date from November 5, 2022, to November 5, 2024 o Required that the City and the Regional Board meet by January 30, 2019, to review the schedule outlined for Phase 2
o Extended the deadlines for all milestones in Phase 2 by 2 years • Phase3:
o If Phase3 is necessary, extended the deadline for the completion of Phase3 by three years from 2025 to 2028
• Water Sampling:
o Required the City to conduct water quality monitoring, including baseline monitoring in both the wet season and dry season prior to startup of Phase 1 and semi-annually thereafter
o Required the City to submit a water monitoring and reporting program for water quality in the Malibu Lagoon and the ocean adjacent to Malibu Road by May 5, 2017
o Required the City to conduct water monitoring and reporting program for water quality in the Malibu Lagoon and the ocean adjacent to Malibu Road by November 5, 2017, or earlier if funding became available • Enforcement:
o Extended the date for the Regional Board to enforce all State policies, plans or regulations if an assessment district is not approved for Phase 2 from November 5, 2019, to November 5, 2021
All other terms and conditions of the MOU approved in 2011 and revised in 2014 remained the same.
2

Page 3 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.

MOU Amendment No. 3
On November 22, 2021, the Council approved the third revision to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City, the Regional Board and State Board regarding the implementation of the Basin Plan Amendment for the Civic Center Area Prohibition.

This amendment revised the deadline to form CCWTF Phase 2’s proposed assessment district from November 5, 2021, to June 30, 2022. All other terms and conditions remain the same.

The current MOU (including all amendments) stipulates that all the properties within the Phase 2 boundary shall be connected to the CCWTF by November 5, 2024. The MOU includes a third phase that may be implemented but depends on the first 2 phases. If there are reductions in bacteria and nitrogen in the Malibu Lagoon to the levels indicated in the MOU, then properties located within Phase 3 could be excluded from the prohibition.

Phase 3 has an implementation deadline of November 5, 2028.

CCWTF Phase 1
Phase 1's design was completed in June 2015 and construction was finished in September 2018. All Phase 1 properties were connected to the CCWTF before the MOU deadline of September 30, 2018. Phase 1 included the construction of the new CCWTF wastewater treatment facility and 32,000 linear feet of wastewater and recycled water lines. Phase 1 also included the construction of 2 wastewater pump stations, Bluffs Park, and Legacy Park and 2 injection wells on Malibu Road.

The wastewater treatment process at the CCWTF includes a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) system to process the wastewater. An MBR system treatment process includes a reduced footprint compared to conventional wastewater treatment systems and produces exceptional water quality capable of meeting the Regional Board’s stringent water quality requirements. The system allows for ease of expansion and configuration flexibility and reliable operation. The treatment process also includes an Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system that allows the treated wastewater to be used as recycled water. The treated and disinfected wastewater is then sent to the recycled water distribution system where the property owners within the prohibition zones can use the recycled water for irrigation.

Treated wastewater not used is sent to the injection wells on Malibu Road.

CCWTF Phase 2 Design
Shortly after the completion of the CCWTF Phase 1, the City started the design process of Phase 2. On April 8, 2019, the City entered into an agreement with HRL to provide funding for the design and engineering assessment of the CCWTF Phase 2. The agreement provides for HRL to fund the project design and the development of an assessment district and then be reimbursed after an assessment district for Phase 2 is formed and bonds are issued. If formation of an assessment district for Phase 2 is not 3

Page 4 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.
successful, the agreement provides that HRL will have the opportunity to form its own assessment district and either apply the funds provided as a credit or be reimbursed by the City for costs incurred on the design for the entire Phase 2 project.

On August 12, 2019, Council approved a professional services agreement with Woodard and Curran (W&C) for the engineering design of the CCWTF Phase 2. W&C has been designing the Civic Center Water Treatment Facility upgrades necessary to accommodate the additional wastewater flow from the properties in Phase 2. These improvements include expanding the existing bioreactor structure, installing new membrane and disinfection units, and additional mechanical and electrical equipment to support the additional wastewater flow. W&C has also been designing the wastewater collection and recycled water system expansion. The current wastewater collection and recycled water lines will be extended to a portion of the Serra neighborhood, Malibu Colony, condominiums on Civic Center Way and to HRL Laboratories. The design of these systems is complete.

CCWTF Phase 2 Environmental Impact Report
On January 12, 2015, the Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which provided a project-level analysis of Phase 1. The EIR provided a programmatic-level analysis of Phases 2 and 3. A project-level CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) analysis of Phase 2 was completed and an addendum to the certified CEQA document was created. On February 1, 2021, the Planning Commission approved the addendum.

Since it has yet to be determined whether Phase 3 will be required, no consideration was given to additional CEQA documentation for that phase. If Phase 3 is required, an additional CEQA analysis will be conducted.

CCWTF Phase 2 Funding
In December 2020, the City submitted a project application to the State Water Board for financial assistance under the Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program (SRF). On May 3, 2021, the City was notified that the CCWTF Phase 2 was included on the State Water Board’s funding list under the CWSRF program.

The SRF provides agencies with low interest rate loans for wastewater projects. The CWSRF program has financing terms up to 30 years, no funding limits and the repayment begins one year after the completion of construction. The City used this financial assistance for Phase 1 and other State grants to finance the project.

Shortly after the City was notified that the CCWTF Phase 2 project was eligible for the SRF funding, the State Water Board began the project environmental review. The State Water Board reviewed the City’s EIR documents and a Historic Properties Identification Report (HPIR). During this review, the State Water Board determined that additional cultural resources soil investigations were needed within the project limits. In July 2022, 4

Page 5 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.
the City discovered additional cultural resources along the proposed wastewater alignment in the Serra Retreat neighborhood.

Modification of Phase 2
The cultural resource discovery in the Serra Retreat neighborhood resulted in a substantial delay in the Phase 2 design and implementation. Staff conducted several meetings with the Regional Board about the proposed wastewater collection system and recycled water system alignment and installation. Based upon the type of cultural resource findings located in the Serra Retreat neighborhood, the City and the Regional Board agreed that the project cannot proceed as designed with the installation of a new pipeline within the Serra Retreat neighborhood.

In November 2024, the Regional Board and the State Water Board developed a modification to the MOU with specific deadlines. The MOU was anticipated to be approved by both boards and then brought to the City for final approval. However, the Franklin Fire (December 9, 2024) and Palisades Fire (January 7, 2025) further delayed the modification of the MOU.

Within the last four months, staff and the Regional Board staff further refined the proposed MOU. The following are the proposed revisions to CCWTF Phase 2:
• Serra Retreat Neighborhood (see Revised Septic Prohibition Map) is to be removed from Phase 2 and will be included in Phase 3.
• Properties along Malibu Road that were included in Phase 3 will be moved into Phase 2.
• City shall conduct a feasibility study to evaluate wastewater treatment alternatives to reduce nitrogen and bacteria loading, such as advanced onsite wastewater treatment systems, packaged treatment plants or other methods.

The proposed revisions do not increase the amount of wastewater flow for Phase 2 significantly.

MOU Amendment No. 4
Based upon the proposed revisions to Phase 2, the current MOU will modify the following deadlines:
• December 2025 – Amendment No. 4 approval by both the Regional Board and the City.
• June 30, 2026 – Submit a work plan for the Serra Retreat feasibility study. • January 3, 2027 - Complete the redesign of Phase 2, addendum to the EIR and amendment to the project’s CDP (Coastal Development Permit). • July 27, 2027 – Formation of Phase 2 assessment district. • January 5, 2028 – Construction begins.
5

Page 6 of 6 ends

Agenda Item # 6.A.
• June 8, 2029 – Construction completion.
• December 17, 2029 – Private wastewater laterals must connect to CCWTF. • December 17, 2029 – December 16, 2030 – Water quality testing and reporting • December 31, 2033 – Phase 3 completion (if necessary).

The Regional Board has scheduled this item for a public hearing date on October 23, 2025. If the Regional Board approves this MOU, staff will bring MOU Amendment No. 4 to Council for final approval. Additional funding will be required to modify the design based upon Phase 2 revisions. That request will be brought to Council’s attention when MOU Amendment No. 4 is brought to Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Exhibit A: Phases Two and Three Implementation Boundary Map

2. Tentative Revised 2025 MOU (MOU Amendment No. 4)
6 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(REVISED ON DECEMBER 4, 2014, AND FEBRUARY 2,2017)

BETWEEN

CITY OF MALIBU
AND

REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES

REGION AND STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

REGARDING

PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF BASIN PLAN AMENDMENT

PROHIBITING ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

IN THE MALIBU CIVIC CENTER AREA

Page 1 ends

7 Attachment 1

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

REGARDING PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF BASIN PLAN AMENDMENT

PROHIBITING ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

IN THE MALIBU CIVIC CENTER AREA
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is revised, and supersedes the MOU originally signed in August 2011 and revised in December 2014, entered into by and between the CITY OF MALIBU (City) on the one hand and the REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION, and the STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD on the other hand (together the Water Boards), collectively referred to herein as the “Parties” or individually as “Party.”
WHEREAS, On November 5, 2009, over the City’s objections, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles Water Board) adopted Resolution R4-2009- 007 approving an amendment to Chapter IV of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan), to prohibit on-site wastewater disposal systems (OWDSs) in the Malibu Civic Center Area, as defined in Resolution R4-2009- 007, (Basin Plan Amendment).

WHEREAS, On Septembçr 21, 2010, over the City’s objections, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted Resolution No. 20 10-0045 approving the Basin Plan Amendment.

WHEREAS, On December 23, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the regulatory provisions of the Basin Plan Amendment, the final step for the amendment to take effect.

