Agenda packet, special meeting, first session — Malibu City Council, December 17, 2025 (part 1 of 2)

Meeting Agenda
CC251217_AGENDA.PDF
Item 1A
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, Owner, County of Los Angeles; Appellant, Malibu Township Council) CC251217_ITEM 1A.PDF

1. Documents:

2. Documents:

Malibu City Council
Special Meeting Agenda
Wednesday, December 17, 2025
4:30 P.M. – CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
City Hall – Council Chambers
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Zoom Link:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83675270901

GUIDE TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS AND DECORUM
ROLE OF THE PRESIDING OFFICER: The presiding officer of the City Council, who shall be the Mayor, shall be responsible for maintaining the order and decorum of meetings. It shall be the duty of the presiding officer to ensure that these rules of procedure and decorum are followed at all times. The presiding officer shall maintain control of communication between Councilmembers, between the Council and the public, and chair each meeting in a fair and impartial manner. It shall be the duty of each Councilmember to support the presiding officer in maintaining the order and decorum of Council meetings.

On specific agenda items, except for public hearings, Councilmembers may question any person addressing the City Council at the conclusion of all public testimony on that agenda item before the Council. Councilmembers shall not engage any member of the public in a dialogue with themselves other Councilmembers, city staff or other members of the public. Specific rules for public hearings are described in more detail below.

MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE: Members of the audience shall not engage in disorderly or boisterous conduct, including clapping, whistling, stamping of feet, or other acts which disturb, disrupt, impede or otherwise disturb the orderly conduct of the City Council meeting. Persons addressing the City Council shall not engage in disorderly conduct which disrupts, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct or Council meetings. Any person who so disrupts a Council meeting may, at the discretion of the presiding officer or a majority of the City Council, be subject to ejection from that meeting.

MEETING PARTICIPATION: Malibu City Council meetings are held in-person. Members of the public may participate in-person or remotely. In order to participate remotely, you must be present in the Zoom Webinar during the item that you would like to speak on and use the Raise Hand feature to request to speak when the Mayor calls the item. When you join the Zoom Webinar you may see a pop-up asking you to enter an email address, but a valid email address is not required. It is strongly recommended that those who wish to participate do so in person as zoom participation is not guaranteed. While the City intends to allow zoom participation if possible, the meeting will not be cancelled or continued if technical difficulties impact the ability to accept public participation over Zoom. In such case only in-person participation will be allowed.

If you would like to speak in-person, you must complete and submit to the Recording Secretary a Request to Speak form at the meeting prior to the beginning of the item being announced by the Mayor.

Remote and in-person participants will have three (3) minutes to speak on each item on the agenda. For items on City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 2 - December 17, 2025 the agenda, in-person participants may also surrender their time to speak by deferring one (1) minute to another in-person speaker, not to exceed a total of eight (8) minutes. The speaker wishing to defer time must be present when the item is heard and their form must be submitted with the speaker form for the individual they are deferring time to. Speakers are taken in the order slips are submitted or hands are raised.

PUBLIC HEARINGS: For Public Hearings involving land use matters the appellant and applicant will be given 15 minutes each to present their position to the City Council, including rebuttal time. Following the initial presentations from the appellant and applicant and public testimony Councilmembers may address questions to any of the speakers, members of the public in attendance, chairpersons or a designated representative of city commissions, boards or committees, city staff or consultant. Following the question period, the appellant and applicant will have the opportunity to present rebuttal before the public hearing is closed.

Any written comments or audiovisual materials from the applicants, appellants, and/or their representatives, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted ten (10) business days in advance, by 5:00 p.m. on December 3, 2025. Any written comments or audiovisual materials from members of the public, including any that they intend to present at the hearing, must be submitted three (3) business days in advance, by 4:00 p.m. on December 12, 2025. No additional materials from any party or the public will be accepted after these deadlines. All materials should be emailed to [email protected].

VIEW THE MEETING: The meeting will be live streamed at www.malibucity.org/video, www.youtube.com/CityofMalibu, and via Zoom Webinar.

Four-thirty p.m. Regular Session
Call to Order - Mayor
Roll Call - Recording Secretary
Pledge of Allegiance
Report on Posting of Agenda – November 17, 2025
Approval of Agenda

1. Ordinances and Public Hearings
A. 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, Owner, County of Los Angeles; Appellant, Malibu Township Council)
Recommended Action: Consider Resolution No. 25-50 (Exhibit A) and Appeal No. 25-005, determine if the project complies with the Malibu Municipal Code 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).

Staff Contact: Community Development Director Bundy, 456-2489, ext. 229 City Council Special Meeting Agenda Page - 3 - December 17, 2025 Adjournment
Future Meetings
Monday, January 12, 2026 5:30 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting City Hall Council Chambers Monday, January 26, 2026 5:30 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting City Hall Council Chambers Monday, February 9, 2026 5:30 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting City Hall Council Chambers Copies of the staff reports or other written documentation relating to each item of business described above are on file in the office of the City Clerk, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California, and are available for public inspection during regular office hours, which are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Friday. Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's office at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, California (Government Code Section 54957.5.b.2). Copies of staff reports and written materials may be purchased for $0.10 per page.

The City Hall phone number is (310) 456-2489. To contact City Hall using a telecommunication device for the deaf (TDD), please call (800) 735-2929 and a California Relay Service operator will assist you. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Community Development Director Yolanda Bundy, (310) 456-2489, ext. 229. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADD Title II].

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing agenda was posted in accordance with the applicable legal requirements. Regular and Adjourned Regular meeting agendas may be amended up to 72 hours in advance of the meeting. Dated this 17th day of November 2025 at 6:30 p.m.

Kelsey Pettijohn, City Clerk

Page 1 of 2 ends

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 25, 2025 Meeting date: December 17, 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, Owner, County of Los Angeles; Appellant, Malibu Township Council)
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider Resolution No. 25-50 (Exhibit A) and Appeal No. 25-005, determine if the project complies with the Malibu Municipal Code 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).

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

STRATEGIC PRIORITY: This item is part of the day-to-day operations identified in the Adopted FY 2024-25 Strategic Priority Project List.

City Council Meeting
12-17-25
Item

1.A.
1

Page 2 of 2 ends

DISCUSSION: This item was previously scheduled for the September 29, 2025 Regular City Council meeting and continued to a date uncertain. The prior staff report is attached for the Council’s reference. The resolution recitals have been updated to reflect the continuance and required noticing for this hearing. Additionally, correspondence received in connection with the September 29, 2025 hearing is included. No substantive changes have been made to the staff report or resolution.

EXHIBITS:

A. Resolution No. 25-40
B. Correspondence received for September 29, 2025 Council meeting C. Notice of Public Hearing
D. September 29, 2025 City Council meeting Item 5A reports 2 Exhibit 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 address some concerns from the public.

F. 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.

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

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

I. On April 30, 2025, an appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 was filed by the Malibu Township Council.
3 Resolution No 25-50

Page 2 of 8 ends

______________________
J. 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.

K. On September 29, 2025, the City Council continued the item to a date uncertain.

L. On November 13, 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.

M. On December 17, 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 original project, including the proposed height and operation of the ECF tower. The 75-foot-tall tower was included in the original plans analyzed under the Final EIR.

The applicant’s proposed actions 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. Additionally, the EIR was adopted by the City.

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

The appellant contends that the Planning Commission’s decision should not have been granted for numerous reasons. The appellant’s claims are not substantiated by the preponderance of evidence in the record, and the project has been adequately evaluated. The City Council considered all of the evidence in the record, including the two Planning Commission hearings on the matter. The City Council makes the following findings, denying the appeal and approving the project:

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 that the proposed ECF tower will comply with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulations.

A live RF/EME study is required and will be evaluated by the City’s RF/EME consultant prior to operation of the tower to ensure that the built ECF tower remains in compliance with FCC standards.

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, in substantial conformance with the approved CDP. Similarly, the applicant is changing the color of the tower to be compatible with the surrounding environment and removing the lights currently attached to the tower, which brings the tower into substantial conformity with Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30. 4 Resolution No 25-50

Page 3 of 8 ends

______________________
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.

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 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-foot-tall tower and its proposed use were included in the original project materials analyzed under the Final EIR. The applicant’s proposed actions 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. Additionally, the EIR was adopted by the City.

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.

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.

Even if a claim could be made of an unfair or partial hearing, it would be remedied by the City Council decision which is final and de novo.

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 project was not required to be reviewed in compliance with MMC Chapter 17.46 (Wireless Communications Facilities because 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. Staff required an RF/EME report to ensure the City can properly analyze the site for compliance with federal law as it relates to RF/EME safety. The City’s RF/EME consultant will conduct a final inspection and measure the live RF/EME results onsite to ensure compliance with federal law. 5 Resolution No 25-50

Page 4 of 8 ends

______________________
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on December 17, 2025, and pursuant to the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the City Council adopts the findings of fact, denying Appeal No. 25-005, and approves 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 the MMC.

Institutional zones are designated for uses that extend public facilities. The ECF will provide a necessary emergency communication line to inform emergency responders of incoming dangers in an emergency.

2. The existing site already 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 inform 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.

4. The proposed use is compatible with the existing land uses. Existing public infrastructure has been present at the site since before cityhood. The use has helped provide necessary public infrastructure to the surrounding neighborhoods, and 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. The necessary communication lines will expand emergency communications between emergency responders within the City and County.

6. The proposed use will help provide more adequate communication lines related to natural disasters to the City. The improvements will help the existing communication lines be distributed throughout the City and County. The proposed development is designed to preserve views by incorporating colors that allow the tower to blend with the surrounding environment.

7. No changes to the site’s access or circulation for pedestrians or vehicles are proposed. Access will be maintained via public roads shared between the City and the State. Public access is not affected by the proposed use.
6 Resolution No 25-50

Page 5 of 8 ends

______________________

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

10. The proposed use will help enhance emergency communication capabilities within the City. It serves the public interest and provides better resources for patrons related to the safety and welfare of the community.

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 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 to be 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 to be 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.
7 Resolution No 25-50

Page 6 of 8 ends

______________________

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 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 8 Resolution No 25-50

Page 7 of 8 ends

______________________
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. The color shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director 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.

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 in 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. 9 Resolution No 25-50

Page 8 of 8 ends

______________________
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 thereunder.

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 a 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 exist:
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 a natural disaster. c. One or more of the conditions found within this resolution have not been substantially met.

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

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 17th day of December, 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. 10 COUNTY OF Los ANGELES
�©>�{i�.:
l�Ej
September 17 ,2025
City of Malibu City Council
Malibu City Hall
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
ROBERT G. LUNA, SHERU-,F
Re: Response to the Appeal of Condition Use Permit No. 22-004 Dear Honorable Councilmembers:

On April 21, 2025, the Planning Commission approved Resolution No. 25-38 for Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 22-004 to allow an emergency communications facility (ECF) to serve the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sub-Station located within the Santa Monica College - Malibu Campus Project (CUP Approval). On April 30, 2025, the City received an appeal from the Malibu Township Council (Appellant) challenging the City's CUP Approval (Appeal). The following provides responses to the comments, misrepresentations, and unsubstantiated claims presented by the Appellant for your consideration. Additionally, this letter provides additional background information related to the purpose and need of the ECF and the functionality of the equipment to be installed on the ECF.

As you know, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASO) serves as the primary law enforcement agency in Malibu. Its critical mission is to provide public safety services to protect lives and properties. During emergencies (wildfires, mudslides, floods, earthquakes, civil unrest, other critical crises), LASO is the director of emergency operations for the entire County. All resources, both locally and mutual aid from surrounding jurisdictions, come under LASO command and use LASO infrastructure.

During emergencies that occur specifically in Malibu, LASO conducts all evacuations. Efficient radio communications and coordination are essential to protect life and property. Without it, response and evacuation times increase, and safety for first responders decreases.

The former Malibu Sheriff's Station and lattice-style ECF tower were demolished to facilitate the construction of the new SMC-Malibu Campus and LASO/Malibu Sub-Station. During demolition and construction of the SMC-Malibu Campus, radio infrastructure was temporarily installed on the roof of the adjacent Malibu Courthouse in order for LASO to maintain limited radio communications capabilities to field deputies and the Lost Hills Sheriff's Station. 211 WEST TEMPLE STREET, Los ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
� flltadaion
"---,<JJince 1s.;o--.:>
o/ !7e!Wice
Exhibit B
11 The ECF is an integral component of the new LASD Sub-Station that, once operational, will connect to a multi-purpose community activity room within the SMC-Malibu Campus that will be able to convertto an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) for local emergencies. The new Sub-Station and new monopole play essential roles in providing reliable and robust communications facilities and systems for routine LASD operations, Malibu Sub-Station personnel, field deputies, and for first responders in the event of emergencies. Multiple antenna types will be mounted on the ECF to provide connectivity to various radio systems utilized by LASD including dedicated antenna supporting the operation of the EOC. The mounted antennas will be connected to radio consoles at the Malibu Sub-Station, Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station, and Sheriff’s Communications Center, allowing LASD personnel to communicate with local field units, dispatch, operations, and County-wide radio networks. These systems are essential for the coordinated deployment of LASD resources.

Before addressing the specific comments and issues raised in the Appeal, it should be noted that the Appeal is presented under the misleading assumption that the proposed ECF is a new project that wasillegally installed without prior approval. The ECF is an approved project under Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No.13-056 and Height Variance No. 13-045 (subject to the approval of a CUP) and isreplacing a former legal non-conforming lattice-style communications tower that had existed in the Civic Center for several decades before its removal in 2021. The height and location of the replacement ECF was thoroughly analyzed in the SMC-Malibu Campus Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and all of the required environmental findings were made by the City of Malibu Planning Commission and City Council in 2016. While the ECF was installed prior to the issuance of the CUP, the County proactively responded to the City’s concerns and has made several changes to the design of the ECF’s monopole to conform to the City’s requests, including but not limited to: lowering the height of the ECF to ensure thatall antenna and equipment are below the 75 foot height limit, adhering to the recommended color scheme, eliminating lighting and marking, and limiting the use of the ECF to the LASD operations by eliminatingthe approved wireless communication capabilities. Additionally, the Appellant’s challenges related to the height and location of the ECF are not within the scope of the CUP Approval. Pursuant to M.M.C. Section

17.66.080, the basis of the CUP approval is limited to the findings enumerated in M.M.C. Section17.66.080, which were made as part of City Resolution No. 25-38.

Appeal Issues and ResponsesProvided below is a restatement of the comments that were provided in the Appeal filed by the Malibu Township Council. Following each comment is a detailed response providing justification for the City Council to deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP No. 22-004. 12 Appeal Letter No. 1 - Malibu Township Council -Jo Drummond Comment 1: 1. Unstudied Regional Use and Emissions Impact: The tower was approved solely for the sheriffs substation, but it was revealed-unexpectedly and without documentation in thestaff report-that its actual use is to connect with regional towers. This use was never studiedin the EIR. As a result, the tower emits over 5,000% above safe limits directly through the college toward Saddle Peak. This critical issue was not raised during the hearing, and thecommission was not given the opportunity to address it. The tower should have beendenied for lack of proper independent, peer reviewed health and safety studies on radiation exposure and environmental review.

Response 1: The Appellant’s claim that the ECF’s connection to regional towers was never studied in the EIR is incorrect. Neither the Draft EIR, nor the City’s Approval of CDP 13-056 made any referencesor claims that the demolition and relocation of the County’s existing ECF would be for the sole use of the Sheriff’s Sub-Station or that the ECF would not connect to regional communication facilities. To the contrary, the Draft EIR included a detailed description of cellular service providers that were co-located on the then existing legal non-conforming ECF tower. The Draft EIR described the proposed emergency communication’s facility as follows:
“The communications tower is owned and operated by the County of Los Angeles and serves as the primary communications tower for emergency services for the Malibu community. The communications tower also supports commercial cellular microwave antenna for local cellular service providers. Verizon currently maintains satellite communication equipment on the existing communications tower through a license with the County of Los Angeles. The communications tower is located immediately adjacent to the west side of the existing Sheriff’s Department building (see Figure 2.18, Emergency Communications Tower — Conceptual Rendering).

As part of the Proposed Project, the existing communications tower will be relocated and reconstructed on-site approximately 10-20 feet to the west of its current location. The existing tower lies within the proposed footprint of the new educational facility and is in need of structuralrepair and upgrades. The new communications tower will consist of a monopole design to a maximum height of 75-feet above grade, approximately five feet higher than the existing tower.