WHEREAS, the Basin Plan Amendment prohibits all new OWDSs in the Malibu Civic Center Area and prohibits the discharge from existing OWDSs based on a phased schedule to cease discharges from Phase One systems by November 5, 2015 and Phase Two systems by November 5, 2019. The Basin Plan Amendment does not prevent repairs, maintenance, and upgrades to existing OWDSs, provided that they do not expand the capacity of the systems or increase flows of wastewater.

WHEREAS, in October 2010, the City and the Water Boards entered into a tolling agreement by which they agreed to extend the time within which the City must bring an action against the Water Boards challenging their actions to approve the Basin Plan amendments, which agreement was extended and now due to expire October 2011. The purpose for the tolling agreement was to afford the parties an opportunity to reach agreement on a phased implementation, boundaries and other matters related to the substance of Basin Plan Amendment. This MOU extends the tolling agreement while the MOU is in effect.

WHEREAS, the Parties have provided interested persons with an opportunity to comment on the MOU and have considered those comments prior to execution by the Parties.

Page 2 of 17 ends

8 WHEREAS, the parties have reached agreement and wish to memorialize the agreement in this MOU.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE I — Purpose and Effect of MOU
A. Purpose of MOU: The purpose of this MOU is to further the objectives of the PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act and to memorialize the Partie& agreement to coordinate in the implementation of a wastewater treatment plan (as detailed below) in the Malibu Civic Center Area, as defined in the Basin Plan Amendment, that employs both a plan and schedule to construct one or more state-of-the-art centralized wastewater treatment facilities in the Malibu Civic Center Area and a comprehensive regulatory program with respect to OWDSs.

B. Effect of MOU: The Parties agree to implement the prohibitions established in the Basin Plan Amendment in the manner set forth in this MOU. As long as the City is in compliance with the schedule set forth in this MOU, the Los Angeles Water Board will not amend the Basin Plan Amendment inconsistent with this MOU. The Parties agree to maintain a tolling agreement as long as this MOU remains in effect.

C. Authority to Enter into MOU: The City has authority to enter into this MOU, which is within the scope of its police powers. The Water Boards have authority to enter into this MOU pursuant to California Water Code sectionl3225, subsections (a), (b), and (j).

ARTICLE II — Responsibilities of City
The City shall implement a wastewater treatment plan (Plan) in the Malibu Civic Center Area consisting of the following tasks:

A. Phase One: By September 30, 2018, for the wastewater discharge of those properties within the boundaries of the yellow area shown on the map of the Malibu Civic Center Area attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference (Boundary Map), the City shall design and construct a central Wastewater Treatment Facility . In order to fund the construction of the waste water treatment facility, it is necessary that an assessment district be approved and formed in accordance with all applicable laws, including but not limited to Prop 218, which includes the property owners served by Phase One. Once approved, all property owners within the approved assessment district are required to connect to the Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City’s Wastewater Treatment Facility may consider the use of deep well or groundwater injections without reverse osmosis as a method of dispersal of effluent from the proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City must obtain Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), for the proposed Wastewater Treatment Facility and all water must be treated to meet or exceed the requirements of applicable laws, regulations, and policy, including the Porter

Page 3 of 17 ends

9 Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the federal Clean Water Act, the Basin Plan, standards for advanced wastewater treatment set forth in Title 22 California Code of Regulations, Division 4, and total nitrogen of 10 mg/L. The City shall work in coordination with the Los Angeles Water Board and shall comply with the following deadlines to complete Phase One of the Plan.

1. By September 30, 2011, submit a schedule and list of public outreach meetings and materials developed to inform the public about the development of a wastewater treatment facility.

2. By December 31, 2011, complete and submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a recycle/reuse/storage study which shall identify the potential location and options to maximize the reuse of the Title 22 effluent, including the evaluation of the use of storage infrastructure. The study shall provide recommended water recycling goals and storage volume targets.

3. By June 30, 2012, complete and submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a conceptual groundwater injection plan that is based on field testing and modeling.

4. By March 31, 2015, complete and submit the certified Environmental Impact Report for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

5. By June 30, 2015, complete and submit the design for the Wastewater Treatment Facility, which shall include the facility layout, electrical and pumping requirements, sewer line plans and profiles, disposal well design. Also submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a complete report of waste discharge pursuant to the California Water Code.

6. By September 30, 2015, complete the formation of an assessment district for all properties within the Malibu Civic Center Area Phase One and provide that information to the Water Board.

7. By September 30, 2015, complete a plan to obtain all funding and property necessary to complete the Phase One project.

8. By October 30, 2015, complete and release a Bid Package for construction of the Phase One Wastewater Treatment Facility.

9. By December 31, 2015, complete contractor selection and initiate construction of the Phase One Wastewater Treatment Facility.

10. By September 30, 2018, complete the Phase One project, including successful startup of the Phase One Wastewater Treatment Facility and the connection of all

Page 4 of 17 ends

10 properties within the Phase One boundaries to the Wastewater Treatment Facility.

The City is required to operate the Facility in compliance with the WDRs.

B. Phase Two: By November 5, 2024, within the coral-colored area shown on the attached Boundary Map, the City shall require all those developed properties to be connected to a central Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Facility shall be the same Facility as described in Phase One and subject to waste discharge requirements issued by the Los Angeles Water Board. In order to fund the construction of the wastewater treatment facility improvements and connections thereto, it is necessary that an assessment district be approved and formed in accordance with all applicable laws, including but not limited to Prop 218, which includes the property owners served by Phase Two. As of the date of this MOU, the City has not formed an assessment district. Once formed, all property owners within the approved assessment district are required to connect to the Wastewater Treatment Facility.

The City shall comply with following deadlines to complete Phase Two of the Plan:

1. By June 30, 2018, inform the Los Angeles Water Board whether the City intends to connect properties within the Phase Two boundaries to the City’s Phase One Wastewater Treatment Facility or construct an alternative facility. The City shall also submit a report summarizing the change of groundwater quality and surface water quality.

2. By December 31, 2018, complete and submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a conceptual groundwater injection plan for Phase Two, if applicable, that is based on field testing and modeling. (The City submitted the Conceptual Groundwater Injection Plan on June 29, 2012 for both Phases One and Two.) The parties agree to meet by January 30, 2019 to review the schedule below to determine whether the deadlines in this MOU could be shortened or lengthened in light of the performance of the Phase One facility or other relevant information.

3. By March 31, 2021, complete and certify a subsequent or supplement Environmental Impact Report, ifrequired, pursuant to CEQA.

4. By June 30, 2021, complete and submit. to the Los Angeles Water Board a Design for Phase Two, including any alternative facility, which shall consist of facility layout, electrical and pumping requirements, sewer line plans and profiles, disposal well design. Also submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a complete report of waste discharge, if necessary, pursuant to the California Water Code.

5. By November 5, 2021, complete the formation of an assessment district for all properties within the Malibu Civic Center Area Phase Two and provide that information to the Water Board.

Page 5 of 17 ends

11 6. By June 30, 2022, complete and release a Bid Package for construction of the Phase Two Wastewater Treatment Facility.

7. By November 5, 2022, complete contractor selection and initiate construction of the Phase Two facility, if necessary.

8. By November 5, 2024, complete Phase Two project, including successful startup of the Phase Two Wastewater Treatment Facility and the connection of all properties within the Phase Two boufidaries to the Wastewater Treatment Facility.

The City is required to operate the Facility in compliance with the WDRs.

C. Phase Three:

The City will begin Phase Three (fuchsia-colored area on Boundary Map), if necessary, upon completion of Phase One and Two, and upon completion of a water quality sampling program. The water quality sampling program shall be designed and implemented to determine whether the implementation of Phase One and Two have resulted in a meaningful decrease in Bacteria and Nitrogen in Malibu Lagoon (lagoon) as follows:
i. Bacteria reduction: Within 2 years after Phase One is completed, there should be a one log reduction in bacteria measured as Most Probable Number (MPN) on a consistent basis (75% of samples), and within 1 year after Phase Two is completed, there should be a further one log reduction in bacteria (as MPN). Sampling should include a minimum of 6 locations within the lagoon as agreed upon by the City and the Los Angeles Water Board and include 2 dry seasons. Base line sampling data shall be collected for 12 months prior to completion of the treatment system. ii. Nitrogen reduction: Within 2 years after Phase One is completed, there should be a 50% reduction (in mg/L) in total nitrogen concentration (measured as mg/L) on a consistent basis (75% of samples) and within 1 year after Phase Two is completed, there should be a further 50% reduction in total nitrogen concentration (in mg/L). Sampling should include a minimum of 6 locations within the lagoon as agreed upon by the City and the Los Angeles Water Board and include 2 dry seasons. Base line sampling data shall be collected for 12 months prior to completion of the treatment system.

2. Should the City and the Los Angeles Water Board determine that the implementation of Phase One and Phase Two have resulted in bacteria and nitrogen reduction as set forth in ILC.1 above the City shall proceed with implementation of Phase Three excluding any properties that the Los Angeles Water Board concludes and the City has demonstrated to have no contribution to

Page 6 of 17 ends

12 bacteria or nutrient impacts to the Malibu Creek and Malibu Lagoon. Phase Three shall be completed and all non-excluded properties connected to the Wastewater Treatment Facility by November 5, 2028.

3. Between the date of the signing of this MOU and upon the determination that a Phase Three is or is not necessary, the City may authorize property owners within Phase Three areas to modify existing buildings upon installation of a filtration and disinfection system to their existing OWDSs in accordance with City regulations and waste discharge requirements only if the City finds that the modification is consistent with the protection of public health and the Basin Plan Amendment and if the property owner is notified of the provisions of the Basin Plan Amendment and the MOU. On March 31 and September 30 of each year, the City shall send written reports of any modifications approved in Phase III to the Los Angeles Water Board.

D. Certain Properties: Certain properties within Phase Three, including Hughes Research Laboratory and properties south from the Civic Center on Pacific Coast Highway to the boundary of the Prohibition, may choose to join an assessment district, connect to the Wastewater Treatment Facility, and pay all associated fees. The Los Angeles Water Board may independently require said properties to otherwise implement a disinfection system in accordance with waste discharge requirements or a waiver issued by the Los Angeles Water Board.

E. Water Sampling:

1. The City shall conduct water quality monitoring, including baseline monitoring in both the wet season and dry season, prior to startup of Phase One and semi annually thereafter, to evaluate the effectiveness of the Wastewater Treatment Facility, as described in paragraph C. above, throughout all project phases and shall be concluded no later than November 2026. The City shall submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a water monitoring and reporting program for water quality in the Malibu Lagoon and the ocean adjacent to the Malibu Road homes by May 5, 2017 for Executive Officer approval and update as directed by the Executive Officer.

2. The City shall also conduct water quality monitoring, including baseline monitoring in both the wet season and dry season, prior to startup of Phase One and semi-annually thereafter, to evaluate water quality in the Malibu Lagoon and in the ocean adjacent to the Malibu Road homes beginning no later than November 5, 2017 or earlier if funding becomes available. Included and a part of the same water monitoring and reporting program identified in E. 1., the City shall provide an ocean water monitoring and reporting program that identifies three locations along Malibu Road for water quality testing. Depending on the results of the monitoring, the Los Angeles Water Board may issue upgraded OWDS Page7ofl7 February2,2017
13 requirements to the homes. If a sufficient number of homes along Malibu Road elect to connect during Phase I or II, the property owners will be required to join or form an assessment district and pay applicable fees.

3. The City shall provide reasonable access to the Los Angeles Water Board to all City-owned wells for groundwater sampling.

4. Prior to Executive Officer approval of monitoring and reporting programs, the Executive Officer will provide an opportunity for public comment on the draft program.

F. Quarterly Reports: The City shall submit, or cause to be submitted, q1~iarterly progress reports to the Los Angeles Water Board on January 30th, April 3O~, July 30th, and October 30th of each year until such time that the Los Angeles Water Board determines that compliance with the prohibitions have been achieved.

ARTICLE III — Responsibilities of the Water Boards
A. No Amendments: The Water Boards agree that they will not adopt any amendment to the Basin Plan Amendment, as long as this MOU is in effect, except that the Parties understand that amendments to the Basin Plan Amendment may be necessary to implement Phase Three and will cooperate to achieve the purposes ofthis MOU.

B. Failure to Comply/No Third Party Beneficiary: The Water Boards agree that they will not enforce the prohibitions against the property owners set forth in the Basin Plan Amendment so long as the City is in substantial compliance with the Plan set forth in Article II of this MOU and the property owners are in compliance with the Basin Plan Amendment conditions, applicable City requirements, and waste discharge requirements or a waiver issued by the Los Angeles Water Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this MOU does not create any rights in or obligation to any third party and may only be enforced by the Parties to this MOU.

C. WDR processing: The Los Angeles Water Board agrees to process and issue waste discharge requirements in a timely manner so not to delay the City’s ability to meet the deadlines set forth in this MOU and the deadlines set forth in this MOU shall be extended by the amount of time beyond six months that the City’s request for waste discharge requirements is pending before the Water Boards. The Los Angeles Water Board’s decision to issue waste discharge requirements will be based on the administrative record after a public hearing and nothing in this MOU prejudges its decision.

D. Funding Assistance: The Los Angeles Water Board agrees to assist the City in obtaining funding for the Facility and any associated water quality monitoring.

Page 8 of 17 ends

14 E. Studies: The City will continue to supply the Los Angeles Water Board with any ongoing or new water quality studies and monitoring reports that are completed within or near the Prohibition Area. The Los Angeles Water Board will consider all relevant available information in determining whether to remove any properties within Phase Three from the prohibition boundaries; specifically and without limitation, the Parties agree to evaluate whether new reports provide sufficient scientific evidence that inclusion of certain areas within Phase Three is no longer justified within the Prohibition boundary.

The Los Angeles Water Board and the City intend to work cooperatively on any necessary amendment to the Basin Plan Amendment.

ARTICLE IV -Tolling
A. Tolling Extended: The Parties agree that the period during which the City must bring an action against the Water Boards challenging any aspect of the Water Board actions, including but not limited to the procedures the Water Boards followed and its environmental review under the CEQA, is hereby tolled and extended as of the effective date of this MOU for as long as this MOU is in effect, unless the tolling agreement is terminated earlier or extended by the Parties (the “Tolling Period”). The tolling agreement became effective on the date this MOU was originally signed by the City on August 11,2011.

B. No Time-Bar Defenses: The Parties further agree that there shall be a suspension of any and all applicable statutory limitations and non-statutory periods, including, without limitation, the equitable doctrine of laches, which may otherwise apply to the City’s claims, during the Tolling Period.

C. No Revival of Stale Claims: Nothing in this Agreement shall revive any claim, which, as of the commencement of the Tolling Period, would have been barred by any applicable statute of limitations.

D. No Admission: The entry into this Agreement by the Parties shall not be construed to represent any admission by any Party with respect to the subject or sufficiency of any Party’s claims or any defenses thereto.

E. Lawsuits: The City agrees that while this MOU is in effect it will not file any litigation regarding the Basin Plan Amendment against the Water Boards, nor will it join in or support any third party lawsuits against the Water Boards that may arise from the implementation of this MOU or the adoption of the Basin Plan Amendment.

ARTICLE V -Term of MOU
A. Term of MOU: The term of this MOU shall begin upon its approval by the Parties and shall terminate on completion of Phase Three, unless terminated earlier pursuant to this Article. During the term of this MOU, the Parties agree to negotiate, in good faith,

Page 9 of 17 ends

15 modifications to the MOU that may be reasonably necessary to assure implementation of the Plan, including, but not limited to, the following changed circumstances:

1. There is a material change in the regulatory framework for wastewater management or water quality standards relevant to the implementation of the Plan in the Malibu Civic Center Area or the Basin Plan Amendment that would require additional time to implement; or

2. There is a material change in the cost or other impediment that warrants the Parties attention in order to assure successful implementation of the Plan in the Malibu Civic Center Area that would require additional time to implement.

ARTICLE VI— General Provisions
A. Notices: Any notices or other communication required or permitted by this MOU shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Representatives of the Party at the addresses set forth below. Parties shall promptly notify each other of any change of contact information provided below. Written notice shall include notice delivered via email. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by email; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid to the addresses set forth below:

To the State Water Board: Tom Howard
Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Email: [email protected]
and
Michael A.M. Lauffer
Chief Counsel
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Fax: (916)341-5199

Page 10 of 17 ends

16 Email: [email protected]
To the Los Angeles Water Board:

Samuel Unger
Executive Officer
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 576-6605
Fax: (213) 576-6640
Email: Samuel.unger~waterboards.ca.gov
and
Eric Wu
Chief of Groundwater Permitting Unit
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Phone: (213) 576-6683
Fax: (213) 576-6777
Email: eric.wu~waterboards.ca.gov
and
Frances McChesney
Attorney IV
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street, 22nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: (916) 341-5174
Fax: (916)341-5199
Email: frances.mcchesney~waterboards.ca.gov
To the City:

Reva Feldman
City Manager
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext. 226
Fax: (310) 456-3356
Email: rfeldman~ma1ibucity.org
and

Page 11 of 17 ends

17 Craig George
Environmental Sustainability Director
City of Malibu
23 825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Phone: (310) 456-2489 ext. 229
Fax: (310) 456-3356
Email: [email protected]
and
Christi Hogin
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Phone: (310) 643-8448
Fax: (310)643-8441
Email: chogin~localgovlaw.com
B. Relationship of the Parties: The Parties are and shall remain at all times as to each other, wholly independent entities. No Party to this MOU shall have power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on. behalf of another Party or otherwise act as an agent of another Party except as expressly provided to the contrary by this MOU.

C. Cooperation, Further Acts: Parties shall cooperate fully with one another to attain the purposes of this MOU. The City will report regularly to the Los Angeles Water Board on the status of progress in implementing this MOU.

B. Amendments: All amendments must be in writing, approved and executed by all Parties.

The Parties shall meet and confer prior to the conclusion of Phase One, or other times as appropriate, to evaluate the need for revisions to the schedule for Phase Two and Phase Three.

E. Reservation of Rights: Each Party shall be solely responsible and liable in connection with its actions associated with its responsibilities under this MOU. For purposes of this MOU, the relationship of the parties is that of independent entities and not as agents of each other or as joint venturers or partners. The parties shall maintain sole and exclusive control over their personnel, agents, consultants, and operations. Nothing in this MOU is intended to limit the legal authority or responsibilities of the Parties, except as agreed to herein. The Los Angeles Water Board intends to terminate the MOU if the City is not in substantial compliance with the Plan set forth herein; in which case, the Water Boards may enforce the Basin Plan Amendment as written against the City and other entities as authorized by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act or other applicable law.

Page 12 of 17 ends

18 F. Third Parties: Nothing in this MOU is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties to this agreement or effect the legal liability of the parties to this MOU.

G.. Enforcement: The Parties agree to cooperate in implementation of the Basin Plan Amendment as set forth in this MOU. The Los Angeles Water Board and the State Water Board have jurisdiction to enforce the Basin Plan Amendment. The City agrees to coordinate in any enforcement action by supplying the Water Boards with property and owner information. The City agrees to require connection to the Wastewater Treatment Facility for every parcel within an approved assessment district. Should any property owner within an assessment district refuse to connect, the Parties agree to coordinate in all necessary action as described above to gain compliance. The City and the Water Boards shall use their respective enforcement authorities to attain compliance with the Basin Plan Amendment.