The height and location of the monopole communications tower is depicted in the Building Elevations in Figures 2.8 through 2. II. The final design and tower specifications must beapproved by the County of Los Angeles Internal Services Department (ISD). It is anticipated that the existing Verizon communication equipment will be relocated and included on the proposedcommunications tower and would continue to operate under the terms of Verizon’s license withthe County of Los Angeles.” (See Draft EIR at pages 2-10 and 2-28) 13 Furthermore, in approving the CDP for the SMC-Malibu Campus Project, the City Planning Commission encouraged the co-location of wireless telecommunications facilities on the ECF. Condition No. 85 in City Planning Commission Resolution 16-30 states: “The co-location of wireless telecommunicationsfacilities pursuant to M.M.C. Section 17.46.090 shall be required whenever feasible.” Thus, the appellant’s claim that the EIR did not study the regional use of the ECF is incorrect.Notwithstanding the above disclosure in the Draft EIR and the Approved CDP 13-056, which expressly authorize the co-location of wireless communication carriers on the ECF, the County voluntarily proposed an amendment to the City’s resolution limiting the use of the ECF to the “County of Los Angeles for the purpose of the County providing emergency communications for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.” Specifically, Malibu Planning Commission Resolution 25-38 included thefollowing motion to amend Condition of Approval 18 as follows:

18. Any wireless communication carrier IlluoL obtain City approval before attempting collocate on this tower. Collocation without City approval will result in a violation permit. 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 Sheriffs Department. This restriction prevents detrimental aesthetic effects that would resultrelated to increased height or massing, wh were not evaluated in the Coastal Development Permit approving the original design and height of the tower. The property owner shallsubmit the proposed deed restriction to the City for review and approval prior to recordation to ensure conformity with this condilion. Following City approval, the deed restriction shallbe recorded without delay and before usepjiKe tower commences.

The assertion that the ECF emits over 5,000% above safe limits directly through the college towardSaddle Peak is incorrect and misrepresents the findings presented in the Electromagnetic Energy (EME) Compliance Report that was submitted to the City and included in the Planning Commissions Supplemental Agenda Report dated April 17, 2025. The EME Compliance Report, prepared by SiteSafe, dated December 13, 2024, concluded that the ECF will be located and operated in such a manner that it would not pose a potential threat to public health. Specifically, page 7 of the EME Compliance Report found that the Radio Frequency (RF) levels will be below 100% of the General Public MaximumPermissible Exposure (MPE) limits as denoted in the green area in the figure below. 14 Composite View
“Note: The RI emissions (green) shown on the ground/rooftops in the diagram are the spatially averaged cumulative emissions on said surfaces produced by the antennas on the nearby monopole. The gray RI emissions are the spatiallyaveraged cumulative emissions of less than 5%.“Note: For the antennas modeled, the areas shown in yellow and blue are exceeding exposure limits for thegeneral public, and areas in green or gray are withincompliance. Please see Appendix D, Section 6for additional information.

Study Zone
Rooftop
Giour4
• County of Los Angeles
Legend
Elev. (ft) Type Exposure Profile
35,7 Floor 2D Suta9 GP 0.5 res

0.0 20 SuTa9 GP 5.0 r
Mitiqation Provc — ‘ii 3 Ic To Rccvc Max MPE
5%-t0O% l0O%-500%
Max MPE AU Carriers

99.03% 0.00 County of Los...
0 0.00 Counts cf Loc.,,
‘.:ix.

ExpoiweProfileName Model ExpowreAira Standatd Reolutlon RCF 2D Sula9 GP 03 yes Sula 9 Spatial Average (6 ft) FCC General Population 0.5 ft3 1.0 D Suo GP 5.0 r uIe Q A re 6 l FCC G.nri& PopIton 5.0 ItS 1.0 Grid Size: 25.00 feet Floor - Elevation .6’ I Midlevel - Elevation 4/ 3’ 15 Further, it should be noted that the EME study requirement for wireless telecommunications facilities (M.M.C. Chapter 3, Section 3.16) is not required for emergency communication facilities pursuant to the M.M.C. Chapter 3, Section 17.02.06, however the County prepared and submitted the SiteSafe EME Compliance Report at the request of the City to address community concerns.

Comment 2: 2. Improper Siting and Height Violation: The tower is currently over the height limit of what was approved (75 ft) due to its location in a floodplain. A simple solution-movingit behind the sheriff’s station and lowering it by three feet-this will reduce radiation exposure to the students and faculty.

Response 2: The Appellant’s assertion that the ECF tower is over the 75-foot height limit due to its location in a floodplain is incorrect. The historic courthouse building, library building, and the former lattice-style ECF tower were originally constructed above the flood plain elevation. The height of the new ECF is measured from the base of the structure at the same finished floor elevation and adjacent grade as the new SMC-Malibu Campus building, the existing courthouse building, and the former latticestyle ECF tower, which were elevated above the flood plain level when they were originally constructed.

As addressed in the EIR, the basis for measuring structural height is the adjacent grade, not natural grade level. As stated in the record for the Approved CDP, “[Tjhe project must comply with M.M.C. Chapter

15.20, which requires that all structures in Zone AO be elevated above the highest adjacent grade to a height equal to or exceeding the depth number specified in feet on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM) by at least 1 foot, or elevated at least 3 feet above the highest adjacent grade if no depth numberis specified. The proposed project includes the construction of a commercial structures with the proposed building pads raised three feet above the flood hazard elevation in order to meet FEMA and M.M.C.

Floodplain Management requirements. Due to these site constraints and consistent with the way thereferenced building heights are for other structures within the Civic Center, the basis for measuringstructural height is the adjacent grade, not natural grade level.” As discussed in the alternatives analysiswithin the EIR, the Project Site’s location within the flood zone prohibits lowering the finished gradelevel of the building’s footprint. An elevation certificate was submitted and approved by the City in the construction documents to confirm the base flood elevation of the structure on the site including the building and the ECF. This was then confirmed with a post construction survey that has since beensubmitted to the City. Furthermore, it should be noted that the issue of determining the height of the Proposed project was raised on appeal to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) in 2016.’ Pursuant to the CCC’s determination, the Malibu Township Council’s appeal was denied and the City’s approval of CDP 13-054 and Height Variance No. 13-045 was upheld.

Comment 3: 3. Insufficient Notice and Public Input: Opponents had only three days to prepare for the hearing while the County had much longer time to prepare. This limited timeframesignificantly impacted the community’s ability to respond effectively and reflects a procedural lapse and irregularity.

California Coastal Commission, Addendum to Item Thl7a, Appeal No. A-4-MAL-16-0049 (Santa Monica College, Malibu) For the Commission Meeting of June 6. 2016. https://documents.coasial.ca.gov/reports/2016/6/Thl7a-6-2016.pdf, at pp. 2, 40 and 45. 16 Response 3: The public notice and opportunity for public input for the April 21, 2025, City Planning Commission hearing was conducted in accordance with the City of Malibu’s policies and procedures. The City’s Planning Commission meeting held on April 21, 2025, was the second City Planning Commission hearing for CUP 22-004. The first City Planning Commission hearing was held on June 3, 2024. As such the Appellant had ample opportunity to review and comment on the project, as evident in the Appellant’s participation and testimony at both hearings.

Comment 4: 4. Transparency and Accountability: The discrepancies in height and lack of required studies in the EIR indicates non-compliance and the lack of legal or procedural transparency standards with the planning commission improperly forcing the recusal of one commissioner.

Response 4: The Appellant’s assertion is unsubstantiated and not related to the scope of the CUP findings. Additionally, the recusal of one sitting Planning Commissioner did not affect the hearing process as the five sitting members of the Planning Commission were enough to meet the quorumrequirements for a public hearing. As noted in the Malibu Planning Commission Meeting Minutes forhearing held on April 21, 2025, six commissioners were in attendance, including Chair Skylar Peak, Vice Chair Drew Leonard. Commissioners Marni Kamins, John G. Mazza, and Elizabeth Riddick. Of the sixcommissioners present, only one (Commissioner Marni Kamins), recused herself on the basis that she had not had time to review the meeting minutes and video recording of the June 3, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting. The Motion to Approve the CUP was therefore lawfully passed with a 4-I vote.Comment 5: 5. EIR Deficiencies: The EIR only analyzed emissions for substation communication, not for the broader emergency network across the Santa Monica Mountains. In its current location, all signals-whether for emergencies or daily operations-would unnecessarily beam through the college, creating unacceptable risks and a cumulative impact.

Response 5: The Appellant’s claim that emissions associated with a broader communications network across the Santa Monica Mountains were not evaluated is incorrect. The ECF will operate for the purpose of the County providing emergency communications for the LASD. The County of Los Angeles encompasses 88 incorporated cities and over 100 unincorporated areas within a total land area of 4,084 square miles. LASD is the director of emergency operations for the entire County. During critical emergencies (wildfires, mudslides, floods, earthquakes, civil unrest, etc.), all resources, both local and mutual aid from surrounding jurisdictions, come under LASD command and use LASD infrastructure.

The operation of the Sheriff’s Sub-Station and EOC necessitates emergency communications withemergency responders within the City of Malibu and throughout the region.

The new ECF is a like-for-like replacement of the old ECF tower, but without the former commercial wireless communication equipment. The ECF tower is designed to current structural standards addressing structural safety concerns, building code requirements, and providing modern technology for placement of updated communication devices. The new ECF will be equipped with antennas that willallow it to access the Los Angeles Regional Interoperability Communications System (LA-RICS) 17 network via the towers at Saddle Peak, then communicate with Lost Hills Station, other LASD stations, and other LASD field personnel.

All applicable Federal Communications Commission (FCC) licenses for the microwave dishes andantennas have been coordinated, and confirm that the emergency communications facility will operatewithin FCC permissible RF exposure limits. As noted above, an EME Compliance Report is not required by the M.M.C. but was voluntarily submitted to the City in February 2024 in response to the Planning Department’s request. The EME Compliance Report was reviewed and approved by the City’s third-party wireless consultant for compliance with all applicable codes and safety standards. The EME Compliance Report was subsequently amended in December 2024 to address the changes to the ECF made in response to the Planning Commission’s comments. As concluded in the EME Compliance Report dated December 13, 2024, the ECF will be located and operated in such a manner that it would not pose a potential threat to public health. As noted on page 11 of the EME Compliance Report, the RF safety diagrams were basedon the operation of 19 antenna and microwave devices. The EME Compliance Report conservativelyassumed that all antennas would be operating at full power at all times. Software modeling was performed for all transmitting antennas located on the site. The EME Compliance Report further assumed a 100% duty cycle and maximum radiated power, which represents a conservative and worst-case analysis, basedon the best available data. Thus, the Appellant’s claim that only local emissions were evaluated is incorrect.

Comment 6. 6. Failure to Include Public Health Expert Testimony: No public health or environmental safety experts were consulted to assess the broader implications of the tower’s siting and usage.

Response 6: The EME Compliance Report was authored by SiteSafe, an independent RF regulatory and consulting firm, which determined that the proposed ECF and its antennas were compliant with FCC rules and regulations upon completion of remediation that consist of the installation of signage at the ECF. Furthermore, as a Condition of Approval, operation of the ECF shall be in full compliance with the FCC Rules and Regulations for RF exposure. All applicable FCC licenses for the microwave equipmenthave been coordinated by the County. Notwithstanding the fact that an EME Compliance Report is notrequired by the M.M.C. for the ECF, one was submitted, reviewed, and approved by the City’s thirdparty wireless consultant for compliance with all applicable codes and safety standards.Comment 7. 7. Lack of Due Process: The commission failed to engage the opposition with questions. particularly on this agenda item. This recurring issue fuels unnecessary appeals.Commissioner Marni Kamins was also not properly briefed, preventing her from votingor questioning the opposition-missing a key opportunity to clarify the project’s flaws.

Response 7: See response to Comment 4, above.Comment 8. Failure to Consider Alternatives: Multiple alternative locations and designs and other communications options were never studied, despite formal requests to the County.There are satellite and radio options that work all the way to Catalina Island with a repeater. There is also the temporary pole at the Malibu library and not as high or 18 invasive a pole at the sheriffs station. If alternative technologies could provide equal or better emergency communication without community risks, then why is this being overlooked? It is not too late to consider them.

Response 8: The location of the ECF is consistent with the location depicted on the site plans for theapproved CDP 13-056. The CUP merely confirms that the proposed ECF is constructed and operated in accordance with the approved plans and Conditions of Approval. As such the Appellant’s comments regarding alternatives are not within the scope of the CUP findings. Nevertheless, for informational purposes, it should be noted that the County has explored alternative locations for the ECF, such as county fire stations. However, these locations present similar, if not more significant, challenges, including space limitations for accommodating the ECF and the impact on the surrounding neighborhoods, both residential and commercial. Any alternative location consideration would constitute a brand new projectrequiring a feasibility study, amended or recirculated EIR, Coastal Development Permit, and other associated permits by City of Malibu and other agencies. Establishing an emergency communicationsfacility at an alternative site does not eliminate the need for the tower at its current location, which is essential for supporting the LASD Sub-Station and EOC operations. Additionally, there is no temporary pole at the Malibu Hbrary; instead, there is a roof-mounted antenna that cannot support the operations of the LASD Sub-Station. The antenna mounted on the courthouse was constructed and installed astemporary interim infrastructure during construction of the Sub-Station to facilitate radio coverage in andaround the Civic Center property. It will not support the station’s EOC operation. Further, this temporaryinfrastructure is highly susceptible to damage and failure as it is not built to the specifications for hardened public safety communications infrastructure and will not support LASD dispatch communications systems when the system is upgraded to connect to LA-RICS. The new ECF is structurally engineered to withstand high winds and earthquakes. The ECF is equipped with an emergency back-up power source in order to remain operational during public-safety-power-shutdownevents, unplanned and/or scheduled outages.

The LASD operates a vast radio network that must function across all field units. A standaloneconfiguration just for the Malibu Sub-Station is insufficient. When units from other parts of the Countyrespond to emergencies in Malibu, such as disasters, wildfires, civil unrest, and landslides, those unitswill not be able to communicate effectively.

Moreover, satellite technology does not meet the in-building communication needs of first responders.

The LASD radio network already includes facilities on Catalina Island to address the challenging terrain of the Malibu coast and the Santa Monica Mountains. There is not a single site that can fulfill the publicsafety communication needs of first responders serving the Malibu community.It is important to note that the requirements for public safety communications differ from those of commercial carriers. The key concerns for public safety communications are survivability, reliability, and redundancy, as demonstrated during the recent Palisades and Eaton fires. First responders were able tooperate without interruption, while commercial carrier customers experienced service losses. As notedabove, the height of the ECF was designed to accommodate County radio infrastructure and is required to clear terrain and building obstacles to connect to adjacent antennas. 19 Comment 9. 9. Non-Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act: The EIR failed to study broader regional impacts or alternatives and this is a violation of CEQA’s standards for comprehensive environmental review.

Response 9: A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the SMC-Malibu Campus Project was prepared and certified by the Santa Monica College (SMC) Board of Trustees, as the designated lead agency on January 13, 2016, along with aStatement of Overriding Considerations. On February 29, 2016, the City of Malibu Planning Commissionapproved CDP No. 13-056 for the SMC-Malibu Campus which included the Sheriff Sub-Station, the EOC, and the ECF. On April 11, 2016, the City Council approved an increase in floor area ratio from

0.15 to 0.20 for the significant public benefits. This Project involved a multi-jurisdiction review and approval by various local, state, and federal agencies including SMC, the City of Malibu, the County of Los Angeles, the Department of State Architect’s Office, and the CCC before the issuance of the relevant building permits. The Final EIR included the same plans for the emergency communications facility that were submitted for the original CDP application.

Comment 10: Saddle Peak, as it is the first firefighter deployment zone, is not at risk of burning so this excuse for requiring this second tower is ingenuous. Malibu, in contrast, remains vulnerable and should be prioritized the same way by the County and not left to fend for ourselves time and time again.

We are open to resolving this and withdraw our formal appeal if the County agrees to move the tower behind the sheriff station and reduce its height by at minimum 3 feet to prevent direct radiation through the college and area. Please let us know if you’re able tohelp negotiate this change.

A CDPA (amendment) is also needed because the planning commission made changesand additions to the physical tower and its security. The Planning Commission requireda change in color (not a use) but also required a security fence or other security measurewhich is a change that is not a use but adding a structure.

Response 10: As noted above, the location of the ECF was evaluated in the Draft EIR and was approvedas noted on the site plan for CDP 13-056. The location of the ECF is not within the scope of the CUP approval process. The proposed color scheme and security measures issues approved during the CUP process do not trigger the need for a CDP amendment, as the CDP approval was conditioned on the Applicant obtaining a CUP to specifically address these issues. As noted in the conditions of approval in Resolution No. 25-38, the County will be required to submit a security plan to the City. Security installation requirements will be a coordinated effort with the City, such as installing a locking cover at the base of the ECF to prevent tampering and ensure that any ladder rungs on the monopole are notaccessible without the use of a ladder. No changes to the intended use, location, or height of the ECF arebeing proposed that would necessitate an amendment to the Approved CDP or Height Variance.Furthermore, the Appellant’s suggestion to relocate the tower behind the Sheriff’s Sub-Station is notfeasible due to the minimum distance requirement to the location of the main communication room that 20 must be maintained to ensure proper performance. Furthermore, it would require new FAA review, new FCC licensing, and would likely trigger additional marking and lighting requirements as the tower wouldbe located closer to the existing helipad.Comment 11: Also, the height was measured incorrectly as we’ve stated multiple times that it wasn’t from the lowest natural or finished grade and is at least 3 feet above what was approved so it should require a variance for the height. This is something the city council will NOTignore and never let something that requires a variance sneak by.

Response 11: See response 2 above.Comment 12: Marni Kamins also should have been allowed to participate in the hearing given Elizabeth Riddick did and stated that she barely watched the first hearing/s. Both should have been instructed to watch before this came to the planning commission - this is the problem with not getting the staff report out within the required 10-day notice, [sic] If there’s anything that the City can do to avoid delay and wasting the staffs and city council’s time with this application and appeal it would be very helpful.

Response 12: The April 21, 2025, Planning Commission hearing was lawfully conducted in accordancewith the M.M.C. and the Planning Commission polices. It should also be noted that the April 21, 2025 Planning Commission was the second hearing for this CUP Application. Based on feedback from thePlanning Commission at the June 2024 Planning Commission hearing, the County voluntarily agreed to lower the height of the monopole to conform to the Planning Commissioner’s interpretation of how to measure height (i.e., from grade level to the top of the tower inclusive of any antenna and attached equipment), and agreed to paint the ECF in a neutral color scheme acceptable to the Planning Commission. With these revisions, the proposed ECF is in complete conformance with the approvedCDP and Height Variance, and no amendment to the approved CDP or Height Variance is required.

Comment 13: Amendment/addition to appeal for 23525 Civic Center Way The Appeal should also include: FRAUD and BAD FAITH, concealment of facts and intended uses,because the processing of the application AS IF compliant with the CDP, when the CDP neither:Applicant was required to send exact, true, and complete information on the location, specification,height, and proposed use of the Antenna Pole. Applicant committed fraud by act and omission, falserepresentations, and careless or intentional misrepresentation of material fact in the information for the CDP issued in 2016.

1. Applicant concealed it intended uses for microwave relaying to multiple similar antenna structures beyond the study area of the Environmental Impact Report. Applicant deliberatelywithheld the specifications and intended uses from disclosure and environmental review to conceal the defective CDP Application and Permit for the Applicant’s intended uses of theantenna pole. 21 Response 13: As addressed in response to Comment I above, the EIR disclosed the intended use of the ECF, which is a like-for-like replacement facility for the prior legal non-confirming communicationsfacility owned and operated by the County of Los Angeles. The prior ECF served as the primary communications facility for emergency services for the Malibu community and operated at this location for several decades. The equipment to be installed on the new ECF will operate in the same manner as the antennas and point-to-point microwave dishes on the former ECF. The EIR also disclosed the fact that the former ECF also supported commercial cellular microwave antenna for local cellular service providers. However, the Applicant has voluntarily agreed to limit the use of the ECF to support emergency communications for the LASD.

Comment 14: 2. Applicant deliberately constructed without a building permit because Applicant knew that Applicant failed to comport or comply with the multiple requirements stipulated asConditions of the CDP. Already in violation, and Applicant knowingly in violation byNotice from the City of same, willfully, and deliberately, continued to construct the noncompliant structure of Applicant’s choosing and located the structure improperly, thus creating a Code Enforcement case from the City of Malibu as the local jurisdictionenforcing the Local Coastal Program’s limitations and the Coastal Development Permitand the Conditions thereof.

Response 14: The City of Malibu is not the authority having jurisdiction for the issuance of a building permit for the ECF. Other state and regional agencies noted previously were the authority having jurisdiction of the review and issuance of the building permits for this project. The ECF was constructed per the approved plans. The construction of the ECF in advance of the County obtaining the CUP in compliance with Condition No. 17 of the CDP was addressed in the Planning Commission’s Supplemental Agenda Report, dated April 17, 2025. In accordance with the City’s LCP, the City issued a notice to comply to the County to resolve this issue. The Planning Commission has the discretion to issue a retroactive CUP to ensure the Project is in conformance with the conditions of the CDP approval.

With approval of CUP 22-004, the proposed ECF is now in full compliance with the CDP.

Comment 15: 3.The Environmental Impact Report utilized for 2016 Coastal Development Permit did not evaluate the proposed antenna pole structure’s compliance to the Local Coastal Program and local law.

Response 15: The City of Malibu made all of the requisite findings required for CDP No. 13-056, VAR No. 14-034 for the SMC-Malibu Campus Project which included the Sheriff Sub-Station, the EOC, andthe ECF. The approved CUP does not require any amendments to the CDP. As such, this comment is notrelative the CUP application, which merely confirms that the ECF conforms to the CDP requirements and conditions of approval.

Comment 16: 4. Applicant has reluctantly revealed — not in 2014-2015 the intensified uses that it seeks — but only reveals the Intensification of Uses after getting caught by City, interested public, and Appellant, for “future-proofing” to include uses not specified in addition to the intensified uses discovered via the current applications for CUP and the 22 work-around CDP “variance”. Appellant asserts that “variance” is not applicable to amend a Coastal Development Permit that was obtained by fraud and for which environmental review was intentionally omitted by Applicant’s concealment of the intended intensification of uses, increase of height, commercial component (leasing to third party cell phone company Verizon Wireless and/or others), modified location, and in view from scenic areas and public streets. Applicant deceived the City Planning Department and Planning Commissioners by verbally stating during the June 3, 2024, CUP Hearing
Response 16: The proposed ECF was thoroughly disclosed and evaluated in the EIR for the SMC-Malibu Campus Project that was certified in 2016. The certified EIR specifically described the former ECF as including emergency communications equipment for the County and commercial carriers including a lease to Verizon. The certified EIR disclosed the potential for additional carriers to be added to the ECF.

Notwithstanding the current approvals, which permit leasing to third-party cell phone providers, the County has voluntarily proposed modifications to the conditions of approval that would limit the use ofthe ECF to LASD uses.

Comment 17: 5. The City did not evaluate the as-built antenna to conform to public health and safety standards required by State and local laws.

Response 17: Condition 89 requires the Applicant/Property Owner shall provide to the Planning Department a field report prepared by a qualified engineer verifying that the unit has been inspected, tested, and is operating in compliance with FCC standards. Such documentation requires the Applicant to identify the make and model (or other identifying information) of the unit tested, the date and time ofthe inspection, and a certification that the unit is properly installed and working within applicable FCC standards. This information was included in the EME Compliance Report prepared by SiteSafe, dated December 13, 2024, and attached to the Planning Commission’s Supplemental Agenda Report, dated April 17, 2025. All applicable FCC licenses for the proposed microwave dishes and antennas have beencoordinated and confirmed that the ECF will operate within FCC permissible RF exposure limits.

The standard industry practice for reserving frequencies is to work through a third-party frequency coordinator to ensure that the newly proposed path will not interfere with existing users in the neighboring vicinity or on adjacent towers. Technical design details are vetted, including but not limited to: antenna characteristics, modulation and channels in service, transmit powers, etc. The FCC assures that any new coordinated and licensed path falls within pre-determined guidelines. Additionally, users agree to follow all relevant FCC rules and regulations.

Comment 18: 6. The City did not evaluate the Zoning Conformance to the applicable current Wireless Telecommunications Facility codes consequentially in effect after the expiration of Applicant’s option to apply for permits for I) to construct the pole, and 2) uses of thepole as a radio frequency transmitting and receiving antenna. The option to include and construct the pole expired approximately 2018. A pole was constructed approximately four years after the Applicant’s right to apply for antenna pole construction and wireless 23 transmission uses expired. The pole structure was constructed illegally in 2022.

Applicant tripled down on its violations because Applicant was informed and aware thatit had no right to construct anything and that a new CDP was required.

Response 18: The Appellant’s assertion that there was an “option” to apply for permits to operate theECF and that said “option” expired in 2018 is incorrect and not based on any applicable code requirements. The approval of the ECF was granted in 2016 subject to the County applying for a CUPprior to its construction. The issue of the ECF being constructed prior to the issuance of the CUP wasaddressed and remedied in the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP 22-004.

Furthermore, the ECF is not a “wireless telecommunications facility” as defined in the M.M.C. Theproposed CUP application is for the operation of an “Emergency Communications Service and Facility” and is limited to emergency communications only and will not include any commercial wireless telecommunications equipment. As noted above, and in revised Condition No. 18 of the Approved CUP,the County has voluntarily proposed a condition to limit the use of the ECF to official LASD emergency operations. This limitation will be enforced through a deed restriction on the property.

Comment 19: 7. Applicant is, and was, ineligible to apply for a conditional use permit for an illegal structure. The structure fails to comply to the Malibu Municipal Code standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in effect in 2022. Such requirements include stealth integration into building structure or roof and/or full mitigation of facility (such as a fake tree), limitation on height to 28-feet, alternative site location analysis, signal coverageand wave propagation for each radio frequency proposed for use, fall-zone radius conflict impact map and analysis report, and safety and electrical compliance specifications and reports.

Response 19: The ECF is not a wireless communications facility. See response to comment 18, above.Comment 20: 8. Preferential and Special Treatment. Applicant required Zoning Clearance prior to applying for building and safety building permit to construct the antenna pole. Further,Applicant needed Zoning Clearance and building and safety department inspectionpermit approval for an antenna pole PRIOR TO constructing the structure. The City confirms that the structure constructed by the Applicant was without permit and exceeds approvable height, color, and holds flashing exterior red lights atop the illegal pole.

Removal of illegally-constructed pole is necessary to enforce the requirements of the CDP’s conditions, Malibu Municipal Code, and to demonstrate the no special privilegeor advantage is afforded to the Applicant whether obtained by trickery, falsestatements, in violation of the express Conditions of CDP, and absent the requiredpermits. Applicant is a government agency and invoked political intervention, politicalinfluence, and exacted special meeting with the highest administrative staff of the City of Malibu to conduct, in concert, alternative workarounds to effect reactivation of a 4-year expired option to apply for building and Conditional Use Permits under preferential and reduced restrictions. City effected preliminary strategy and likelihood of 24 “recommend” status by City to special “variance” strategy which constitute advocacy and gamesmanship to the public process. The private meetings between political officials and City staff were conducted without Notice to the public to attend, or comment, yet included the designated Planning Director designated by law to interpret intent and requirements for application and to make determinations such as changes determine tobe of substantial conformance, substantially similar, of appropriate color or camouflagematerial, and interpretations of “meaning” of the Conditions of approval of the 2016 CUP.

Response 20: The Appellant’s assertions regarding preferential and special treatment are completelyspeculative and unsupported by any evidence. The City’s enforcement of the conditions of approval for CDP 13-056 was conducted in accordance with the M.M.C. and was remedied by the approval of CUP 22-004. It should be noted that despite the fact that the County constructed the ECF in accordance with the same plans and diagrams that were approved under CDP 13-056, the Planning Director requested additional corrective actions due to a revised interpretation of how to measure the height of the tower and preferences to remove lights and modify the color scheme. The County has modified these items tothe satisfaction of the Planning Commission.Comment 21: 9. Applicant was not entitled to a CUP Hearing because the physical structure was not approvable under the CDP issued in 2016 for a structure illegally constructed in 2022.Applicant is required to apply for a Coastal Development Permit for the Antenna Pole and meet current development standards.

Response 21: Contrary to the Appellant’s assertion, CDP 13-054 approved and authorized the construction of the ECF subject to the approval of a CUP. See Planning Commission Resolution No. 16- 30, Section 6, Approval of Entitlements (on page 16 of 50). The ECF was constructed per the approved plans.

Comment 22: 10. The interconnected use to more than ONE off-site microwave interconnection which appears to be an adopted or established plan of Los Angeles County was concealed fromrequired Environmental Impact Report review.

Response 22: All equipment proposed to be located on the ECF was identified on the approved plans and analyzed voluntarily in the EME Compliance Report and attached to the City Planning Commission’sSupplemental Agenda Report, dated April 17, 2025. The statement that this equipment was concealedfrom review in the EIR is incorrect. The ECF and the list of antennas were identified in the Draft EIR.(See Draft EIR at pages Figure 2.18, Emergency Communications Tower - Conceptual Rendering).

Furthermore, Condition No. 79 of the Approved CDP requires that all antennas shall meet the minimumsiting distances to habitable structures required for compliance with the FCC regulations and standardsgoverning the environmental effects of RF emissions. The EME Compliance Report provides documentation that the antennas are compliant with this condition.

Comment 23: 11. Serial development by adding uses desired, known, anticipated, and applied-for to other regulatory agencies that EXCEED the limitations on potential development as 25 Conditioned by the 2016 CDP.

Response 23: As noted in response to Comment I and CUP Condition No 18, above, the County voluntarily requested an amendment to the City’s proposed conditions limiting the use of the ECF to the “County of Los Angeles for the purpose of the County providing emergency communications for the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department.”
Comment 24: 12. Professional malfeasance for failure to implement simple English interpretation meaning without inquiry or determination by the Planning Director as required by Condition of the CDP, LCP, and Malibu Municipal Code. Professional malfeasance for failure to implement simple arithmetic measurement determination from the known“grade”/natural grade-elevation of the then-existing antenna tower’s location.

Response 24: See response 2, above. As addressed in the EIR, the basis for measuring structural heightis the adjacent grade, not natural grade level. The City of Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) LocalImplementation Plan (LIP) specifies that the maximum height limit shall be measured from existing or finished grade, whichever results in a lower height. Furthermore, as noted in response to comment 2,above, the issue of measuring height was raised on appeal to the CCC, where the CCC confirmed the City’s approach in measuring height from the adjacent grade and not the historic floodplain level.

Comment 25: The CDP was for a school. The OPTION for the Applicant/Los Angeles County to apply for a structural building permit and Antenna Use permit are stipulations within the CDP that the Applicant did not exercise prior to timing-out. There is no way to retroactivelyremove the CDP conditions without modifying the CDP via Amendment --which wasnot Noticed nor could the PC do so.

The existence of Code Violation was mostly covered up by agreement between theApplicant and City Staff. The pole should have been removed in 2022 upon the as-built survey required by Mollica (and the Applicants attestation to FAA of elevations, Latitude/Longitude Coordinates, and both structure and appurtenance heights.

Response 25: The Appellant’s assertion that the CDP was limited to the school and that the antenna usepermit was an option to apply for is not correct. CDP No. 13-056 for the SMC-Malibu Campus included the operation of the Sheriff Sub-Station, EOC, and the ECF. The condition to obtain a CUP is to comply with the M.M.C. requirements for the operation of the ECF in conformance with the approved CDP. The approval of the CUP, although issued retroactively after the ECF was constructed, does not require anamendment to the approved CDP or Height Variance No. 24-006 that was previously approved in 2016.

The Appellant’s assertion that the existence of a Code Violation was covered up by agreement between the Applicant and City Staff is unsubstantiated and contrary to the public record. The Planning Commission Agenda Report dated April 17, 2025, disclosed the fact that the ECF had been installed inearly 2023 without satisfying condition No. 17 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30, which states “Prior to construction of the replacement communications tower, the property owner, Los Angeles County, shall obtain a conditional use permit for the emergency communications facility use.” See page 26 2 of the Supplemental Commission Agenda Report, dated April 17, 2025.

Conclusion
In closing, the County of Los Angeles urges the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the approval of CUP 22-004 and looks forward to continuing our long-standing emergency services to the City of Malibu.