If an assessment district is not approved by dischargers in Phase Two, the Los Angeles Water Board may enforce all State policies, plans, or regulations to gain compliance, including the requirement to upgrade each OWDS to advance treatment, or other appropriate means by November 5, 2021. Advanced treatment for OWDS is defined as disinfection treatment to a level that meets applicable water quality standards for Fecal Indicator Bacteria and/or denitrification not to exceed a total nitrogen concentration of 10 mg/i for those properties impacting an impaired water body with a nutrient TMDL. All property owners that are required to upgrade their system will need to obtain City of Malibu building permits and obtain an operating permit in accordance with City ordinances. The City’s operating permit program requires that advanced residential OWDS must be inspected every three years by a certified OWDS inspector. The Los Angeles Water Board will also require effluent monitoring for these systems that shall be submitted and reviewed by the Los Angeles Water Board on a quarterly basis for Total Suspended Solids, Total Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, and Fecal Indicator Bacteria as appropriate.

H. Dispute Resolution: The Parties agree to attempt to informally resolve any disputes that arise with respect to this MOU prior to terminating the MOU by notifying the other party if a dispute arises and identifying the issues in dispute. Each party reserves its rights if informal dispute is not effective.

Governing Law: This MOU is governed by, interpreted under and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

J. Authorized signatures: The Parties hereby represent and warrant that their respective signatory of this MOU is duly authorized to execute and bind the agency for which he signs.

Pagel3ofi7 February2,2017
19 K. Severability: If any provision of this MOU shall be determined by any court to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected and this MOU shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.

IN WITNESS WhEREOF, the Parties to this MOU have caused this MOU to be executed on their behalf as ofthe date specified below, respectively, as follows:

FOR THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD:

Dated: 2’ , 2017 Tom Howard
Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael A. M. Lauffer
Chief Counsel
State Water Resources Control Board
Mic~iã~l A. M. Lau er
Tom Howard

Page 14 of 17 ends

20 FOR THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD:

Dated: ~ / ‘~ ,2017 Samuel Unger
Executive Officer
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
~U
Samuel Unger
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Frances L. McChesney
Attorney IV
State Water Resources Control Board
/~
~
FP~ces t~cChesney
(&~

Page 15 of 17 ends

21 FOR THE CITY OF MALIBU:

Dated: ______________, 2017 Reva Feldman
City Manager
City of Malibu
Reva Feldman
ATTEST:

Heather Glaser
City Clerk
City of Malibu
H ther Giaser (~
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christi Hogin
City Attorney
City of Malibu
Chf1~I Ho in

Page 16 of 17 ends

22 EXHIBIT A: Boundary Map
Civic Center Wastewater Treatment Plan
Phasing Options
-
Ii
./ ,~
III~
.1
I
ii

Page 17 of 17 ends

/
/
-C.’ C’)
~OLiL1
ii
fI~i
F
~44~67~
%6~b
~~
0 23
Water Boards
Los Ange~es Reg~ona~ Water QuaNty Contro~ Board
March 23, 2017
Ms. Reva Feldman, City Manager
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265-4861
Eo,,u~oG. ~J~.
~

ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION AND REVISED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

WITH CITY OF MALIBU ON THE MALIBU CIVIC CENTER AREA PROHIBITION Dear Ms. Feldman:

On February 2, 2017, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Regional Board) adopted a Resolution No. Ri 7-001 to authorize the Executive Officer to sign a revised Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City of Malibu (City), and the Regional Board and the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) regarding implementation of a Basin Plan amendment prohibiting on-site wastewater disposal systems in the Malibu Civic Center Area.

The MOU will be executed upon the signatures of representatives including Executive Officer, directors and legal councils of the Regional Board, the State Water Board, and the City.

Enclosed is the original MOU for City staff’s signatures at Page 16. Please make a copy for your record and return original to the Regional Board at your convenience. The signed copy will be posted to the Regional Board’ s website.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact Dr. Don Tsai at (213) 620- 2264 (or Don.Tsaic~waterboards.ca.qov) or me at (213) 576-6683 (or Eric.Wuc~waterboards.ca.qov).

Sincerely,
~
Chief of Groundwater Permitting Unit
Enclosures:
1) February 2, 2017 MOU
IRMA MU~oz, CNA~R Sp~AuEL URGER SXECUThIE OPF~CER
320 West 4° St. SuRe 200, Los Ange us, CA 90013 v~w~ wuterbourds.cu govIIosun~efes CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
~lTY OF MALIBU

RECYCLED PAPER
24 TENTATIVE REVISED 2025 MOU

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
(REVISED ON DECEMBER 4, 2014, FEBRUARY 2, 2017, NOVEMBER 5, 2021, AND OCTOBER 23, 2025)

BETWEEN THE CITY OF MALIBU
AND

THE REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION

AND THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD

REGARDING

PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF BASIN PLAN AMENDMENT PROHIBITING

ON-SITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS

IN THE MALIBU CIVIC CENTER AREA
25 Attachment 2

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

REGARDING PHASED IMPLEMENTATION OF BASIN PLAN AMENDMENT

PROHIBITING ONSITE WASTEWATER DISPOSAL SYSTEMS IN THE MALIBU

CIVIC CENTER AREA
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) supersedes the MOU originally signed in August 2011 and revised most recently in November 2021, and is entered into by and between the CITY OF MALIBU (City) on the one hand and the REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, LOS ANGELES REGION, and the STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD on the other hand (together the Water Boards), collectively referred to herein as the "Parties" or individually as "Party." WHEREAS, On November 5, 2009, over the City's objections, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region (Los Angeles Water Board) adopted Resolution R4-2009- 007 approving an amendment to Chapter IV of the Water Quality Control Plan for the Coastal Watersheds of Los Angeles and Ventura Counties (Basin Plan), to prohibit on-site wastewater disposal systems (OWDSs) in the Malibu Civic Center Area, as defined in Resolution R4-2009-007, (Basin Plan Amendment).

WHEREAS, On September 21, 2010, over the City's objections, the State Water Resources Control Board (State Water Board) adopted Resolution No. 2010-0045 approving the Basin Plan Amendment.

WHEREAS, On December 23, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the regulatory provisions of the Basin Plan Amendment, the final step for the amendment to take effect.

WHEREAS, On August 19, 2011, the Parties entered into an MOU (2011 MOU) to memorialize the Parties' agreement to coordinate in the implementation of a wastewater treatment plan for the Malibu Civic Center Area, as defined in the Basin Plan Amendment, that employs both a plan and schedule to construct one or more centralized wastewater treatment facilities (Facility) in phases in the Malibu Civic Center Area and a comprehensive regulatory program with respect to OWDSs.

WHEREAS, the Basin Plan Amendment prohibits all new OWDSs in the Malibu Civic Center Area and prohibits the discharge from existing OWDSs based on a phased schedule to cease discharges from Phase One systems by November 5, 2015, and Phase Two systems by November 5, 2019. The Basin Plan Amendment does not prevent repairs, maintenance, and upgrades to existing OWDSs, provided that they do not expand the capacity of the systems or increase flows of wastewater.

WHEREAS, in October 2010, the City and the Water Boards entered into a tolling agreement by which they agreed to extend the time within which the City must bring an action against the Water Boards challenging their actions to approve the Basin Plan Amendment, which expired in October 2011. The purpose of the tolling 26 agreement was to afford the parties an opportunity to reach agreement on a phased implementation boundaries and other matters related to the substance of Basin Plan Amendment. This MOU extends the tolling agreement while the MOU is in effect.

WHEREAS, On December 4, 2014, the MOU was subsequently revised (2014 MOU) to provide additional time to complete Phase One by June 30, 2017, and Phase Two by November 5, 2022.

WHEREAS, On February 2, 2017, the 2014 MOU was subsequently revised (2017 MOU) to extend the Phase One competition date from June 30, 2017, to September 30, 2018, and Phase Two completion date from November 5, 2022, to November 5, 2024.

WHEREAS, On November 5, 2021, the 2017 MOU was subsequently revised (2021 MOU) to extend the completion date of formation of an assessment district within Malibu Civic Center Area in Phase Two from November 5, 2021, to June 30, 2022, because the City required additional time to seek and obtain state and federal grants and other funding sources. The 2021 MOU did not extend the final completion date of November 5, 2024, for Phase Two.

WHEREAS, a significant Native American cultural resource was discovered in the Malibu Civic Center Area in 2022 and 2023, requiring redrawing of the Phase Two and Phase Three boundaries to avoid disruption to the resource; redesign the Phase Two wastewater collection, transmission, and treatment system; and change the schedule for completing the Phase Two tasks.

WHEREAS, the Parties have reached an agreement to revise the boundaries of Phase Two and Phase Three as depicted in the Phased Implementation Boundary Map in Exhibit A to this MOU, and to extend the Phase Two completion date from November 5, 2024, to December 17, 2029, and Phase Three from November 5, 2028, to December 31, 2033, and wish to memorialize the agreement in this MOU.

WHEREAS, the Parties have provided interested persons with an opportunity to comment on the MOU and have considered those comments prior to execution of the MOU by the Parties.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE I - Purpose and Effect of MOU
A. Purpose of MOU: The purpose of this MOU is to further the objectives of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and to memorialize the Parties' agreement to coordinate in the implementation of a wastewater treatment plan (as detailed below) in the Malibu Civic Center Area, as defined in the Basin Plan Amendment, that employs both a plan and schedule to construct one or more state-of-the-art centralized wastewater treatment facilities in the Malibu 27 Civic Center Area and a comprehensive regulatory program with respect to OWDSs.

ARTICLE II - Responsibilities of City
The City shall implement a wastewater treatment plan (Plan) in the Malibu Civic Center Area consisting of the following phases.