Sincerely,

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
a body corporate and politic

LOS ANGELES SHERIFF DEPARTMENT
By:�<:..--<.. --
Name: DUSTIN CARR #531568
Its: CM!TMt,\J MA-LIi&> }um:/flUS STATIO,i

INTERNAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT
By_: _______ _ _ _
Name: ________ _ _ _
Its: ___ ___________
FESIAA. DAVENPORT
Chief Executive Officer
By:

Name: __Joyce Chang _____
Its: __Senior Manager, CEO_____
c: Supervisor Lindsey Horvath
Candace Bond
Patrick Achis
Fletcher Allen
Tyler Eaton
Mirian S. Avalos
ITS General Manager
Mirian Avalos (Sep 19, 2025 11:55:14 PDT)
27 SMC-Malibu Emergency Communications
Tower - Signed
Final Audit Report 2025-09-19
Created: 2025-09-19
By: Laura Guillermo ([email protected])
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAnaATkGzwNXfKtwaGUiK2ZGOPC2wYXKDL "SMC-Malibu Emergency Communications Tower - Signed" Hist ory
Document created by Laura Guillermo ([email protected]) 2025-09-19 - 6:50:21 PM GMT- IP address: 170.85.55.13
Document emailed to Mirian Avalos ([email protected]) for signature 2025-09-19 - 6:51:39 PM GMT
Email viewed by Mirian Avalos ([email protected]) 2025-09-19 - 6:51:48 PM GMT- IP address: 62.10.205.18
Document e-signed by Mirian Avalos ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2025-09-19 - 6:55:14 PM GMT - Time Source: server- IP address: 136.226.64.246 Agreement completed.
2025-09-19 - 6:55:14 PM GMT
28 1
City Council
Subject: FW: Item 5A for 29th: Giant Cell Tower in Downtown Malibu? Attachments: Fire Capt. Local 1014 3-Cell Tower.jpg
From: Beate
Sent: Monday, September 22, 2025 11:19 AM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]>; Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Doug Stewart <[email protected]>; Marianne Riggins <[email protected]>; Haylynn Conrad <[email protected]> Subject: Item 5A for 29th: Giant Cell Tower in Downtown Malibu? I've been protesting this tower for quite awhile, particularly the health aspects; At least since Apr 16, 2018. As you see from the scroll, I'm not the only one concerned:
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Beate
Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2022 at 1:40 PM
Nextdoor comments:

Catt R.
• Woodland Hills, CA
Beate
LAUSD ALSO BANS TOWERS ON/ADJACENT TO SCHOOL GROUNDS FOR HEALTH RISKS. 2 days ago
Like
Reply
Share
4 Beate Nilsen
• Paradise Cove
29 2
I wonder if that counts for LA Co?
2 days ago
Like
Reply
Share
1 Ryan Embree
• Civic Center Group

1. The tower is not approved or permitted in this form, and may NOT be eligible for permit AT ALL in its current form. The steel sections can be unbolted and removed just as fast as they were erected. The City must order it removed as illegal construction and NOT sign-off on its construction or electrification (use). 2. The independent structure is does not comport to the 2/3 rule (although it is not a habitable structure) and is, in fact, the opposite, being wider near the top. 3. The structure is too tall. There's nothing near 40 feet tall around it. Height must be justified by a frequency propagation study. There's nothing near 40 feet tall around it. The height appears to be increased (double decked) for multiple commercial cellular leases. 4. NOTICE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT of the current construction was NOT PROVIDED to area residents known to be affected by this non-compliant structure/use. 5. The transmission element was to be integrated into the property development -- not an undefined accessory element of it. 6. A sketch photo of the SMC buildings does not constitute notice and IMPLIES that the tower was a previously existing structure. The purposeful perspective image shown above is to show the plot of new building construction and is deceptive as to the tower being TWICE AS HIGH as the average height of the four corners of SMC's roof. 7. SMC has a lot of explaining to do for its cover-up, permit violation, deception, and illegal construction. Beware a smooth-talker response eloquently dismissive of the State and local laws broken. 8. At the February 29, 2016, PUBLIC HEARING of the City of Malibu Planning Commission for Coastal Development Permit 13-056, I submitted testimony that began with: "First, Please protect the Queens Necklace views . . . [of] 400 residents' homes on the western side of the Civic Center . . ." I went on to discuss the proposed construction heights and lighting's effects on the aesthetic and view preservation (which was a big deal then with the View Protection Task Force and its official report, and the limits imposed for construction of the Whole Foods in the Park shopping center development. 9. SMC's Malibu Campus is being constructed with Malibu residents' tax BOND MONEY that is REQUIRED to be spent on this project -- per the Bond's language that was necessary to attain Malibu residents approval to attain the required percentage for approval. 10. The breach of duties and law were by SMC management and won't survive legitimate inquiry and enforcement. The tower was secretly and deceptively concealed, and intentionally so, facts misrepresented, so as to hide in the shadow of the construction project. 11. The height of the tower that was removed in 2019 did not have antennae on top, but, rather, at separated levels from about 1/3 to 2/3 of its height off ground. 12. The height of the unapproved, new tower does not serve the original purpose of the prior tower use by Los Angeles County primarily for 2-way Sheriff and Fire Dept mobile radios. Wireless commercial cellular was a subordinate use that has many alternatives -- alternatives NOT analyzed in the Environmental Analysis documents of record for CDP 13-056. 30 3
On Wed, Apr 20, 2022 at 3:19 PM Mikke Pierson <[email protected]> wrote:

Richard is reviewing to see if the tower conforms with what was improved. I suspect we will all discuss this on Monday.

Mikke Pierson
Councilmember - City of Malibu
[email protected]
From: Beate
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2022 12:17 PM
To: Bruce Silverstein <[email protected]>; Karen Farrer <[email protected]>; Mikke Pierson <[email protected]>; Paul Grisanti <[email protected]>; Steve Uhring <[email protected]> Subject: Fwd: Giant Cell Tower in Downtown Malibu?

NOT the same "architectural arrangement" as mailer below:

Per 5G masts (in this case w. 36 broadcasters) could down the Sheriff's helicopter (pad also noted in the mailer...) forwarded email from 2018 below.

Hans LaetzWestern Malibu • 1 day ago on Nextdoor
31 4
KBUU News: Ugly Sheriff's Tower At Civic Center Is Not What Was In The Plans KBUU RADIO NEWS MON APRIL 18
Ugly Sheriff’s Tower At Civic Center Is Not
What Was In The Plans In 2014
An ugly … multi- striped … 74 foot high antenna was not in the plans that were approved for the Malibu College campus in the center of Malibu.

But that is what was installed.

It looks like a smokestack … a bright [orange] and white smokestack.

The bright red and white striped antenna installed for the LA County sheriff’s department … in the heart of Malibu’s Civic Center … is certainly generating attention.

And what was installed last week is not what was in the 2014 decision … where the pole antenna was approved.

This is no ordinary antenna structure.

It’s thick … a self supporting metal tube.
it’s 74 feet high … And it has arms.

And its red and white stripes make it look like something Godzilla is about to smash through.

City Hall is getting peppered with complaints.

The 74-foot high Godzilla tower replaces the old 70 foot tower … but the old tower was a metal lattice work that was far less visible.

Back in 2014 … the city approved the replacement pole as part of the Santa Monica College Malibu campus project …
Included in that project is a sheriff substation with a helipad … and a communications tower.

Drawings indicated a much slimmer tower… And nothing was said about painting it a solid red and white.

In fact… The city was promising “a slimmer visual profile.” The city planning staff said … and we quote … “it is not anticipated that the new tower, five feet taller, will impact the line-of-sight of impressive scenes. 32 5
“Therefore, no adverse impacts to the surrounding properties are anticipated as a result of the proposed tower replacement.”
Wrong.

The replacement tower was built in accordance with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines, which require lights and colors, since it is adjacent to the sheriff’s helipad.

It’s a safe bet that the Godzilla tower will come up at tonight’s Planning Commission meeting. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Beate
Date: Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: Giant Cell Tower in Downtown Malibu?
To: Reva Feldman <[email protected]>
36 broadcasting boxes three tiers high is all for the
Sheriff?
On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 5:42 PM, Reva Feldman <[email protected]> wrote:

The tower that is being replaced on the County parcel is for emergency communications for the Sheriff’s Department.

Reva Feldman | City Manager
From: Beate [mailto:

Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 9:00 AM
To: Laura Rosenthal <[email protected]>
Cc: Reva Feldman <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Giant Cell Tower in Downtown Malibu?

33 6
Are you sure this tower isn't to roll out 5G to all of California??? Look what's happening in England. They want to cover the whole country w. masts: 400,000 of them. Multiply that by the Lower 48 states and that's approaching 20 million towers. Telecom wants to use all our light-standards for microwave broadcasters, and put boxes on our private houses every 250 feet. This roll-out requires thousands of satellites. The Governor of California hasn't signed off on this so, at the moment one is just sitting in the new wires along Malibu Cyn, etc. Read up, or we will be in a radiation soup that we can't get out of.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/30/400000-extra-phonemasts-needed-bring-5g-network-rural-britain/ Leaked documents published in the Guardian revealed plans which affect ten million trees over 40,000 hectares of land
a Network Rail blueprint involves 10m trees growing within 60 metres of track. “These trees were mature 30-foot-high trees which have been there for 50 years in some cases and never caused a problem."
"Network Rail boasts of the green corridor along its tracks as a haven for wildlife, but in London, Dorset, the Midlands and Yorkshire thousands of trees and the vegetation beneath them are being cleared, leaving habitats devastated.

The company has created an aerial map and identified “hotspots” where mature trees might cause a problem at an unspecified time in the future. " 5G Planning – geospatial considerations. A guide for planners and local authorities For Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. February 2018... "Must Do" includes trees to 5 metres tall This document focuses on how the geo-spatial environment (man-made and natural) impacts the propagation of mmwave signals"
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1782611121760003&set=a.1003857999825

52.606.100000333964204&type=3
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fi le/684420/OS_Final_report__5g-planning-geospatial-considerations.pdf https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/im-glad-network-rails-appalling-tree-felling-programme-hasbeen-stopped-in-its-tracks/ This is a rural community; are you certain we want to be involved in this??? As I said, wires for 5G propagation are already rolled out in Malibu Canyon, on the new, taller utility poles, waiting in the 34 7
wings for whatever "necessity" the Internet of Things requires. Ignorance of the process is going to result in a huge problem for our city if we don't pay attention to what is happening in the wider world.

On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 5:56 PM, Laura Rosenthal <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Beate,
The tower is already there and is mandated. There will be a new, updated one that is more in line with emergency communication capabiiltiies, etc. I will let Reva fill you in on the details. There has been a huge tower there for years and nobody noticed or complained I guess.

Be well.

Laura
Laura Zahn Rosenthal, Ph.D.

Councilmember, City of Malibu
[email protected]

On Apr 16, 2018, at 4:24 PM, Beate wrote:

The news about Santa Monica College campus and new sheriff's office is lovely, especially the amount of trees going in, but did readers notice the extremely large Verizon
"communications" tower secreted into the left of the architect's drawing on page A5?
As far as I know, there has been no public discussion of this object, even though the City has reportedly been negotiating with SMC, Verizon and LA County over "environmental
testing." What, pray tell, has that consisted of?
The LA County Fire Dept just had a huge fight a couple of years go to dissuade blanket implementation of towers on station roofs [1700 of them]. The county had somehow got a grant for a 35 8
$175-million contract with Motorola Solutions and just thought they could barge right in...

Cell towers are associated with DNA interruptions, memory loss & brain fog [for emergency services?], extreme fatigue, headaches, depression, anxiety, brain and heart cancers and various neurological diseases (from 2013 study on firefighters exposed to towers). The World Health Organization has
classified radio frequency from cell towers and other wireless facilities/devices as a Class 2-B "Possible Human Carcinogen," after reviewing studies linking brain cancer to RF/ wireless exposure.

This tower is going to be on top of the sheriff station [the aforementioned emergency services], above the college
classrooms, blasting our Chili Cook-off Ferris Wheel and parent's wine-enclosure, beaming across Legacy Park, through the Malibu Library, the Civic Center, Whole Foods, the dentists' offices, Taverna Tony's, Malibu Racquet Club, the apartment buildings on the mesa and, last but not least, the wait-in-line at the Webb Way signal, carrying elementary school kids round trip to Webster & Our Lady of Malibu.

Are you sure you want to let this slip by without a major protest?

36 37

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF MALIBU

CITY COUNCIL
The Malibu City Council will hold public hearing on WEDNESDAY, December 17, 2025, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA on the project identified below.

APPEAL NO. 24-010 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 24-39 determining the project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, and approving Coastal Development Permit-Woolsey Fire No. 23-004 for the construction of a 4,620 square foot addition to a destroyed single-family residence with an attached garage approved under Planning Verification-Woolsey Fire No. 21-034, extension of the existing swimming pool and spa, driveway reconfiguration, improvements to existing tennis court, new hardscaping, landscaping, grading, and onsite wastewater treatment system; including Demolition Permt No. 24-020 for the demolition of an existing hardscape and landscape; and Site Plan Review No. 23-026 for construction of the residence over 18 feet in height not to exceed 24 feet in height for a flat roof
Location: 29738 Cuthbert Road
APN: 4469-041-011
Zoning: Rural Residential, Two-Acre (RR-2)
Applicant: JTD Architects
Owner: Malibo LLC
Appellant: Charlotte Frieze Jones on behalf of Malibu Park Neighbors Group Application Filed: October 26, 2023
Appeal Filed: August 15, 2024
Case Planner: Aakash Shah, Contract Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 385
[email protected]
Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Planning Division has analyzed the above project. The Planning Division found that this project is listed among the classes of projects that have been determined not to have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Therefore, the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Sections 15301(e) and (I) – Existing Facilities, and 15303(d) – New Construction. The Planning Division has further determined that none of the six exceptions to the use of a categorical exemption apply to this project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2).

Exhibit C
38 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: 23525 Civic Center Way
APN: 4458-022-906
Zoning: Institutional (I)
Applicant: M6 Consulting
Owner: County of Los Angeles
Appellant: Jyoti Drummond on behalf of the Malibu Township Council Application Filed: December 7, 2022
Appeal Filed: April 30, 2025
Case Planner: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
(310) 456-2489, extension 273
[email protected]
The final EIR, State Clearinghouse #2012051052, was prepared for Conditional Use Permit No. 22-004 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.

PROCEDURE: A written staff report will be available 30 days prior to the hearing for the projects. Correspondence, presentations, and other materials provided by the applicant and appellant shall be provided 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. Presentations shall be provided to City staff 3 business days prior to the meeting.

To view and participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation. 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.

COASTAL COMMISSION APPEAL – An aggrieved person may appeal the City Council’s approval to the Coastal Commission within 10 working days of the issuance of the City’s Notice of Final Action. Appeal forms may be found online at www.coastal.ca.gov or in person at the Coastal Commission South Central Coast District office located at 89 South California Street in Ventura, or by calling 805-585-1800. Such an appeal must be filed with the Coastal Commission, not the City.

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. 39 If there are any questions regarding this notice, please contact Aakash Shah, Contract Planner (310) 456-2489, extension 385.

Yolanda Bundy, Community Development Director
Publish Date: November 13, 2025
40

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.

Exhibit D
41 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.

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 DRAFT 42
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.

DRAFT 43
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.

DRAFT 44
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.

DRAFT 45
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.

DRAFT 46
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 DRAFT 47
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.

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

Construction

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.

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.

DRAFT 49
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.

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.

DRAFT 50
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.

DRAFT 51

Page 1 of 13 ends

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 19, 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 (CEQA), 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 (CUP) No. 22-004 to allow for an emergency communication facility (ECF) at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's substation on the Santa Monica College-Malibu Campus (SMC-MC) to be utilized by the County of Los Angeles within the Institutional zoning district at 23525 Civic Center Way (County of Los Angeles).

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. The appeal is part of the City’s regular operations.

DISCUSSION: The matter before the Council is an appeal challenging the Planning Commission’s approval of CUP 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 SMC-MC site. This agenda report provides a project overview, summary of the previous meetings, a summary of the project setting and surrounding land uses, analysis of the subject appeal. a description of the project scope, an analysis of the City Council Meeting
09-29-25
Item

5.A.
1 52

Page 2 of 13 ends

project’s consistency with applicable provisions of the Malibu Local Coastal Program (LCP) and MMC, and environmental review pursuant to CEQA.

Project Overview and Background
The subject ECF tower was approved by the City in 2016 as part of the SMC-MC project.