Once approved, all property owners within the approved assessment district are required to connect to the Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City's Wastewater Treatment Facility may consider the use of deep well for groundwater injections without reverse osmosis as a method of dispersal of effluent from the Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City must obtain Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs), for the Wastewater Treatment Facility, and all water must be treated to meet or exceed the requirements of applicable laws, regulations, and policy, including the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the federal Clean Water Act, the Basin Plan, standards for advanced wastewater treatment set forth in Title 22 California Code of Regulations, Division 4, and total nitrogen of 10 mg/L. The City shall work in coordination with the Los Angeles Water Board and shall comply with the following deadlines to complete Phase One of the Plan.

1. By September 30, 2011, submit a schedule and list of public outreach meetings and materials developed to inform the public about the development of a wastewater treatment facility.
28 2. By December 31, 2011, complete and submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a recycle/reuse/storage study which shall identify the potential location and options to maximize the reuse of the Title 22 effluent, including the evaluation of the use of storage infrastructure. The study shall provide recommended water recycling goals and storage volume targets.

3. By June 30, 2012, complete and submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a conceptual groundwater injection plan that is based on field testing and modeling.

4. By March 31, 2015, complete and submit the certified Environmental Impact Report for the project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

6. By September 30, 2015, complete the formation of an assessment district for all properties within the Malibu Civic Center Area Phase One and provide that information to the Water Board.

7. By September 30, 2015, complete a plan to obtain all funding and property necessary to complete the Phase One project.

8. By October 30, 2015, complete and release a Bid Package for construction of the Phase One Wastewater Treatment Facility.

9. By December 31, 2015, complete contractor selection and initiate construction of the Phase One Wastewater Treatment Facility.

10. By September 30, 2018, complete the Phase One project, including successful startup of the Phase One Wastewater Treatment Facility and the connection of all properties within the Phase One boundaries to the Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City is required to operate the Facility in compliance with the WDRs.

B. Phase Two: By December 17, 2029, the City shall require all those developed properties, within the beige-colored area shown on the attached Phases Two and Three Implementation Boundary Map (Exhibit A), to be connected to the centralized Wastewater Treatment Facility. The Facility shall be the same Facility as described in Phase One and subject to waste discharge requirements issued by the Los Angeles Water Board. In order to 29 fund the construction of the Wastewater Treatment Facility improvements and connections thereto, it is necessary that an assessment district be approved and formed in accordance with all applicable laws, including but not limited to Prop 218, which includes the property owners served by Phase Two. Once an assessment district is formed, all property owners within the approved assessment district in Phase Two area are required to connect to the Wastewater Treatment Facility.

The City shall comply with following deadlines to complete Phase Two of the Plan:

1. By January 3, 2027, complete and certify a subsequent or supplement Environmental Impact Report, if required, pursuant to CEQA.

2. By January 3, 2027, complete and submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a Design for Phase Two Wastewater Treatment Facility, which shall consist of facility layout, electrical and pumping requirements, sewer line plans and profiles, disposal well design. Also submit to the Los Angeles Water Board a complete report of waste discharge, if necessary, pursuant to the California Water Code.

3. By July 27, 2027, complete the formation of an assessment district for all Phase Two properties within the Malibu Civic Center Area and provide that information to the Los Angeles Water Board.

4. By March 4, 2027, complete and release a Bid Package for construction of the Phase Two Wastewater Treatment Facility.

5. By March 24, 2027, complete contractor selection and initiate construction of the Phase Two Wastewater Treatment Facility.

6. By December 17, 2029, complete Phase Two project, including successful startup of the Phase Two Wastewater Treatment Facility and the connection of all properties within the Phase Two boundaries to the Wastewater Treatment Facility. The City is required to operate the Wastewater Treatment Facility in compliance with the WDRs.

During Phase Two, the City shall require properties in the Serra Retreat Area, shown within the red-colored outline in Exhibit A to implement interim measures to reduce nitrogen and bacteria loadings prior to the start of Phase Three. The City shall conduct a feasibility study to evaluate alternatives, including advanced onsite wastewater treatment systems (AOWTSs) at individual properties and/or packaged treatment plant(s) to serve multiple properties, and provide estimated implementation timelines. The study shall specifically consider properties in proximity to Malibu Creek for connection to 30 a packaged plant(s), with an emphasis on utilizing aboveground sewage collection piping to minimize disturbance to Native American resources. The City shall submit a workplan for the study for Executive Officer approval by June 30, 2026. The City shall submit a draft report of study results and preliminary recommendations for Executive Officer approval by December 17, 2026. Upon Executive Officer approval, the City shall begin implementing the study’s recommendations, either by requiring properties within the Serra Retreat Area to install AOWTS or connect to a package treatment plant(s).

All interim measures, whether individual AOWTS or package treatment plant(s), shall conform to the requirements of the City of Malibu’s Local Agency Management Program (LAMP) and shall be completed by December 17, 2029. Property owners must secure building permits and operating permits per City ordinances. These systems must be inspected every three years by a City-certified AOWTS inspector. Additionally, the City shall amend its LAMP and ordinances to require property owners in the Serra Retreat Area to hire a qualified professional to conduct quarterly effluent sampling and analysis for the following parameters: total suspended solids, total nitrogen, including organic nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, and nitrite nitrogen, total phosphorus, and Fecal Indicator Bacteria.

C. Phase Three:

1. The City will begin connecting parcels in the Phase Three purple-colored area (Exhibit A) to the Wastewater Treatment Facility, if necessary, following the completion of Phases One and Two after completion of a water quality sampling program. This program will assess whether Phases One and Two have effectively reduced bacteria and nitrogen concentrations in Malibu Lagoon, as defined below.
i. Bacteria reduction: Within two years after Phase One is completed, there should be a one-log reduction in bacteria concentration, measured as Most Probable Number (MPN) per 100 milliliters (mL), on a consistent basis (75% of samples). Within one year after Phase Two is completed, there should be an additional one-log reduction in bacteria concentration (as MPN/100 mL). Sampling should occur at a minimum of six locations in Malibu Lagoon, as agreed upon by the City and the Los Angeles Water Board, covering two dry seasons.

Baseline sampling data shall be collected 12 months prior to completion of the treatment system.
ii. Nitrogen reduction: Within two years after Phase One is completed, there should be a 50% reduction in total nitrogen concentration (measured as mg/L) on a consistent basis (75% of samples). Within one year after Phase Two is completed, there should be an additional 50% reduction in total nitrogen concentration (in mg/L). Sampling 31 should include a minimum of six locations within the Malibu Lagoon, as agreed upon by the City and the Los Angeles Water Board, covering two dry seasons. Base line sampling data shall be collected 12 months prior to completion of the treatment system.

2. Next Steps if Reduction Targets are Not Met: Should the City and the Los Angeles Water Board determine that Phases One and Two have not achieved the required reductions in bacteria and nitrogen concentrations, as set forth in II.C.l above, the City shall proceed with connecting parcels in the Phase Three area to the Wastewater Treatment Facility. The private lateral connection must be completed and connected to the Wastewater Treatment Facility by December 31, 2033.

D. Water Sampling:

The City shall conduct water quality monitoring, including baseline monitoring in both the wet season and dry season, prior to startup of Phase Two and quarterly thereafter, to evaluate the effectiveness of the Wastewater Treatment Facility, as described in paragraph C above, throughout the project phases, which shall be concluded no later than December 16, 2030. The baseline water quality monitoring includes monitoring of surface water quality at ten locations and groundwater quality in nine shallow and deep groundwater wells, as required by the Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) No. CI 10042, issued by the Los Angeles Water Board in 2015.

E. Quarterly Monitoring Reports:

The City shall submit electronic quarterly monitoring reports in pdf format by January 30
th
, April 30th, July 30th, and October 30th and an annual summary report by January 30th of each year to the State Water Board GeoTracker database until such time that the Los Angeles Water Board determines that compliance with the prohibitions has been achieved.

ARTICLE III - Responsibilities of the Water Boards
A. No Amendments: The Water Boards agree that they will not adopt any amendment to the Basin Plan Amendment, as long as this MOU is in effect, except that the Parties understand that amendments to the Basin Plan Amendment may be necessary to implement Phase Three and will cooperate to achieve the purposes of this MOU.

B. Failure to Comply/No Third Party Beneficiary: The Water Boards agree that they will not enforce the prohibitions against the property owners set forth in the Basin Plan Amendment so long as the City is in substantial compliance with the Plan set forth in Article II of this MOU and the property owners are in compliance with the Basin Plan Amendment conditions, applicable City 32 requirements, and waste discharge requirements or a waiver issued by the Los Angeles Water Board. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this MOU does not create any rights in or obligation to any third party and may only be enforced by the Parties to this MOU.

C. WDRs Application Processing: The Los Angeles Water Board agrees to process and issue WDRs in a timely manner so not to delay the City's ability to meet the deadlines set forth in this MOU, and the permitting deadlines set forth in this MOU shall be extended by the amount of time beyond six months that the City's application for WDRs is pending before the Water Boards. The Los Angeles Water Board's decision to issue WDRs will be based on the administrative record after a public hearing and nothing in this MOU prejudges its decision.

D. Funding Assistance: The Los Angeles Water Board agrees to assist the City in obtaining funding for the Wastewater Treatment Facility upgrade and any associated water quality monitoring.

E. Studies: The City will continue to supply the Los Angeles Water Board with any ongoing or new water quality studies and monitoring reports that are completed within or near the Prohibition Area. The Los Angeles Water Board will consider all relevant available information in determining whether to remove any properties within Phase Three from the prohibition boundaries; specifically and without limitation, the Parties agree to evaluate whether new reports provide sufficient scientific evidence that inclusion of certain areas within Phase Three is no longer justified within the Prohibition boundary. The Los Angeles Water Board and the City intend to work cooperatively on any necessary amendment to the Basin Plan Amendment.