A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the SMC-MC project was prepared by Parker Environmental Group and certified by the SMC Board of Trustees on January 13, 2016, along with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Final EIR included the same plans for the tower that were submitted for the original CUP application. It included a tower that was 86 feet, 8 inches in height—which accounts for the antennas and appurtenances attached to the tower’s base. This tower was constructed per these plans, but not in compliance with all conditions, after the CDP for the project was approved.

On February 29, 2016, the Planning Commission approved Coastal Development Permit (CDP) No. 13-056 for the SMC-MC which included the Sheriff substation and the ECF tower. The tower was approved to be 75 feet in height. On April 11, 2016, the City Council approved an increase in floor area ratio from 0.15 to 0.20 due to the significant public benefits provided by the project. The project plans were then reviewed and plan checked by the Division of the State Architect, who also issued the building permits. Construction plans were not required to be reviewed by the City’s Building Safety Division as the Division of the State Architect has authority to plan check and issue building permits for State and County owned community colleges so long as the local zoning approvals are obtained. Construction on the SMC-MC was completed in early 2023. The applicant constructed the ECF tower without obtaining a CUP for the use. The structural framing, including the location, height, and appearance of the tower were approved under CDP No. 13-056 but the use of the tower was not yet granted by the City. Although a 75-foot tower height was ultimately specified in Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30, the plans reviewed in the EIR and by the Planning Commission included a tower that was greater than 75 feet when accounting for the tower’s antennas and appurtenances.

The applicant has applied for a CUP authorizing the use of the ECF tower and curing its failure to comply with Condition No. 17 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30, which states “Prior to construction of the replacement communications tower, the property owner, Los Angeles County, shall obtain a conditional use permit for the emergency communications facility use.” The tower was installed in April 2022 without satisfying the condition. On December 7, 2022, the applicant submitted the CUP application for the use of the tower.

With the inclusion of the antenna mounts and lightning rod at the top of the tower, the height of the currently installed tower is approximately 86-91 feet, consistent with the plans that were reviewed in the EIR and by the Planning Commission in 2016. As mentioned, Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30 specified the tower to only be 75 feet in height. 2 53

Page 3 of 13 ends

The applicant initially applied for a CDP Amendment (CDPA) and a variance to obtain approval for the extended height to match the construction plans. The application for the CDPA and variance was heard at the June 3, 2024 Planning Commission meeting. The item was continued by the Planning Commission after deliberation over the proposed height variance, the color of the tower, and possible alternative locations for the tower.

The Commission requested that the applicant explore alternative locations such as attaching it to the existing SMC or Sheriff substation building or relocating to another parcel away from the site.

Figure 1: Current Tower Conditions
Source: Google
Concerns have been raised over the tower since it was installed in April 2022. These generally centered around the location and height of the tower, along with the color, and were raised at the Planning Commission meetings. As it currently stands, it is one of the tallest structures in Malibu.

After the June 3, 2024 meeting, the County adjusted the project based on the feedback received and returned with a new design. The revised project proposed to lower the height to meet the 75-foot height limit (Exhibit 4), as shown in Figure 2, consistent with the prior approval detailed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30. They have also proposed to paint the tower a tan or gray color that will help it blend in with the surrounding landscape (Exhibit 6). Because the County has chosen to return the tower to its approved height of 75 feet and paint it a color that blends in with the surrounding environment, the CDPA and variance requests have been withdrawn. The only permit being requested by the County is the CUP.
3 54

Page 4 of 13 ends

Figure 2: Re-designed Height
Source: Project Plans
The County states that the height is necessary to allow for a line-of-sight connection to other Sheriff station transmitters such as Saddle Peak and Rancho Palos Verdes. The height will also help connect to the County’s broader communication network through the Los Angeles Regional Interoperable Communications System or LA-RICS, which communicates to all public safety agencies in Southern California. The applicant’s need for the height is detailed in Exhibit 5.

Prior to demolition activities for the SMC-MC in 2019, an emergency communications tower previously existed, which served the previous County buildings. The applicant has provided an as-built plan of the former communications tower (Exhibit 5). Including the height of a lightning rod and tallest antenna on the previous tower, the total overall height was 87 feet, 6 inches, taller than the proposed tower, which is capped at 75 feet. The previous tower was painted an aviation orange and white. Additionally, the previous tower had a lattice design instead of the current solid pole design. 4 55

Page 5 of 13 ends

Figure 3: Previous Latticed Tower
Source: Application Documents
The current colors were applied to meet Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements due to the proximity of the tower to a helipad. Additionally, blinking lights were installed towards the top of the tower, also to comply with the FAA at the time of installation. The colors and lights conflict with Condition Nos. 24, 28 and 87 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30 which prohibit flashing lights and require colors that are compatible with the surrounding environment.

The City met with the applicant and the FAA in 2023 to discuss possible alternatives.

During the review of the alternatives, the FAA noted that the applicant’s original filing contained an error, which created confusion regarding the tower’s actual location on the site. The applicant submitted a new application to the FAA with the corrected location, and the FAA reevaluated and determined that the current aviation orange and white and the flashing lights are not required (Exhibit 7). Thus, the applicant has the ability to change the color of the tower and remove the lights. The applicant has provided two alternative 5 56

Page 6 of 13 ends

colors for the Council’s consideration, gray and tan, which will better blend in with the surrounding environment and will also remove the lights.

The project, including the applicant’s evidence demonstrating the need for the proposed height has been reviewed by the City’s wireless consultant. The proposed radio frequency / electromagnetic energy (RF/EME) emissions will be compliant with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requirements (Exhibit 9). The consultant provided additional post-approval conditions. Those conditions have been added to the draft resolution for the Council’s consideration.

There was concern from members of the public regarding the potential for private wireless carriers to collocate on the site after approval of the CUP is obtained. The County agreed to a condition of approval that a deed restriction be recorded on the property 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. That condition was added to Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 and is within the draft Council Resolution.

Planning Commission Hearing on April 21, 2025
At its April 21, 2025 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission deliberated on the evidence presented by the applicant and received testimony from members of the public.

The project was approved, and the terms of the approval are listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 (Exhibit 2). The draft Council Resolution (Exhibit 1) reflects the Planning Commission’s action, with one added condition requiring a height survey to be performed once the new tower is installed to ensure that no part of the tower extends beyond 75 feet in height.

The applicant proposes to bring the pole into substantial conformance with the 2016 Planning Commission approval, which required a height no taller than 75 feet, the use of colors compatible with the surrounding environment, and the removal of the lights affixed to the tower. The Planning Commission added a condition requiring a security plan that will reasonably protect the tower from trespassers. If the condition is approved by the City Council, the County will be required to submit the safety plan, including any necessary fencing, under a separate application. Any development proposed as part of the plan will be processed as either a CDP amendment for the tower or a separate permit, as appropriate. Because the tower is proposed to be brought into substantial conformance with the 2016 approval, the current application before the Council is limited to the Conditional Use Permit.

Appeal to the City Council
The appeal before the City Council of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 was filed by the Malibu Township Council on April 30, 2025. The appellant raises an extensive 6 57

Page 7 of 13 ends

list of issues for consideration. The complete grounds for appeal can be found in Exhibit

3. A summarized list of the issues raised is provided below with evidentiary analysis of the related materials within the record:

1. Unstudied Regional Use and Emissions Impact. The appellant contends that the radio frequency emissions proposed by 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.

Evidentiary Record: As stated previously, the applicant submitted a radio frequency / electromagnetic energy emissions report that was reviewed by the City’s wireless consultant. With the mitigation measures listed within the report, the site will comply with FCC law. The site will also be inspected by the City’s wireless consultant at the time of installation to ensure the built site remains in compliance with federal law.

The issue was described in the June 2024 and April 2025 Planning Commission agenda reports and is also described in this report. The Planning Commission considered the topic and accepted the staff recommended 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.

2. Improper Siting and Height Violation. The appellant contends that the currently constructed tower is over the height limit (75 feet) due to its location in a floodplain area.

Evidentiary Record: The County must, and plans to, bring the tower back into compliance with the 2016 approval, which includes lowering the height of the tower that has been constructed, and all its appurtenances, to no more than 75 feet. The tower was constructed consistently with the plans approved in 2016, including the location that was approved. The issue before the Council is the proposed use of the tower—the height and physical structure of the tower have already been approved and are not before the Council as part of this application. However, the Council can direct the County to paint the tower a color of their choosing as long as it blends in with the surrounding environment to be consistent with the 2016 approval.

3. Insufficient Notice and Public Input. The appellant contends that only three days were provided to prepare for the Planning Commission hearing, which limited the community’s ability to respond.

Evidentiary Record: 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. 7 58

Page 8 of 13 ends

Further, 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 will be reviewing this matter on a de novo basis.

Additionally, three public hearings have been held on the proposed project, with the inclusion of the Council meeting, and sufficient time for the public and the Council to deliberate over the matter.

4. Transparency and Accountability. The appellant contends that the discrepancy in height, lack of evidence within the EIR, and lack of legal procedure led to the recusal of one Planning Commissioner.

Evidentiary Record: The Planning Commissioner recused herself because she had not reviewed the record from the June 2024 meeting before the April 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.

5. EIR Deficiencies. 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 due to the tower’s proximity to the campus buildings.

Evidentiary Record: 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 applicant’s proposed action 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. In addition, the EIR was previously adopted by the City.

6. Failure to Include Public Health Expert Testimony. The appellant contends that no public health or environmental safety experts were consulted to assess the broader implications of the tower.

Evidentiary Record: 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 analyzed for environmental impacts within the aforementioned EIR and at the public hearings, dating back to 2016. The City 8 59

Page 9 of 13 ends

approvals have included mitigation measures consistent with the EIR and federal, state, and local laws.

7. Lack of Due Process. The appellant contends that the Planning Commission hearings were inadequate because the Commission did not engage with people opposing the project.

Evidentiary Record: The Planning Commission allowed each concerned party to speak for three minutes in accordance with the standard procedures for Planning Commission public hearings. A substantial amount of written correspondence and materials was also submitted before the meetings, which were considered by the Planning Commission. All participants were provided notice and an opportunity to be heard. In addition, the City Council’s review is de novo, and all interested parties have an additional opportunity to provide written and oral evidence and testimony.

8. Failure to Consider Alternatives. 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.

Evidentiary Record: The Planning Commission considered other alternatives but ultimately accepted the County’s rationale listed in its analysis (Exhibit 5) and its CUP findings (Exhibit 8). The County is bringing the tower into substantial conformance with the 2016 approval. The location and aesthetics were reviewed and analyzed under the 2016 approval, and an alternatives analysis was provided at that time.

9. Non-compliance with CEQA. The appellant contends that the EIR failed to study the broader regional impacts and that the project did not follow protocols consistent with CEQA.

Evidentiary Record: As mentioned previously, the EIR for the SMC-MC 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 applicant’s proposed actions 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.

Additionally, the EIR has already been adopted by the City.

In addition to the summary above, the appellant submitted an addendum to the initial grounds for appeal, which can be found in Exhibit 3. The addendum provides further arguments in support of the grounds for appeal detailed in the initial appeal, but also raises 9 60

Page 10 of 13 ends

an argument that the project was not properly analyzed as a Wireless Communications Facility, per MMC Chapter 17.46.

Regarding this issue, it should be noted that 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.

Surrounding Land Uses and Project Setting
The project site is located within a predominantly commercially zoned area in the Malibu Civic Center. Table 1 below outlines the surrounding land uses.

Table 1 – Surrounding Land Uses
Direction Address/ Parcel No. Size Zoning Land Use
North 4458-022-019 9.36 acres CC Unimproved
South 4458-020-902 4.89 acres CV-1 Malibu Legacy Park
East 23465 Civic Center Way 15.29 acres TCO Ranch at Cross Creek (AKA La Paz)
West 23575 Civic Center Way 9.65 acres CC Unimproved
Notes:

CC = Community Commercial
CV-1 = Commercial Visitor Serving - 1
TCO = Town Center Overlay
10 61

Page 11 of 13 ends

Figure 4 – Existing Site Conditions
Source: City of Malibu GIS, 2024
The project site is not in a designated Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA) or ESHA buffer, as shown the LCP ESHA and Marine Resources Map. The project site has no trails traversing through it according to the LCP Park Lands Map. The project site is located across the street and is visible from Legacy Park, a public park with trails. The project site is also visible from Pacific Coast Highway and Malibu Canyon Road, designated scenic highways. Although visible from these scenic areas, the applicant has proposed to paint the tower gray or tan to blend in with the surrounding environment which would meet the conditions of approval of the original CDP and the location is in a developed area of the City.
11 62

Page 12 of 13 ends

Table 2 provides a summary of the dimensions and area of the ground lease area.

Table 2 – Property Data (Lease Area)
Depth 573feet
Width 730 feet
Gross Area 128,500 square feet (2.94 acres)
Area Comprised of 1:1 Slopes 0 square feet
Area Comprised of Easements 0 square feet
Net Lot Area* 128,500 square feet (2.94 acres)
Project Description
The proposed scope of work consists of the following:
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 to be 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 (gray or tan) and removing the emergency lights to be in substantial conformance with the 2016 approval (Planning Commission Resolution No. 16-30).

MMC Findings
If approved, the CUP will allow an emergency communication facility use on a lot within the Institutional zoning district, an allowed use in the zoning district with approval of the CUP. The City Council may approve, deny, and/or modify a CUP in whole or in part, with or without conditions, provided that it makes all of the findings of fact required by MMC Section 17.66.080. There is no staff recommendation on this item but staff has included prepared findings for approval within the attached Resolution No. 25-50. The Council may also direct staff to come back at another meeting with a resolution granting the appeal and denying the project if it finds the evidence does not support the required findings for the CUP.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in CEQA, the Community Development Director 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 original project, including the proposed height and operation of the ECF tower. The 75-foot-tall tower and its operation was included in the original plans analyzed under the Final EIR. The applicant’s proposed actions 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. Additionally, the 12 63

Page 13 of 13 ends

EIR has already been adopted by the City. The Project before the City approves the use of the tower, which will not include any height above 75 feet.

CORRESPONDENCE: Correspondence on the item can be found in Exhibit 10. Members of the public have provided oral testimony at public hearings, including the scheduled Planning Commission hearings on the matter and at regular City Council meetings. Public comments primarily focused on concerns that the tower was constructed out of compliance with the original approval, the tower’s color, and the overall need for the facility.

PUBLIC NOTICE: On April 17, 2025, staff published a Notice of Public Hearing in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Malibu and mailed the notice to all property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject property (Exhibit 11).

EXHIBITS:

1. Draft Council Resolution No. 25-50

2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38

3. Appeal No. 25-005

4. Project Plans

5. Applicant’s Justification to the Planning Commission

6. Alternative Colors

7. FAA Letter

8. Applicant’s CUP Findings

9. RF/EME Report

10. Correspondence

11. Public Hearing Notice
13 64
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.

F. 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.

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

I. On April 30, 2025, an appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 25-38 was filed by the Malibu Township Council. Exhibit 1
14 DRAFT 65
Resolution No 25-50

Page 2 of 8 ends

______________________
J. 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.

K. 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.

SECTION 3. Appeal of Action.

A live RF/EME study is required and will be evaluated by the City’s RF/EME consultant prior to operation of the tower to ensure that the built ECF tower remains in compliance with FCC standards.

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.
15 DRAFT 66
Resolution No 25-50

Page 3 of 8 ends

______________________
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.

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.

Even if a claim could be made of an unfair or partial hearing, it would be remedied by the City Council decision which is final and de novo.

SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on September 29, 2025, and pursuant to the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the City Council adopts the findings of fact, denying Appeal No. 25-005, and approves 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 16 DRAFT 67
Resolution No 25-50

Page 4 of 8 ends

______________________
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 the MMC.

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. The necessary communication lines will expand emergency communications between emergency responders within the City and County.

Page 5 of 8 ends

______________________

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

Page 6 of 8 ends

______________________

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.

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

Construction

Page 7 of 8 ends

______________________
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

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.

Site Specific Conditions

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. 20 DRAFT 71
Resolution No 25-50

Page 8 of 8 ends

______________________

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

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

CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 25—38
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MALIBU 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 Planning Commission of the City 0f Malibu does hereby find, order and resolve as follows:

SECTION 1. Recitals.

A. On Februaiy 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 Department 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 ofPlanning 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 address some concerns from the public.

F. On March I3, 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.

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

H. 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 information in the record.

SECTION 2. Environmental Review.