ARTICLE IV - Tolling
A. Tolling Extended: The Parties agree that the period during which the City must bring an action against the Water Boards challenging any aspect of the Water Board actions, including but not limited to the procedures the Water Boards followed and its environmental review under the CEQA, is hereby tolled and extended as of the effective date of this MOU for as long as this MOU is in effect, unless the tolling agreement is terminated earlier or extended by the Parties (the "Tolling Period"). The tolling agreement became effective on the date this MOU was originally signed by the City on August 11, 2011.

C. No Revival of Stale Claims: Nothing in this Agreement shall revive any claim, 33 which, as of the commencement of the Tolling Period, would have been barred by any applicable statute of limitations.

D. No Admission: The entry into this Agreement by the Parties shall not be construed to represent any admission by any Party with respect to the subject or sufficiency of any Party's claims or any defenses thereto.

E. Lawsuits: The City agrees that while this MOU is in effect it will not file any litigation regarding the Basin Plan Amendment against the Water Boards, nor will it join in or support any third-party lawsuits against the Water Boards that may arise from the implementation of this MOU or the adoption of the Basin Plan Amendment.

ARTICLE V - Term of MOU
A. Term of MOU: The term of this MOU shall begin upon the date of the last signature below and shall terminate on completion of Phase Three, unless terminated earlier pursuant to this Article. During the term of this MOU, the Parties agree to negotiate, in good faith, modifications to the MOU that may be reasonably necessary to assure implementation of the Plan, including, but not limited to, the following changed circumstances:

2. There is a material change in the cost or other impediment that warrants the Parties’ attention in order to assure successful implementation of the Plan in the Malibu Civic Center Area that would require additional time to implement.

B. Termination: This MOU may be terminated by the City, the State Water Board, or the Los Angeles Water Board by giving 45 days prior written notice in accordance with the notice provisions in Article VI(A) hereof. Said termination shall be effective only upon a duly noticed public meeting conducted by the City, the State Water Board, or the Los Angeles Water Board. 34 ARTICLE VI - General Provisions
A. Notices: Any notices or other communication required or permitted by this MOU shall be in writing and shall be delivered to the Representatives of the Party at the addresses set forth below. Parties shall promptly notify each other of any change of contact information provided below. Written notice shall include notice delivered via email. A notice shall be deemed to have been received on (a) the date of delivery, if delivered by hand during regular business hours, or by confirmed facsimile or by email; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid to the addresses set forth below.

To the State Water Board:

Eric Oppenheimer, Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Email: [email protected]
Michael A.M. Lauffer, Chief Counsel
State Water Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 100
Sacramento, CA 95812-0100
Email: [email protected]
To the Los Angeles Water Board:

Susana Arredondo, Executive Officer
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Email: [email protected]
35 James Kang, Ph.D., P.E.

Manager, Groundwater Permitting, Land Disposal, and
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional Stormwater
Permitting Section
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board
320 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Email: [email protected]
Stephanie Yu, Attorney IV
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street, 22nd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Email: [email protected]
To the City:

Marianne Riggins, City Manager
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
Email: [email protected]
Rob DuBoux, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Public Works Department
City of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265 Email: [email protected]
Trevor Russin, Interim City Attorney
Best Best & Krieger
300 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Email: [email protected]
B. Relationship of the Parties: The Parties are and shall remain at all times as to each other, wholly independent entities. No Party to this MOU shall have power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of another Party or otherwise act as an agent of another Party except as expressly provided to the contrary by this MOU.

D. Amendments: All amendments must be in writing, approved and executed by all Parties. The Parties shall meet and confer prior to the conclusion of Phase One, or other times as appropriate, to evaluate the need for revisions to the 36 schedule for Phase Two and Phase Three.

E. Reservation of Rights: Each Party shall be solely responsible and liable in connection with its actions associated with its responsibilities under this MOU.

For purposes of this MOU, the relationship of the parties is that of independent entities and not as agents of each other or as joint venturers or partners. The parties shall maintain sole and exclusive control over their personnel, agents, consultants, and operations. Nothing in this MOU is intended to limit the legal authority or responsibilities of the Parties, except as agreed to herein. The Los Angeles Water Board intends to terminate the MOU if the City is not in substantial compliance with the Plan set forth herein; in which case, the Water Boards may enforce the Basin Plan Amendment as written against the City and other entities as authorized by the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act or other applicable law.

F. Third Parties: Nothing in this MOU is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties to this agreement or effect the legal liability of the parties to this MOU.

G. Enforcement: The Parties agree to cooperate in implementation of the Basin Plan Amendment as set forth in this MOU. The Los Angeles Water Board and the State Water Board have jurisdiction to enforce the Basin Plan Amendment.

The City agrees to coordinate in any enforcement action by supplying the Water Boards with property and owner information. The City agrees to require connection to the Wastewater Treatment Facility for every parcel within an approved assessment district. Should any property owner within an assessment district refuse to connect, the Parties agree to coordinate in all necessary action as described above to gain compliance. The City and the Water Boards shall use their respective enforcement authorities to attain compliance with the Basin Plan Amendment.

Advanced treatment for OWDS is defined as disinfection treatment to a level that meets applicable water quality standards for Fecal Indicator Bacteria and denitrification not to exceed a total nitrogen concentration of 10 mg/L. All property owners that are required to upgrade their system will need to obtain City of Malibu building permits and obtain an operating permit in accordance with City ordinances. The City's operating permit program requires that advanced residential OWDS must be inspected every three years by a certified OWDS inspector. The Los Angeles Water Board will also require effluent monitoring for these systems that shall be submitted and reviewed by the Los Angeles Water Board on a quarterly basis for total suspended solids, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and Fecal Indicator Bacteria as appropriate. 37 H. Dispute Resolution: The Parties agree to attempt to informally resolve any disputes that arise with respect to this MOU prior to terminating the MOU by notifying the other party if a dispute arises and identifying the issues in dispute.

Each party reserves its rights if informal dispute is not effective.

I. Governing Law: This MOU is governed by, interpreted under and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

J. Authorized signatures: The Parties hereby represent and warrant that their respective signatory of this MOU is duly authorized to execute and bind the agency for which he signs.

K. Severability: If any provision of this MOU shall be determined by any court to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable to any extent, the remainder of this MOU shall not be affected and this MOU shall be construed as if the invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had never been contained in this MOU.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties to this MOU have caused this MOU to be executed on their behalf as of the date specified below, respectively, as follows:

FOR THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD:

Dated: Eric Oppenheimer, Executive Director
State Water Resources Control Board
Eric Oppenheimer
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael A. M. Lauffer, Chief Counsel
State Water Resources Control Board
Michael A .M. Lauffer
38 FOR THE LOS ANGELES REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD:

Dated: Susana Arredondo, Executive Officer
Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Susana Arredondo
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Stephanie Yu, Attorney IV
State Water Resources Control Board
Stephanie Yu
39 FOR THE CITY OF MALIBU:

Dated: Marianne Riggins, City Manager
City of Malibu
Marianne Riggins
ATTEST:

Kelsey Pettijohn,
City Clerk
Kelsey Pettijohn
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Trevor Russin
Interim City Attorney
Trevor Russin
40 Exhibit A: Phases Two and Three Implementation Boundary Map 41

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Cynthia Alba, Management Analyst
Reviewed by: Richard Rojas, Deputy City Manager
Approved by: Candace Bond, Interim City Manager
Date prepared: September 10, 2025 Meeting date: September 29, 2025 Subject: Fiscal Year 2025-26 Deferred General Fund Grants RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review recommendation by the Administration and Finance Subcommittee concerning deferred applications of the General Fund Grant Program and provide direction regarding the deferred grant requests.

FISCAL IMPACT: Funding for these grants was not included in the Adopted Budget for FY 2025-26. If awarded, an appropriation of $415,000 is required from the General Fund Undesignated Reserve. The General Fund Undesignated Reserve was projected at $51.8 million for the year ending June 30, 2026.

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item was not included in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List. At the Council’s direction, this project can be brought back at a future Strategic Planning meeting for prioritization.

DISCUSSION: On June 23, 2025, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2025-26 Budget, which included the approved General Fund Grant allocations. A summary of the approved grant awards is provided in Attachment A. As part of the June 23 action, several funding requests were deferred for further consideration by the full City Council. The City Council appropriated $192,500 out of the $200,000 available funding for the General Fund Grant Program.

On September 3, 2025, the Administration and Finance Subcommittee met to discuss the deferred amounts and recommended to the City Council to fund the full request for the Malibu Education Foundation and the Community Brigade, paid under installments of two, City Council Meeting
09-29-25
Item

6.B.
1

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.B.
one now and another after the City has received property tax payments in approximately December.

The Administration and Finance Subcommittee recommended not to fund Mission Nirvana and recommended that the City Council discuss a recommendation for Friends of the Malibu Urgent Care at the City Council level.

Organization Name Amount Requested Subcommittee
Recommendation
Friends of Malibu Urgent
Care $100,000 Defer to Council
LAEPF - Community
Brigade $100,000 $100,000
Malibu Education
Foundation $315,000 $315,000
Mission Nirvana Malibu $100,000 $0
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Subcommittee’s recommendations and provide direction regarding the deferred grant requests, including direction on whether to appropriate the remaining $7,500 from the General Fund Grant Program.