Pursuant to the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Planning Director has analyzed the proposed project. The Final EIR, State Exhibit 2
22 73
Resolution No 25-38

Page 2 of 6 ends

Clearinghouse No. 201 205 1 052, 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 was included in the original plans analyzed under the Final EIR, The proposed project scope does not constitute a substantial change that would require a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15 1 63 nor an addendum pursuant to CEQA Section 15164.

SECTION 3. Conditional Use Permit Findings.

Based on evidence contained within the record, including the agenda report for the project and the hearing on April 21, 2025, and pursuant to the Malibu Municipal Code (MMC), the Planning Commission adopts the findings of fact, and approves 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.

F. 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 the MMC. Institutional zones are designated for uses that extend public facilities. The ECF will provide a necessary emergency communication line to inform emergency responders of incoming dangers 1n an emergency.

2. The existing site already 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 inform 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.

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.

4. The proposed use is compatible with the existing land uses. Existing public infrastructure has been present at the site since before cityhood. The use has helped provide necessaiy public infrastructure to the surrounding neighborhoods and 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. The necessary communication lines will expand emergency communications between emergency responders within the City and County.

6. The proposed use will help provide more adequate communication lines related to natural disasters to the City. The improvements will help the existing communication lines be distributed throughout the City and County. The proposed development will help to preserve views by utilizing colors that help blend the tower in with the surrounding environment. 23 74
Resolution NO 25-38

Page 3 ends

7. NO Changes to the site’s access 01‘ 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.

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

SECTION 4. Planning Commission Action.

Based on the foregoing findings and evidence contained within the record, the Planning Commission hereby approves CUP No. 22-004 subject to the following conditions.

SECTION 5. Conditions of Approval.

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 ofthe City's actions or decisions in connection with this project. The City shall have the sole right to choose its counsel and property owners shall reimburse the City’s expenses incurred in its defense of any lawsuit challenging the City’s actions concerning this project.

1. 2. Approval of this application is to allow for the project described herein. The scope of work approved includes:

CUP No. 22—004 for the use ofthe emergency communications tower; b. Lowering the existing tower height back to the originally approved 75 feet; and Painting the tower a color compatible with the surrounding environment. b). Except as specifically changed by conditions ofapproval. 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 Planning Department date 24 75
Resolution NO 25-38

Page 4 ends

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.

This CUP and rights conferred in this approval shall not be effective until the property owners Sign, notarize and return the Acceptance 0f 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 Planning Department within 10 days ofthe effective date ofthe approval.

Any questions of intent or interpretation of any condition of approval will be resolved by the Planning Director upon written request ofsuch interpretation.

All structures shall conform to requirements of the City of Malibu as applicable. Notwithstanding this review, all required permits shall be secured.

Minor changes to the approved plans or the conditions of approval may be approved by the Planning 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.

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

Construction

10. Construction management techniques. including minimizing the amount of equipment used simultaneously and increasing the distance between emission sources. shall be employed 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 I7, 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. 25 76
Resolution NO 25—38

Page 5 ends

d. Filt6r fences designed t0 intercept and detain sediment while decreasing the velocity ofrunoff shall be employed within the project site.

Color and Materials
l3. The 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 Planning Director prior to application of structure exterior finish.

Lighting
l4. No exterior lighting is permitted with this approval.

Prior to Use

15. The applicant shall request a final Planning Department inspection prior to final inspection by the City of Malibu Environmental and Sustainability Department.

16. 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 ofthe certificate of occupancy.

Site Specific Conditions

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

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 ofthe tower commences.

19. The applicant will present a security plan to the City that will reasonably protect the tower. 26 77
R€soluti0n NO 25-38

Page 6 ends

Fixed Conditions

20. This CUP runs with the land and binds all future owners ofthe property.

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

SECTION 6. The Planning Commission shall certify the adoption 0fthis resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 21“ day ofApril, 2024.

SKYLARé/Q. L/ a k
PE , Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
%@vww REBECCA EVANS, Recording Secretary
LOCAL APPEAL — A decision ofthe Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council by an aggrieved person by written statement setting forth the grounds for appeal. An appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 10 days and shall be accompanied by an appeal form and proper appeal fee. The appellant shall pay fees as specified in the Council adopted fee resolution in effect at the time of the appeal. Appeal forms may be found online at www.malibucityxgg. in person at City Hall 0r by calling (3 1 0) 456—2489. extension 246.

Any action challenging the final decision of the City made as a result ofthe public hearing on this application must be filed within the time limits set forth in Section 1.12.01 0 ofthe MMC and Code 0f 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. l CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION NO. 25-38 was passed and adopted by the Planning Commission 0f the City of Malibu at the regular meeting held on the 215‘ day ofApril 2025 by the following vote:
6&9..-“QMW REBECCA EVANS. Recording Secretary
AYES: 3 Commissioners: Leonard. Peak. Riddick NOES: 1 Commissioner: Mazza ABSTAIN: 0 ABSENT: 1 Commissioner: Kamins
27 78
Exhibit 3
28 79
29 80
30 81
31 82
Amendment/addition to appeal for 23525 Civic Center Way The Appeal should also include:

FRAUD and BAD FAITH, concealment of facts and intended uses, because the processing of the application AS IF compliant with the CDP, when the CDP neither:

Applicant was required to send exact, true, and complete information on the location, specification, height, and proposed use of the Antenna Pole. Applicant committed fraud by act and omission, false representations, and careless or intentional misrepresentation of material fact in the information for the CDP issued in 2016.

2. Applicant deliberately constructed without a building permit because Applicant knew that Applicant failed to comport or comply with the multiple requirements stipulated as Conditions of the CDP. Already in violation, and Applicant knowingly in violation by Notice from the City of same, willfully, and deliberately, continued to construct the non-compliant structure of Applicant's choosing and located the structure improperly, thus creating a Code Enforcement case from the City of Malibu as the local jurisdiction enforcing the Local Coastal Program's limitations and the Coastal Development Permit and the Conditions thereof.

3. The Environmental Impact Report utilized for 2016 Coastal Development Permit did not evaluate the proposed antenna pole structure's compliance to the Local Coastal Program and local law.

4. Applicant has reluctantly revealed — not in 2014-2015 the intensified uses that it seeks — but only reveals the Intensification of Uses after getting caught by City, interested public, and Appellant, for "future-proofing" to include uses not specified in addition to the intensified uses discovered via the current applications for CUP and the work-around CDP "variance". Appellant asserts that "variance" is not applicable to amend a Coastal Development Permit that was obtained by fraud and for which environmental review was intentionally omitted by Applicant's concealment of the intended intensification of uses, increase of height, commercial component (leasing to third party cell phone company Verizon Wireless and/or others), modified location, and in view from scenic areas and public streets. Applicant deceived the City Planning Department and Planning Commissioners by verbally stating during the June 3, 2024, CUP Hearing

5. The City did not evaluate the as-built antenna to conform to public health and safety standards required by State and local laws.
32 83

6. The City did not evaluate the Zoning Conformance to the applicable current Wireless Telecommunications Facility codes consequentially in effect after the expiration of Applicant's option to apply for permits for 1) to construct the pole, and 2) uses of the pole as a radio frequency transmitting and receiving antenna. The option to include and construct the pole expired approximately 2018. A pole was constructed approximately four years after the Applicant's right to apply for antenna pole construction and wireless transmission uses expired. The pole structure was constructed illegally in 2022. Applicant tripled down on its violations because Applicant was informed and aware that it had no right to construct anything and that a new CDP was required.

7. Applicant is, and was, ineligible to apply for a conditional use permit for an illegal structure. The structure fails to comply to the Malibu Municipal Code standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in effect in 2022. Such requirements include stealth integration into building structure or roof and/or full mitigation of facility (such as a fake tree), limitation on height to 28-feet, alternative site location analysis, signal coverage and wave propagation for each radio frequency proposed for use, fall-zone radius conflict impact map and analysis report, and safety and electrical compliance specifications and reports.

8. Preferential and Special Treatment
Applicant required Zoning Clearance prior to applying for building and safety building permit to construct the antenna pole. Further, Applicant needed Zoning Clearance and building and safety department inspection permit approval for an antenna pole PRIOR TO constructing the structure. The City confirms that the structure constructed by the Applicant was without permit and exceeds approvable height, color, and holds flashing exterior red lights atop the illegal pole. Removal of illegally-constructed pole is necessary to enforce the requirements of the CDP's conditions, Malibu Municipal Code, and to demonstrate the no special privilege or advantage is afforded to the Applicant — whether obtained by trickery, false statements, in violation of the express Conditions of CDP, and absent the required permits. Applicant is a government agency and invoked political intervention, political influence, and exacted special meeting with the highest administrative staff of the City of Malibu to conduct, in concert, alternative workarounds to effect reactivation of a 4-year expired option to apply for building and Conditional Use Permits under preferential and reduced restrictions. City effected preliminary strategy and likelihood of "recommend" status by City to special "variance" strategy which constitute advocacy and gamesmanship to the public process. The private meetings between political officials and City staff were conducted without Notice to the public to attend, or comment, yet included the designated Planning Director designated by law to interpret intent and requirements for application and to make determinations such as changes determine to be of substantial conformance, substantially similar, of appropriate color or camouflage material, and interpretations of "meaning" of the Conditions of approval of the 2016 CUP.

9. Applicant was not entitled to a CUP Hearing because the physical structure was not approvable under the CDP issued in 2016 for a structure illegally constructed in 2022. Applicant 33 84
is required to apply for a Coastal Development Permit for the Antenna Pole and meet current development standards.

10. The interconnected use to more than ONE off-site microwave interconnection which appears to be an adopted or established plan of Los Angeles County was concealed from required Environmental Impact Report review.

11. Serial development by adding uses desired, known, anticipated, and applied-for to other regulatory agencies that EXCEED the limitations on potential development as Conditioned by the 2016 CDP.

12. Professional malfeasance for failure to implement simple English interpretation meaning without inquiry or determination by the Planning Director as required by Condition of the CDP, LCP, and Malibu Municipal Code. Professional malfeasance for failure to implement simple arithmetic measurement determination from the known "grade"/natural grade-elevation of the then-existing antenna tower's location.

The CDP was for a school. The OPTION for the Applicant/Los Angeles County to apply for a structural building permit and Antenna Use permit are stipulations within the CDP that the Applicant did not exercise prior to timing-out. There is no way to retroactively remove the CDP conditions without modifying the CDP via Amendment -- which was not Noticed nor could the PC do so.

The existence of Code Violation was mostly covered up by agreement between the Applicant and City Staff. The pole should have been removed in 2022 upon the as-built survey required by Mollica (and the Applicant's attestation to FAA of elevations, Latitude/Longitude Coordinates, and both structure and appurtenance heights.

Thank You,
Jyoti Drummond & Ryan Embree
Malibu Township Council
34 85
Exhibit 4
35 86
February 24, 2025
Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner
City of Malibu, Planning Department
23825 Stuart Ranch Rd. Malibu,
CA 90265
Dear Mr. Eaton:

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

MALIBU MONOPOLE

CUP RESUBMITTAL AND RESPONSE TO CITY OF MALIBU PLANNING

COMMISSION
This letter shall serve as notice that the County of Los Angeles (County), as the owner of the property commonly known as the Malibu Civic Center located generally at 23519-23555 Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90265, also known as APN: 4458-022-906, has previously submitted a land use application to the City of Malibu for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP application submitted to the City was to allow for the installation and operation of a licensed emergency communications facility on County property, along with the use and operation of associated equipment for said emergency communication facility, containing 19 antennas for County use, on a County-owned monopole with a total height of 75 feet.

The County presented the CUP application for review and approval at the City of Malibu Planning Commission meeting held on June 3rd, 2024. At this meeting, the Planning Commission requested the County to modify certain aspects of its application and return to the Commission with the revisions. Furthermore, the Planning Commission presented to the County certain questions related to the monopole design, location, and CUP application and requested the County to provide responses to these questions as part of the CUP re-submittal process. The County is hereby providing the following responses to the Planning Commission’s questions:
"To Enrich Lives Through Effective And Caring Service"

BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS
Hilda L. Solis
First District
Holly J. Mitchell
Second District
Lindsey P. Horvath
Third District
Janice Hahn
Fourth District
Kathryn Barger
Fifth District

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ASSET MANAGEMENT, REAL ESTATE DIVISION
Hall of Records
320 West Temple Street, 7th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90012 (213) 974-4300 ceo.lacounty.gov

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ASSISTANT CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Fesia A. Davenport John T. Cooke
36 87
Tyler Eaton, Principal
February 24, 2025

Page 2 ends

Request 1: Conduct a study to explore the relocation of the tower.

The existing monopole, located at Santa Monica College, was built in its current position, and must remain in its current position for the following reasons:

1. The line-of-sight requirements dictate that the monopole location must be selected such that there is a permanently clear line of sight to the County facilities at Rancho Palos Verdes and Saddle Peak. There must also be a zone of clearance above and beyond a singular and perfectly narrow line of site to assure full signal integrity (Fresnel Zone Clearance). The current monopole position creates adequate clearance for all foreseeable obstructions facing both microwave links, ensuring functionality and redundancy. Regarding the line of sight to the Rancho Palos Verdes facility, the current location of the monopole is necessary to avoid blockages created by mature trees that are directly adjacent to the new Campus, a row of mature trees along Highway 1, and several mature trees that are located on private properties along the coastline. Due to the low altitude position of the Malibu Monopole, obstructions such as trees provide substantial blockage facing Rolling Hills, especially when considering that all microwave paths must include Fresnel Zone Clearance.

2. The Santa Monica college building is constructed in such a manner where the MCR room (built specifically for hosting telecommunications equipment) is in a fixed and unmodifiable location. Coaxial and waveguide cables, which are routed in specifically created 4” conduits that are free of numerous or abrupt bends connect the monopole to the MCR room. Coaxial or waveguide cables introduce signal amplitude losses as well as frequency domain distortions based on cable length. Selecting a new monopole location will be significantly detrimental to the performance of the radio systems, because cable runs will be longer than what they are now and be longer than certain pre-determined lengths as specified by equipment manufacturers as well as system performance goals.

Relocation of the monopole will cause significant delays to Sheriff radio services and will impair the operation of Santa Monica College. If the monopole were to be relocated, it would involve a multi-year construction and planning process which would involve new demolition of specific areas within the new Santa Monica College Campus building, as conduits will need to be re-engineered and re-installed, resulting in substantial demolition and new-construction activities.

3. Re-location of the monopole is likely to require a re-registration of appropriate FCC licenses that have already been acquired. Re-registration will add increased delays and costs and may not even be possible. Re-licensing is conducted through frequency coordinators, for example Comsearch, which reviews technical details of any proposed point to point microwave link to ensure that all new installations do not interfere or in any way overlap with existing radio services in the general vicinity. Relicense is not guaranteed, as microwave frequencies are a finite resource, and are highly sought after. Los Angeles County in general is "prime real estate" for microwave spectrum, so the space is crowded and typically difficult to acquire new licenses.
37 88
Tyler Eaton, Principal
February 24, 2025

Page 3 ends

4. The new tower is located very close to the old tower location, approximately 20 to 25 feet directly to the east. The old tower was positioned on the side of the old Malibu Sheriff’s station, along the driveway next to the station. Below is a drawing showing the location of the old station tower relative to the old station. Additionally, there is a Google Earth photo with the new tower overlayed onto the image of the old station. 38 89
Tyler Eaton, Principal
February 24, 2025

Page 4 ends

Request 2: Conduct a study to explore a height reduction to the tower.

As a part of the new proposal, the County is reducing the tower height with all appurtenances down to 75' maximum tip height. This proposal, by necessity, does sacrifice some radio system performance due to reduced antenna height. It should be noted that the new lightning rod design adequately meets NFPA 780 for lightning rod protection with the proposed smaller uppermost parapet mounting system. To clarify, the height reduction was not a design preference of the Sheriff, and therefore was not proposed originally, as reducing the height of the uppermost parapet negatively impacts Public Safety radio coverage and system performance.

Request 3: Shrink the topmost level where antennas are to be mounted. (A reduction in mass to the topmost antenna mounting platform.) As a part of County’s new proposal, the uppermost parapet on the monopole is to be replaced with a smaller profile parapet mounting system. This is acceptable to the County as it provides an aesthetic improvement to the tower while also allotting for future antenna mounting needs. It should be noted, however, that using smaller parapets is not preferred due to the fact that they reduce accessibility by tower crews (all future work will need to be conducted with a bucket truck, which may delay response times and critical repairs).
39 90
Tyler Eaton, Principal
February 24, 2025

Page 5 ends

Request 4: Color change to the tower "earthtone".