ATTACHMENTS: FY 2025-26 Approved General Fund Grant Allocations 2 Organization Name Amount Requested
A&F Subcommittee
Recommended Award
818 Consultant 5,000 $0
A Call 2 Peace 18,000 $0
Adamson House Foundation 10,000 $10,000
Aurelia Foundation 3,000 $2,500
Big Heart Ranch 10,000 $2,500
California State Parks 14,000 $7,500
California Wildlife Center 15,000 $10,000
Children's Lifesaving Foundation 5,500 $4,000
Emily Shane Foundation 35,000 $15,000
Esperance Center 2,000 $1,500
Friends of Malibu Urgent Care 100,000 Defer to Council
Gan Malibu 10,000 $2,500
Hand in Hand 2,000 $2,000
LAEPF- Community Brigade 100,000 100,000
Malibu Coast Surf Lifesaving Association 30,000 $14,000 Malibu Community Labor Exchange 10,000 $10,000
Malibu Education Foundation 315,000 315,000
Malibu Film Society 18,000 $18,000
Malibu Foundation 50,000 $0
Malibu Friends of Music 5,000 $5,000
Malibu Little League 15,000 $14,000
Malibu Marlins 14,000 $13,000
Malibu Monarch Project 25,000 $2,500
Malibu Search and Rescue 21,145 $15,000
Meals on Wheels West 3,500 $3,000
Mission Nirvana Malibu 100,000 0
Paradise Cove Gardens 12,000 $2,000
Poison Free Malibu 7,000 $6,000
Resource Conservation District 23,600 $10,000
Shalom Institute 25,000 $10,000
Skin Divine Cosmetics 25,000 $2,500
Wishtoyo Chumash Foundation 10,000 $10,000
FY 2025-26 General Fund Grants
3 Attachment 1

Page 1 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.

Council Agenda Report
To: Mayor Riggins and the Honorable Members of the City Council Prepared by: Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director Reviewed by: Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director Approved by: Candace Bond, Interim City Manager
Trevor Rusin, Interim City Attorney
Date prepared: September 26, 2025 Meeting date: September 29, 2025 Subject: Rebuild Policies to Facilitate the Rebuilding of Structures Damaged or Destroyed by Natural Disasters
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve Rebuild Policies -- LCP and Zoning Code Interpretation (LCP Interpretation Number 24 and Zoning Code Interpretation Number 15) to facilitate the rebuild of structures destroyed by natural disasters.

DISCUSSION: The City Council has analyzed, discussed, and provided direction to staff on the policies enumerated within the attached draft policy document. All of the policies have been approved except for the final language of Issue Nos. 4 and 10. All of the issues were thoroughly discussed at the various City Council meetings on the topic (July 22, August 27, and September 25, 2025).

For Issue No. 4, the Council gave direction on changes to that policy at the September 25, 2025, Special Meeting, and staff has returned with language reflecting that direction in red text.

Similarly, for Issue No. 10 regarding wave action reports, draft language for the Council’s consideration is in red text. All language within Attachment 1 that is not in red text has been approved previously by the Council.

Regarding Issue No. 10, on September 9, 2025, staff met with coastal engineering professionals and discussed Issue No. 10 regarding wave action reports and sea level rise as well as Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements for beachfront rebuilds. There was general consensus among the coastal engineers of Malibu that the City should use a 40-year economic life/design for the replacement structures, compared City Council Meeting
09-29-25
Item

6.C.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Agenda Item # 6.C.
to the Malibu Local Coastal Program’s 100 year economic life, if wave action and sea level rise were to be required for rebuilds.

Nevertheless, staff has brought forward three options for the Council to consider, 1) Only the FEMA standards will govern the requirements all rebuild structures; 2) Both FEMA standards and a wave action report will be required where the applicant will need to demonstrate that the structures will have at least a 40-year economic life/design; or 3) Only FEMA standards will govern the requirements for habitable structures and garages, while all other accessory structures, permitted under a Rebuild Development Permit (i.e. seawalls and onsite wastewater treatment systems) will need a wave action report where the applicant demonstrates that the structures will have at least a 40-year economic life/design.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Final Draft of Council Rebuild Policy
LCP and Zoning Code Interpretation
(Interpretation of the provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program and local Zoning Ordinance as approved by the City Council)
LCP Number: _ 24_ Dated: _September 29, 2025____
Zoning Code Number: 15 Amended: _______________
Community Development Director: Yolanda Bundy
Planning Manager: Tyler Eaton, Assistant Community Development Director Interpreting Body: City Council
MMC and LCP Sections: Various Sections within Title 17 of the MMC and the LCP Title: Rebuild Policies
The City of Malibu has historically been subject to wildfires and other natural disasters that have destroyed property. The City has established a series of ordinances to guide the rebuild process following those disasters. In March of 2025, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 524, the “Disaster Rebuild Ordinance”, which provided relief to those impacted by the 2025 Palisades Fire, 2024 Franklin Fire, and 2024 Broad Fire, but also set new regulations for the rebuilding of structures lost in past and future disasters. Generally, property owners are allowed to replace structures destroyed by a natural disaster with an additional 10 percent height, bulk, or floor area per the Malibu Local Coastal Program’s (LCP) Local Implementation Plan (LIP) Section 13.4.6. Additionally, Malibu Municipal Code (MMC) Section 17.60.020(C) allows for structures destroyed in a natural disaster to be replaced with an additional 10 percent height, bulk, or square footage. In implementing the regulations set forth in Ordinance No. 524 that provide relief from the regular development standards, questions have arisen regarding issues related to the ordinance and rebuilding after disasters. To provide additional clarity, the following interpretations are hereby adopted to provide consistent guidance and application of these provisions:

Issue No. 1: What is “like-for-like”? Property owners are allowed to replace their previous structures that were destroyed “like-for-like” plus 10 percent additional square footage, height, or bulk.

Current Policy: “Like-for-like” means a replacement structure that is compliant with LIP Section

13.4.6 (if applicable) and MMC Section 17.60.020(C) in that it is sited in substantially the same location and is within 110 percent the same height, bulk, or square footage of the previous structure.

Bulk (volume) is the constraining factor. A replacement structure cannot exceed 110 percent the volume of the previous structure. The extra 10 percent bulk (volume) can be allocated to extra height or extra square footage so long as it does not exceed 110 percent the bulk (volume), square footage, or height of the previous structure. For example, adding 10 percent extra square footage may result in not being able to add extra height because the extra bulk was already expended on the extra square footage. Or vice versa, if the extra 10 percent bulk has already been expended on extra height, then the applicant may not get extra square footage. Previously existing bulk can be shifted around so long as the replacement structure is sited within substantially the same location as the previous structure, and the shifting of bulk does not exceed 110 percent the height or square footage of the previous structure. For non-beachfront properties, if bulk is shifted to other parts of the structure and the bulk exceeds 18 feet in height and is outside the original building envelope, the shifted bulk will require a site plan review pursuant to MMC Section 17.62.040. The design of the structure may change. For example, a craftsman style design can be rebuilt as a modern design as long as the structure is within 110 percent the same height, bulk, and square footage of the previous structure.

Issue No. 2: What qualifies as a replacement structure being located in the same “general location” (MMC Section 17.60.020(C)) or “sited in substantially the same location” (LIP Section 13.4.6(A)).

Both the MMC and LCP require that replacement structures be sited in the same general location as the previous structures.

Current Policy: Replacement structures must be sited within 50 percent of the previous structure’s footprint and envelope to be considered “substantially” in the same location. Relocations beyond 50 percent of the original footprint require a De Minimis Waiver pursuant to LIP Section 13.4.11 or a Coastal Development Permit (if the findings for a De Minimis Waiver are not met).

Issue No. 3: Calculating bulk. Bulk is defined in the LIP as “the total interior cubic volume as measured from the exterior surface of the structure.” The term is not defined in the MMC.

Current Policy: Property owners may rebuild their structures in line with the LIP definition of bulk; meaning the cubic volume (bulk) shall not exceed 110 percent the previous structure’s volume.

Issue No. 4: What is considered a “lawfully erected” structure under MMC Section 17.60.020? MMC Section 17.60.020(C) allows for lawfully erected structures that do not conform to the current design and development standards (or lot development criteria) in the City to be reconstructed if they were destroyed or damaged in a natural disaster.

Current Policy: Unless evidence demonstrates the contrary, a structure will be considered to be “lawfully erected” if: (1) it has a building permit or the required approvals from a government agency who had jurisdiction over the subject location when the structure was erected, or (2) the evidence demonstrates the structure existed prior to the date of the City’s incorporation-- except structures located on a beach, coastal bluff, within an environmentally sensitive habitat area, or other sensitive coastal resource area must be shown to have existed prior to the California Coastal Act. Evidence that may be used to demonstrate the above includes, but is not limited to, aerial and GIS imagery, photography, city records, Los Angeles County Assessor data, and California Coastal Commission records. For any structure destroyed or substantially damaged by the 2025 Palisades Fire only, “lawfully erected” shall also include any structure that physically existed immediately prior to the 2025 Palisades Fire, so long as (i) the structure was not part of an open code enforcement violation pertaining to the construction of the structure, (ii) the structure did not violate any applicable law that is beyond the authority of the City of Malibu to waive or excuse (e.g., a structure that was built entirely or partially on property belonging to someone other than the owner of the structure), and (iii) the structure has a building permit that allows the structure to exist in some form (e.g., a remodel or addition for which a building permit was not issued would not disqualify the whole structure that existed immediately prior to the fire from being considered “lawfully erected”, so long as there is building permit for the structure to exist in some form).

Issue No. 5: Basements and Subterranean Garages. MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(13)(c) discounts the first 1,000 square feet of basements towards a property’s total development square footage (TDSF). Based on this language, some property owners are requesting that new basements do not count towards the 110 percent square footage allowed in a like-for-like rebuild.

Current Policy: The square footage for new basements and subterranean garages shall be included in the 110 percent square footage calculation. A replacement structure cannot exceed a 10 percent increase in size/square footage, which would occur if the square footage of new basements was not included in the calculation.

Issue No. 6: Water tanks and pools. Water tanks and pools that have a draft hydrant and which can be connected to by the Los Angeles County Fire Department may be necessary for rebuild structures to have adequate fire flow to fight fires. MMC Section 17.62.080(A)(4) allows for water tanks, pools and other water storage devices to be permitted as long as they are required or recommended by a government agency.