Color choice is to be at the discretion of the project team, with input from stakeholders.

It is within the mutual interests of the City of Malibu, the Santa Monica College campus, and the County to select an aesthetically pleasing color for this monopole. 40 91
Tyler Eaton, Principal
February 24, 2025

Page 6 ends

Alternative Locations: Fire Stations

1. Fire stations (FS), such as FS 70, have very limited space to accommodate a tower, equipment shelter, and ease of maintenance.
a. FS 70 does not have line of sight to the new tower unless each tower is over 200’ high.

2. Similarly, FS 88 has very limited space to accommodate a tower, equipment shelter, and ease of maintenance.
a. FS 88 does have line of sight to the new tower at SMCC, but the environmental clearance, nearby community support, and the necessary permit process is extremely low.

The County believes that the preceding responses fully address the Planning Commission’s questions, and the County looks forward to presenting the CUP application at a future Planning Commission meeting. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact Roger Hernandez at (213) 974-4208.

Sincerely,
FESIA A. DAVENPORT
Chief Executive Officer
Joyce Chang
Senior Manager
JLC:MGR:RH:ls
41 92
42 93
43 94
44 95
45 96
46 97
47 98
48 99
49 100
50 101
0' - 0" GROUND LEVEL
14' - 0" SECOND LEVEL
28' - 0" TOP OF PLATE
35' - 10" TOP OF ROOF METAL FASCIA PANELS

STACKED CMU
NEW 18" PLANTER WALL METAL LOUVER
(NATURAL VENTILATION) WOOD LOUVERS / STEEL FRAME

PIVOT DOORS AT MAIN ENTRANCE
NEW 75' EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
REPLACES EXISTING 70' TOWER

STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM

SPANDREL GLAZING

23.17' (EXISTING GRADE) WATER FEATURE

STEPPED SEATING
0' - 0" GROUND LEVEL
14' - 0" SECOND LEVEL
28' - 0" TOP OF PLATE
35' - 10" TOP OF ROOF WOOD LOUVERS / STEEL FRAME

STACKED CMU METAL FASCIA PANELS WOOD LOUVERS /

STEEL FRAME

STACKED CMU
NEW 75 FT. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
NEW CONC. PLANTER WALL

23.17' (EXISTING GRADE) STACKED CMU MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENED BY RECESSED

ENCLOSURE

SAFETY RAIL SLOPED PLANTING AREA
A5 1 / A2 REF: SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 1 SOUTH ELEVATION
A5 1 / A2 REF: SCALE: 3/32" = 1'-0" 2 WEST ELEVATION
Exhibit C
Builidng Elevations with 75 Foot High Monopole
Source: Quatro Design Group, 2013.
51 102
Exhibit E
Conceptual Rendering
Source: Quatro Design Group
52 103
53 104
54 105
55 106
56 Exhibit 6
107
57 108
58 109
59 110
60 111
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Aeronautical Study No.
2023-AWP-7625-OE
Prior Study No.
2022-AWP-19092-OE

Page 1 of 3 ends

Issued Date: 05/11/2023
LASD/Facilities Planning Bureau
Yvonne Chacon
4700 Ramona Blvd., 4th Floor
Monterey Park, CA 91754
** DETERMINATION OF NO HAZARD TO AIR NAVIGATION **
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 LA County Sheriff Communication Tower Location: Malibu, CA
Latitude: 34-02-12.55N NAD 83
Longitude: 118-41-23.71W
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:

Based on this evaluation, marking and lighting are not necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking/ lighting are accomplished on a voluntary basis, we recommend it be installed in accordance with FAA Advisory circular 70/7460-1 M.

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. 61 Exhibit 7
112

Page 2 of 3 ends

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.

This aeronautical study included evaluation of a structure that exists at this time. Action will be taken to ensure aeronautical charts are updated to reflect the most current coordinates, elevation and height as indicated in the case description.

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 2023- AWP-7625-OE.

Signature Control No: 582626695-585054769 ( DNE )
Nicholas Sanders
Technician
Attachment(s)
Frequency Data
cc: FCC
62 113

Page 3 of 3 ends

Frequency Data for ASN 2023-AWP-7625-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
63 114
64 Exhibit 8
115
65 116
66 117
67 118
68 119
69 120
70 121
71 122
72 123
73 124
74 125
75 126
76 127
TR
UP
T R
T R
TR
TR
T R
TR
T R
T R
UP

SECURE PARKING
(10) SPACES

SECURE PARKING PERIMETER WALL SECURE

PARKING GATE
PUBLIC

ENTRANCE
SECURE ENTRANCE NEW 75 FT. COMMUNICATION
TOWER

EXIT GATE THROUGH

COUNTY PROPERTY

EXISTING

TOWER TO BE REPLACED

EMERGENCY GENERATOR MCR

PROPOSED TELEPHONE CONDUIT

PROPOSED SITE BOUNDARY

PATH OF TRAVEL TO THE

PUBLIC WAY NEW ACCESSIBLE

PARKING STALLS

BUS STOP

EXISTING ARCADE TO REMAIN
C
C
C

83.9' 52.1'

OFFSITE PARKING NOT INCLUDED

IN TOTAL PARKING COUNT OFFSITE PARKING NOT INCLUDEDIN TOTAL PARKING COUNT 18' ROLLING
CHAIN LINK GATE, 8' HIGH

12.1' C C
8' HIGH CHAIN LINK

FENCE BETWEEN SMC

AND WATER WORKS

C CCCCCCCCCCCCC CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
A1 1 / A5 REF: Not to SCALE
1 SITE & ACCESSIBILITY PLAN

EXISTING COMPACT SPACES
Exhibit A
Location of Existing and Proposed Communication Tower
Source: Quatro Design Group, November, 2014.
77 128
Exhibit B
Photographs of the Existing Communications Tower
View 1: Close-up view of the communications tower.

View 2: View from the intersection of Civic Center Way and Web Way looking southeast towards the Project Site.

Jan. 2012
May 2013
78 129
0' - 0" GROUND LEVEL
14' - 0" SECOND LEVEL
28' - 0" TOP OF PLATE
35' - 10" TOP OF ROOF METAL FASCIA PANELS

STACKED CMU
NEW 18" PLANTER WALL METAL LOUVER
(NATURAL VENTILATION) WOOD LOUVERS / STEEL FRAME

PIVOT DOORS AT MAIN ENTRANCE
NEW 75' EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
REPLACES EXISTING 70' TOWER

STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM

SPANDREL GLAZING

23.17' (EXISTING GRADE) WATER FEATURE

STEPPED SEATING
0' - 0" GROUND LEVEL
14' - 0" SECOND LEVEL
28' - 0" TOP OF PLATE
35' - 10" TOP OF ROOF WOOD LOUVERS / STEEL FRAME

STACKED CMU METAL FASCIA PANELS WOOD LOUVERS /

STEEL FRAME

STACKED CMU
NEW 75 FT. EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS TOWER
NEW CONC. PLANTER WALL

23.17' (EXISTING GRADE) STACKED CMU MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT SCREENED BY RECESSED

ENCLOSURE

TYP. 22' - 0"
RFS PD1151-6 RFS PD1151-6 RFS PD1151-6 RFS BA6012-2 Kreco D-100A Kreco D-40A Celwave/RFS PD220-3A Celwave/RFS PD220-3A Celwave/RFS PD220-3A DB DB201-L DB DB201-L Celwave/RFS PD220-8 Coment GP-21 Coment GP-21 Hy-Gain DX-88 Spectracom 8230 SCALA Yagi Celwave/RFS BA6012-5 Celwave/RFS BA6012-5 Kreco D-100A Kreco D-40A RFS DA8 59AC
RFS DA8 59AC
RFS SB6 190AB
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
MANUF. MODEL TYPE TOWER LOCATION PLATFORM

ANTENNA LEGEND
ANT. ID
8 dB MHz
fiberglass collinear 8 dB MHz
fiberglass collinear 8 dB MHz
fiberglass collinear 0dB 483 MHz omni fiberglass collinear Discone (100 to 800 MHz) Discone
(40 to 320 MHz) 150-174 MHz, omni collinear 150-174 MHz, omni collinear 150-174 MHz, omni collinear 50.6 MHz omni unity gain

29.3 MHz omni unity gain
220 MHz, omni fiberglass 12 dB
omni fiberglass 12 dB
omni fiberglass 10-40M
omni, collinear GPS Time Source BDA Donor 0 dB 483 MHz, omni fiberglass collinear 0 dB 483 MHz, omni fiberglass collinear Discone (100 to 800 MHz) Discone
(30 to 240 MHz 8-Foot M/W, 6 GHz, s
space divertisty 8-Foot M/W, 6 GHz, s
space divertisty 6-Foot M/W, 18 GHz,
N.S.TOWER
S.E.TOWER
S.E.TOWER
N.E.TOWER
N.E.TOWER
N.S. TOWER
N.E.TOWER
N.E.TOWER
N.S. TOWER
N.E.TOWER
N.S. TOWER
S.E. TOWER
N.S. TOWER
N.S. TOWER
N.S. TOWER
S.E. TOWER
S.E. TOWER
S.E. TOWER
S.E. TOWER
N.S. TOWER
N.E.TOWER
S.E. TOWER
135 DEGREE
S.E. TOWER
135 DEGREE N. TOWER
32 DEGREE
C
C
A
AC
A
B
A
B
A
A
B
B
B
AC
C
B
B
A
AC
B
60' GROUND
0' - 0"

PLATFORM A
30' - 0" PLATFORM B
50' - 0" PLATFORM C
75' - 0"

STEP BOLT SAFETY CABLERAIL GUARD

RAIL GUARD

RAIL GUARD
. 60' - 0" PROPOSED SMC
35' - 10"

BUILDING

TOP OF ANTENNA
APPROX. 86' - 8" NOTES: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER TO ADDRESS THE TOWER STRUCTURE DESIGN

SPECIFICATIONS TO MEET THE TWIST, BEND AND OTHER STRUCTURE ISSUES THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR MICROWAVE ANTENNAS AND OTHER ANTENNAS MONOPOLE SHALL BE DESIGNED TO MEET OR EXCEED TIA-222-G STANDARD OR LATEST EDITION GROUNDING DESIGN MUST MEET NEC STANDARD AND INDUSTRY STANDARD MOTOROLA R56 OR HARRIS TELECOMMUNICATIONS GROUNDING STANDARDS G7 4 / G7 REF: SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1
G7 4 / G7 REF: SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 2
G7 4 / G7 REF: SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 3
G7 REF: SCALE: 5 G7 REF: SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4
Exhibit D
Monopole Design
Source: Quatro Design Group, October 2014.
80 131
Exhibit E
Conceptual Rendering
Source: Quatro Design Group
81 132
82 133
1787 Sentry Pky W Suite 100 Blue Bell, PA 19422
Phone# (703)-276-1100
Latitude: N34- 2-8.99
Longitude: W118-41-27.60
Structure Type: Monopole
Report generated date: December , 2024
Report by: Nicholas Pagano
Customer Contact: Jason Jacks
© 2024 SiteSafe™
An INFRASERVICES Product
Exhibit 9
83 134
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
23555 Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA 90625
84 135
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
Table of Contents
1 Information .......................................................................................................................... 4 1 Executive Summary............................................................................................................ 5 2 Actions for Site Compliance: ............................................................................................. 6

2.2 Actions for Site Compliance ............................................................................................ 6 3 RF Exposure Diagram......................................................................................................... 7 4 Antenna Inventory............................................................................................................. ...................................................................................................... Appendix A – Statement of Limiting Conditions....................................................................

Appendix B – Assumptions and Definitions ..........................................................................

General Model Assumptions................................................................................................

Definitions..............................................................................................................................

Appendix C – Rules & Regulations .........................................................................................

Explanation of Applicable Rules and Regulations.............................................................

Occupational Environment Explained.................................................................................

Appendix D – General Safety Recommendations..................................................................

Additional Information ..........................................................................................................

Appendix E – Regulatory Basis...............................................................................................

FCC Rules and Regulations .................................................................................................

Appendix F – Safety Plan and Procedures............................................................................. 85 136
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
1 Information
December 2, 2024
RFMaster, Version 1.0087.24
Sula09
CD: Monopole Revised Variance Drawings.pdf
86 137
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
1 Executive Summary
County of Los Angeles has contracted with Site Safe, LLC (Sitesafe), an independent Radio Frequency (RF) regulatory and engineering consulting firm, to determine whether the communications site, 1028939 - Malibu Sheriff Monopole, located at 23555 Civic Center Way, Malibu, CA, is in compliance with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) ules and egulations for RF exposure.

This report contains a detailed summary of the RF environment at the site including:

Diagram of the site
Inventory of the make / model of all antennas
Theoretical MPE based on modeling
This report addresses exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields in accordance with FCC ules and egulations for all individuals, classified in two groups, “Occupational or Controlled” and “General Public or Uncontrolled.”
Defined by the FCC as an area where RF
exposure may occur to persons who are
of the potential for exposure as a
condition of employment or specific activity
and can exercise control over their exposure
Defined by the FCC as an area where RF
exposure may occur to persons who are
unaware of the potential for exposure and
who have no control over their exposure.

General Population is also referenced as
General Public
proposes to evaluate an existing site. The proposed antennas are noted as “Proposed” in the antenna table under Section 4.

This document and the conclusions herein are based on the information provided by .

If you have any questions regarding RF safety and regulatory compliance, please do not hesitate to contact Sitesafe’s Customer Support Department at (703) 276-1100 87 138
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
2 Actions for Site Compliance:

Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. If required, RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on theoretical analysis of MPE levels.

The compliance determination is based on theoretical modeling, RF signage placement recommendations, and/or the level of restricted access to the antennas at the site.

2. for Compliance
Based on common industry practice and our understanding of FCC and OSHA requirements, this section provides a statement of recommendations for site compliance. If required, RF alert signage recommendations have been proposed based on theoretical analysis of MPE levels.

County of Los Angeles will be compliant if the following changes are implemented:

Monopole Access Location
(1) Caution sign required.
(1) NOC Information sign required.

Ensure that this access point is locked/restricted.

2. a – Example NOC Sign: 2. b – Example Caution Sign:

2. 88
139
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
3 RF Exposure Diagram
The RF diagram(s) below display theoretical percentage of the Maximum Permissible Exposure for all systems at the site. These diagrams use modeling as prescribed in OET Bulletin 65 and assumptions detailed in Appendix B.

The key at the bottom of each diagram indicates if percentages displayed are referenced to FCC Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits. Color coding on the diagram is as follows:

This table displays the maximum theoretical percentage of the FCC’s General Public MPE limits:

99.03% <1%
• GROUND LEVEL = 0’
• ROOFTOP = 35.8’
1,894.25%
89 140
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page 8 of
RF exposure diagrams that are presented are within the area of interest shown. 90 141
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
Composite View
91 142
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
Elevation View
92 143
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
4 Antenna Inventory
The following antenna inventory and representative photographs were obtained or verified during the site visit and were utilized to create the site model diagrams: ANT 8230 Yagi
93 144
https://www.sitesafe.com/
Page of
ANT Note: The Z reference indicates antenna height above . ERP values provided by the client and used in the modeling may be greater than are currently deployed. For additional modeling information, refer to Appendix B. 94 145
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
5 Reviewer Certification
The reviewer whose signature appears below hereby certifies and affirms:

That I am an employee of InfraServices Group Wireless LLC, at which the staff and I provide RF compliance services to clients in the wireless communications industry; and That I am thoroughly familiar with the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) as well as the regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), both in general and specifically as they apply to the FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields; and That I have thoroughly reviewed this Site Compliance Report and believe it to be true and accurate to the best of my knowledge as assembled by and attested to by Nicholas Pagano.

December , 2024
95 146
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Appendix A – Statement of Limiting Conditions
Sitesafe™ will not be responsible for matters of a legal nature that affect the site or property.

Due to the complexity of some wireless sites, Sitesafe™ performed this analysis and created this report utilizing best industry practices and due diligence. Sitesafe™ cannot be held accountable or responsible for anomalies or discrepancies due to actual site conditions (i.e., mislabeling of antennas or equipment, inaccessible cable runs, inaccessible antennas or equipment, etc.) or information or data supplied by LA County Internal Services Dept, the site manager, or their affiliates, subcontractors or assigns.