Current Policy: If water tanks and pools are required or recommended by a government agency, the development standards for new structures within the subject zoning district shall be required except that the square footage needed for water tanks shall not be counted towards a property’s TDSF.

Issue No. 7: Combining square footage between multiple structures. Some property owners are seeking to combine square footage from multiple structures into one structure. For example, a property owner may have had a home with a detached gym but is now proposing to combine the detached gym’s square footage with the home. LIP Section 13.4.6 states that a replacement structure is exempt from a CDP if the replacement structure (1) is for the same use, (2) does not exceed the floor area, height, or bulk of the destroyed structure by more than 10 percent, and (3) is sited in substantially the same location. This section implies that each structure shall be placed in the same general location and rebuilt to the same general size.

Current Policy: MMC Section 17.40.050(B) sets the zoning standards for required distance between buildings. Main buildings shall be at least 10 feet apart. Main building and accessory building shall be at least six feet apart. If structures that are proposed to be replaced are 10 feet or less in distance apart, they may be combined. However, as stated in LIP Section 13.4.6, the structures must maintain the same use. If an uninhabitable structure (such as a garage) is combined with a habitable structure, the square footage of the uninhabitable area must be maintained. This policy avoids unintended consequences that could be caused through the consolidation of dispersed structures into a larger home that could have impacts on views or other sensitive resources.

Issue No. 8: No net loss. California’s “No Net Loss” law (SB 166) “prohibits a city, county, or city and county from reducing, requiring, or permitting the reduction of the residential density to a lower residential density that is below the density that was utilized by the Department of Housing and Community Development in determining compliance with housing element law, unless the city, county, or city and county makes written findings supported by substantial evidence that the reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element, and that the remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. The city, county, or city and county may reduce the residential density for a parcel if it identifies sufficient sites, as prescribed, so that there is no net loss of residential unit capacity.” Some property owners, during the rebuild process, are seeking to convert multifamily structures into single-family structures if allowed by the subject zoning district.

Current Policy: In order to maintain compliance with State Law, the City is requiring that property owners who are seeking to convert their multifamily structures to single-family structures replace those lost units in the form of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). For example, a triplex (three units) that is proposed to be replaced by a single-family residence shall also include two ADUs to ensure there is no net loss. However, where State law allows flexibility, staff may allow less density on a lot than previously existing.

Issue No. 9: 10 percent increases must comply with current zoning regulations. MMC Section

17.60.020(C) allows nonconforming structures to be replaced (up to 110 percent height, bulk, and square footage) and maintain their nonconforming aspects in relation to the applicable zoning regulations.

Current Policy: The 10 percent increases must comply with current zoning regulations. As stated in MMC Section 17.60.020(C), increases to height or bulk above 18 feet shall require a site plan review (SPR) on non-beachfront properties. Similarly, 10 percent increases into required yard setbacks shall only be allowed with a SPR as listed in MMC Section 17.62.040. However, de minimis encroachments into required setbacks may be allowed at the discretion of the Community Development Director / Planning Manager. This policy allows legally established structures that do not conform to the current codes to be rebuilt but prevents their nonconformities from expanding.

No. 10: Is a wave action report required for a beachfront rebuild of a residence for a Planning Verification? MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(5)(b) states that new construction on beachfront lots must have their lowest finished floors elevations be determined by a comprehensive wave action report. In contrast, additions to an existing structure measure height based on an existing finished floor elevation.

Current Policy: The LIP definition of “New Development” explicitly excludes replacement structures (destroyed in a natural disaster) from being defined as new development and thus not subject to the rigorous review of new development requirements within the LCP. Because the LCP does not include replacement structures as “New Development”, the structures shall also not be considered “new construction” for planning (zoning) purposes.

For all replacement beachfront structures, the lowest finished floor shall be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) flood plain regulations as stated in MMC section

17.60.020(C)(1) with no additional sea level rise requirements. Accessory structures, such as onsite wastewater treatment systems and seawalls that are being built along with the replacement beachfront structure will also be subject to the minimum FEMA requirements (as applicable) with no additional sea level rise requirements.

OR
For habitable beachfront structures, the lowest finished floor shall be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) flood plain regulations as stated in MMC Section

17.60.020(C)(1). Accessory structures, such as onsite wastewater treatment systems and seawalls that are being built along with the replacement beachfront structure will also be subject to the minimum FEMA requirements (as applicable). In addition to meeting the FEMA requirements, a wave action report is required for all replacement structures and their accessory structures such as onsite wastewater treatment systems and seawalls. The applicant shall demonstrate that the replacement structure and its accessory structures have at least a 40-year economic life/design.

OR
For habitable beachfront structures and garages, the lowest finished floor shall be determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) flood plain regulations as stated in MMC Section

17.60.020(C)(1) with no additional sea level rise requirements. However, a wave action report is required for all accessory structures processed under a Rebuild Development Permit per MMC Section 15.40.110(A), such as onsite wastewater treatment systems and seawalls. The applicant shall demonstrate that the accessory structures have at least a 40-year economic life/design.

Issue No. 11: Rooftop decks. Rooftop decks are referenced in LIP Section 3.6(E) as allowed, specifically for beachfront properties, and have been allowed historically in the City for non-beachfront properties. Rooftop decks are becoming more common and have been permitted on both beachfront and non-beachfront structures throughout the City’s history.

Current Policy: Rooftop decks are allowed for both beachfront and non-beachfront rebuilds.

Structures that include rooftop decks shall be conditioned to prohibit furniture that exceeds the railing height and to ensure that any lighting on the deck complies with the City’s Dark Sky Ordinance.

Rooftop deck railing height shall be included in the maximum height allowance for the replacement structure.

Issue No. 12: Survey requirement. Residents have expressed concerns about providing surveys in their Planning Verification applications. Staff have been able to accept other forms of evidence to verify compliance with LIP Section 13.4.6 (if applicable) and MMC Section 17.60.020(C) such as historical surveys, City approved plans, and Los Angeles County and California Coastal Commission records. However, there have been discrepancies in the available information. An example of a discrepancy is when the Los Angeles County Assessor information regarding lot area differs from what has been represented on historical plans.

Current Policy: Staff will require a survey in the Planning Verification phase to demonstrate compliance with the LIP Section 13.4.6 and MMC Section 17.60.020(C). The submitted survey in the Planning Verification phase can be used in Building Plan Check. 2025 PALISADES FIRE ONLY
The following issues are addressed only for structures destroyed in the 2025 Palisades Fire and do not apply to other structures that were destroyed in any other natural disaster as these projects are subject to special orders from the Governor.

Issue No. PF1: Projects that were deemed complete prior to the fire but never approved or permitted.

There are some property owners who had projects in the system before the fire for additions and other improvements to their previously existing structures.

Current Policy: If a project was approved or the application was deemed complete before the 2025 Palisades Fire, and the structure was destroyed in the fire, the property owner is allowed to construct both the replacement structure and the deemed complete application as long as all required permits are obtained and as long as the deemed complete application does not require a variance. The owner may have to submit additional documentation for a project that has not yet received approval from the City. If the deemed complete application requires a site plan review, minor modification, or stringline modification, such approval must still be obtained. In these instances, the replacement structure and the deemed complete application will be considered the “like-for-like”. However, If the deemed complete application is for new square footage for the structure that was destroyed in the fire, and the new square footage in the deemed complete application exceeds 10 percent of the square footage of the previous structure, the applicant/owner shall not be allowed to obtain more square footage than what is authorized in the deemed complete application. In other words, the applicant/owner shall not get an additional 10 percent square footage on top of the square footage allowed under the deemed complete application if the deemed complete application was for more than 10 percent the square footage of the previous structure. The applicant in such case may only build the structure proposed in the deemed complete plans.

Issue No. PF2: Seaward projections. Governor Gavin Newsome’s Executive Order (N-20-25), states that replacement structures may not “expand farther seaward on the beach than the structure or facility” that existed immediately before the 2025 Palisades Fire.

Current Policy: A replacement structure is not allowed to expand farther seaward than the structure that existed before the fire but it may shift previously existing square footage more seaward so long as the area being shifted does not go farther seaward than the structure’s “predominate seaward projection”. MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(7)(c)(1)(b) defines a beachfront structure’s “predominate seaward projection” as “that portion of a structure closest to the ocean, which has a width (i.e., the dimension which is on a plane parallel to the ocean front) at least 30% of the maximum width of the structure.” If one floor is further seaward than another, and the floor that is further seaward meets the definition of “predominate seaward projection”, then the floor that is further landward may extend out to a point no further seaward than the “predominant seaward projection” of the structure but shall still be limited by the stringline rule as required in MMC Section 17.40.040(A)(7)(c). Both the deck and the dwelling are viewed as separate structures.

Issue No. PF3: Are building code required interior accesses on beachfront lots counted towards the 10 percent increase in square footage allowed? With the new FEMA regulations shifting beachfront properties to higher elevations, some property owners may have homes that extend significantly above PCH than before and thus require new interior access staircases to access the home from ground level (Pacific Coast Highway).

Current Policy: An interior access that is required by the building code and is necessitated by the new finished floor requirements based on the FEMA flood elevations will not be counted towards the 10 percent additional square footage allowed for rebuilds.

Issue No. PF4: Governor Gavin Newsom’s Executive Order (N-32-25) states that local jurisdictions within the boundaries of the 2025 Palisades Fire may prohibit or restrict the acceptance and processing of applications under Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 for projects located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Current Policy: The City of Malibu will not accept or process applications under Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 for any project within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within the boundaries of the Palisades areas.

Legislative Record: On September 29, 2025, the City Council reviewed every issue and adopted the corresponding policies.

Malibu City CouncilSeptember 29, 2025

Malibu City Council
September 29, 2025