Sitesafe™ has provided computer generated model(s) in this Site Compliance Report to show approximate dimensions of the site, and the model is included to assist the reader of the compliance report to visualize the site area, and to provide supporting documentation for Sitesafe™’s recommendations.

Sitesafe™ may note in the Site Compliance Report any adverse physical conditions, such as needed repairs, observed during the survey of the subject property or that Sitesafe™ became aware of during the normal research involved in performing this survey. Sitesafe™ will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required to discover whether such conditions exist. Because Sitesafe™ is not an expert in the field of mechanical engineering or building maintenance, the Site Compliance Report must not be considered a structural or physical engineering report.

Sitesafe™ obtained information used in this Site Compliance Report from sources that Sitesafe™ considers reliable and believes them to be true and correct. Sitesafe™ does not assume any responsibility for the accuracy of such items that were furnished by other parties. When conflicts in information occur between data provided by a second party and physical data collected by Sitesafe™, the physical data will be used.
96 147
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Appendix B – Assumptions and Definitions
General Model Assumptions
In this site compliance report, it is assumed that all antennas are operating at full power at all times. Software modeling was performed for all transmitting antennas located on the site.

Sitesafe™ has further assumed a 100% duty cycle and maximum radiated power.

The site has been modeled with these assumptions to show the maximum RF energy density.

Sitesafe™ believes this to be a worst-case analysis, based on best available data. Areas modeled to predict exposure greater than 100% of the applicable MPE level may not actually occur but are shown as a worst-case prediction that could be realized real time. Sitesafe™ believes these areas to be safe for entry by occupationally trained personnel utilizing appropriate personal protective equipment (in most cases, a personal monitor).

Thus, at any time, if power density measurements were made, we believe the real-time measurements would indicate levels below those depicted in the RF exposure diagram(s) in this report. By modeling in this way, Sitesafe™ has conservatively shown exclusion areas – areas that should not be entered without the use of a personal monitor, carriers reducing power, or performing real-time measurements to indicate real-time exposure levels. 97 148
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Definitions
5% Rule – The rules adopted by the FCC specify that, in general, at multiple transmitter sites actions necessary to bring the area into compliance with the guidelines are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose transmitters produce field strengths or power density levels at the area in question in excess of 5% of the exposure limits. In other words, any wireless operator that contributes 5% or greater of the MPE limit in an area that is identified to be greater than 100% of the MPE limit is responsible for taking corrective actions to bring the site into compliance.

Compliance – The determination of whether a site complies with FCC standards with regards to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields from transmitting antennas.

Decibel (dB) – A unit for measuring power or strength of a signal.

Duty Cycle – The percent of pulse duration to the pulse period of a periodic pulse train. Also, may be a measure of the temporal transmission characteristic of an intermittently transmitting RF source such as a paging antenna by dividing average transmission duration by the average period for transmission. A duty cycle of 100% corresponds to continuous operation.

Effective (or Equivalent) Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) – The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna.

Effective Radiated Power (ERP) – The product of the power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to a half-wave dipole antenna.

Gain (of an antenna) – The ratio, usually expressed in decibels, of the power required at the input of a loss-free reference antenna to the power supplied to the input of the given antenna to produce, in a given direction, the same field strength or the same power density at the same distance. When not specified otherwise, the gain refers to the direction of maximum radiation.

Gain may be considered for a specified polarization. Gain may be referenced to an isotropic antenna (dBi) or a half-wave dipole (dBd) antenna.

General Population/Uncontrolled Environment – Defined by the FCC as an area where RF exposure may occur to persons who are unaware of the potential for exposure and who have no control over their exposure. General Population is also referenced as General Public.

Generic Antenna – For the purposes of this report, the use of “Generic” as an antenna model means the antenna information was not provided and could not be obtained while on site. In the event of unknown information, Sitesafe™ will use its industry specific knowledge of antenna models to select a worst-case scenario antenna to model the site.

Isotropic Antenna – An antenna that is completely non-directional. In other words, an antenna that radiates energy equally in all directions.

Maximum Measurement – This measurement represents the single largest measurement recorded when performing a spatial average measurement.

Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) – The rms and peak electric and magnetic field strength, their squares, or the plane-wave equivalent power densities associated with these fields to which a person may be exposed without harmful effect and with acceptable safety factor. 98 149
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Occupational/Controlled Environment – Defined by the FCC as an area where RF exposure may occur to persons who are aware of the potential for exposure as a condition of employment or specific activity and can exercise control over their exposure.

OET Bulletin 65 – Technical guideline developed by the FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology to determine the impact of RF exposure on humans. The guideline was published in August 1997.

OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) – Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing a safe and healthy workplace for their employees. OSHA's role is to promote the safety and health of America's working men and women by setting and enforcing standards; providing training, outreach and education; establishing partnerships; and encouraging continual process improvement in workplace safety and health. For more information, visit www.osha.gov. Radio Frequency Exposure or Electromagnetic Fields – Electromagnetic waves that are propagated from antennas through space.

Spatial Average Measurement – A technique used to average a minimum of ten (10) measurements taken in a ten (10) second interval from zero (0) to six (6) feet. This measurement is intended to model the average energy a 6-foot tall human body will absorb while present in an electromagnetic field of energy.

Transmitter Power Output (TPO) – The radio frequency output power of a transmitter’s final radio frequency stage as measured at the output terminal while connected to a load. 99 150
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Appendix C – Rules & Regulations
Explanation of Applicable Rules and Regulations
The FCC has set forth guidelines in OET Bulletin 65 for human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields. Specific regulations regarding this topic are listed in Part 1, Subpart I, of Title 47 in the Code of Federal Regulations. Currently, there are two different levels of MPE - General Public MPE and Occupational MPE. An individual classified as Occupational can be defined as an individual who has received appropriate RF training and meets the conditions outlined below. General Public is defined as anyone who does not meet the conditions of being Occupational. FCC and OSHA Rules and Regulations define compliance in terms of total exposure to total RF energy, regardless of location of or proximity to the sources of energy.

It is the responsibility of all licensees to ensure these guidelines are maintained at all times. It is the ongoing responsibility of all licensees composing the site to maintain ongoing compliance with FCC rules and regulations. Individual licensees that contribute less than 5% MPE to any total area out of compliance are not responsible for corrective actions.

OSHA has adopted and enforces the FCC’s exposure guidelines. A building owner or site manager can use this report as part of an overall RF Health and Safety Policy. It is important for building owners/site managers to identify areas in excess of the General Population MPE and ensure that only persons qualified as Occupational are granted access to those areas.

Occupational Environment Explained
The FCC definition of Occupational exposure limits apply to persons who:
are exposed to RF energy as a consequence of their employment; have been made aware of the possibility of exposure; and can exercise control over their exposure.

OSHA guidelines go further to state that persons must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.

In order to consider this site an Occupational Environment, the site must be controlled to prevent access by any individuals classified as the General Public. Compliance is also maintained when any non-occupational individuals (the General Public) are prevented from accessing areas indicated as Red or Yellow in the attached RF exposure diagram. In addition, a person must be aware of the RF environment into which they are entering. This can be accomplished by an RF Safety Awareness class, and by appropriate written documentation such as this Site Compliance Report.

All employees who require access to this site must complete RF Safety Awareness training and must be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.
100
151
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Appendix D – General Safety Recommendations
The following are general recommendations appropriate for any site with accessible areas in excess of 100% General Public MPE. These recommendations are not specific to this site. These are safety recommendations appropriate for typical site management, building management, and other tenant operations.

1. All individuals needing access to the main site (or the area indicated to be in excess of General Public MPE) should wear a personal protective monitor (PPM), successfully complete proper RF Safety Awareness training, and have and be trained in the use of appropriate personal protective equipment.

2. All individuals needing access to the main site should be instructed to read and obey all posted placards and signs.

3. The site should be routinely inspected and this or similar report updated with the addition of any antennas or upon any changes to the RF environment including:
adding new antennas that may have been located on the site removing of any existing antennas
changes in the radiating power or number of RF emitters

4. Post the appropriate NOTICE, CAUTION, or WARNING sign at the main site access point(s) and other locations as required. Note: Please refer to RF Exposure Diagrams in Section 3.1 to inform everyone who has access to this site that beyond posted signs there may be levels in excess of the limits prescribed by the FCC. In addition to RF Advisory Signage, a RF Guideline Signage is recommended to be posted at the main site access point(s). The signs below are examples of signs meeting FCC guidelines.

5. Ensure that the site door remains locked (or appropriately controlled) to deny access to the general public if deemed as policy by the building/site owner.

6. For a General Public environment the five color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner:
101
152
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Gray represents areas predicted to be at 5% or less of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions.

Green represents areas predicted to be between 5% and 100% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public can access these areas with no restrictions.

Blue represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 500% of the General Public 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.

Red represents areas predicted to be greater than 5000% of the General Public MPE limits. The General Public should be restricted from accessing these areas.

7. For an Occupational environment the five color levels identified in this analysis can be interpreted in the following manner:

Gray represents areas predicted to be at 1% or less of the Occupational MPE limits.

Workers can access these areas with no restrictions.

Green represents areas predicted to be between 1% and 20% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas with no restrictions.

Blue represents areas predicted to be between 20% and 100% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas assuming they have basic understanding of EME awareness and RF safety procedures and understand how to limit their exposure.

Yellow represents areas predicted to be between 100% and 1000% of the Occupational MPE limits. Workers can access these areas assuming they have basic understanding of EME awareness and RF safety procedures and understand how to limit their exposure. Transmitter power reduction and/or time-averaging may be required.

Red represents areas predicted to be greater than 1000% of the Occupational MPE limits. These areas are not safe for workers to be in for prolonged periods of time. Special procedures must be adhered to, such as lockout/tagout or transmitter power reduction, to minimize worker exposure to EME.

8. Use of a Personal Protective Monitor (PPM): When working around antennas, Sitesafe™ strongly recommends the use of a PPM. Wearing a PPM will properly forewarn the individual prior to entering an RF exposure area.

Keep a copy of this report available for all persons who must access the site. They should read this report and be aware of the potential hazards with regards to RF and MPE limits.

Additional Information
Additional RF information is available at the following sites:
https://www.fcc.gov/general/radio-frequency-safety-0
https://www.fcc.gov/engineering-technology/electromagnetic-compatibility-division/radiofrequency-safety/faq/rf-safety OSHA has additional information available at:
https://www.osha.gov/SLTC/radiofrequencyradiation/index.html 102
153
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Appendix E – Regulatory Basis
FCC Rules and Regulations
In 1996, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted regulations for evaluating the effects of RF exposure in 47 CFR § 1.1307 and 1.1310. The guideline from the FCC Office of Engineering and Technology is Bulletin 65 (“OET Bulletin 65”), Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, Edition 97-01, published August 1997. Since 1996 the FCC periodically reviews these rules and regulations as per their congressional mandate.

FCC regulations define two separate tiers of exposure limits: Occupational or “Controlled environment” and General Public or “Uncontrolled environment”. The General Public limits are generally five times more conservative or restrictive than the Occupational limits. The General Public limits apply to accessible areas where workers or the general public may be exposed to Radio Frequency (RF) electromagnetic fields.

Occupational or Controlled limits apply in situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and where those persons exposed have been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure.

An area is considered a Controlled environment when access is limited to these aware personnel. Typical criteria are restricted access (i.e. locked or alarmed doors, barriers, etc.) to the areas where antennas are located coupled with proper RF hazard signage.

A site with Controlled environments is evaluated with Occupational limits.

All other areas are considered Uncontrolled environments. If a site has no access controls or no RF hazard signage it is evaluated with General Public limits.

The theoretical modeling of the RF electromagnetic fields has been performed in accordance with OET Bulletin 65. The Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) limits utilized in this analysis are outlined in the following diagram:

FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE)
Plane-wave Equivalent Power Density

0.01 0.1
1 10
100
1000
0 1 10 100 1,000 10,000
Frequency (MHz)
Occupational
General Public
103
154
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Limits for Occupational/Controlled Exposure (MPE)
Frequency
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field
Strength
(E) (V/m)
Magnetic
Field
Strength
(H) (A/m)
Power
Density
(S)
(mW/cm2
)
Averaging Time
|E|2
, |H|2or S
(minutes)

0.3-3.0 614 1.63 (100)* 6

3.0-30 1842/f 4.89/f (900/f2)* 6
30-300 61.4 0.163 1.0 6
300-1500 -- -- f/300 6
1500-
100,000
-- -- 5 6
Limits for General Population/Uncontrolled Exposure (MPE) Frequency
Range
(MHz)
Electric
Field
Strength
(E) (V/m)
Magnetic
Field
Strength
(H) (A/m)
Power
Density
(S)
(mW/cm2
)
Averaging Time
|E|2
, |H|2or S
(minutes)

0.3-1.34 614 1.63 (100)* 30

1.34-30 824/f 2.19/f (180/f2)* 30
30-300 27.5 0.073 0.2 30
300-1500 -- -- f/1500 30
1500-
100,000
-- -- 1.0 30
f = frequency in MHz *Plane-wave equivalent power density 104
155
https://www.sitesafe.com/
703.276.1100 [email protected] Page of
Appendix F – Safety Plan and Procedures
The following items are general safety recommendations that should be administered on a site by site basis as needed by the carrier.

General Maintenance Work: Any maintenance personnel required to work immediately in front of antennas and / or in areas indicated as above 100% of the Occupational MPE limits should coordinate with the wireless operators to disable transmitters during their work activities.

Training and Qualification Verification: All personnel accessing areas indicated as exceeding the General Population MPE limits should have a basic understanding of EME awareness and RF Safety procedures when working around transmitting antennas. Awareness training increases a worker’s understanding to potential RF exposure scenarios. Awareness can be achieved in a number of ways (e.g. videos, formal classroom lecture or internet-based courses).

Physical Access Control: Access restrictions to transmitting antennas locations is the primary element in a site safety plan. Examples of access restrictions are as follows:

Locked door or gate
Alarmed door
Locked ladder access
Restrictive Barrier at antenna (e.g. Chain link with posted RF Sign) RF Signage: Everyone should obey all posted signs at all times. RF signs play an important role in properly warning a worker prior to entering into a potential RF Exposure area.

Assume all antennas are active: Due to the nature of telecommunications transmissions, an antenna transmits intermittently. Always assume an antenna is transmitting. Never stop in front of an antenna. If you have to pass by an antenna, move through as quickly and safely as possible thereby reducing any exposure to a minimum.

Site RF Exposure Diagram(s): Section 3 of this report contains RF Diagram(s) that outline various theoretical Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) areas at the site. The modeling is a worst-case scenario assuming a duty cycle of 100% for each transmitting antenna at full power. This analysis is based on one of two access control criteria: General Public criteria means the access to the site is uncontrolled and anyone can gain access. Occupational criteria means the access is restricted and only properly trained individuals can gain access to the antenna locations. 105
156

! "#$%&'%()(*'(+$*,- .+,/0/ 1
#/! 0 + 11211#
3
1#11 431/5 !
6789:;<=;<>:?;?;@ABC?DDA?9EF7GA878;D=D?:; H?IIJ=KG7:; LLLLLMNOPQORSRTSUUQVSLLLLL WXYZ[\]N^^_`^^O`]ab`cdNeQ]^`NcUfNO^UU^N]gdNN^QVSh]Nij kY[lN_OmiiNcRbnoN^`ROmiiNcReoQaNNh]NijplNacTQqqQbOSUrs`VqeV^ShcS^jpt`uu\QifUNc biQu`vmv`uueoQaNNh]Nij wx[yz`uubgOQ`VhiQu`vmeViQ`uh]NijptOm]S\`u{SOU^S`cbvU`u{SOU^S`ceiQu`vm]`^ohNOVjp\^S{S|aO`cV bU^S{ShmaO`cVeViQ`uh]Nijp}Q^^zSQuobaSQuofQ^^eQNuh]Nijp~Nu`c_OmiiNcRb]Nu`cuROmiiNcReViQ`uh]Nijp OS{NOS`uUNcb^OS{NOcS`uUNceViQ`uh]NijplSddSOUNcQVcSObqmiQnQoUeiQ]h]Nijp_OmcclQ]NvUNc bROmQcc`SeQNuh]Nijp~aQOuN^^SMO`SqSb]idO`SqSeViQ`uh]Nijp}S^SO~hlNcSUbfS^SOefS^SO]nNcSU`c]h]Nij
[MO`RQoTQosrsQ^rT}_ x[S^aS^NPSOLROQd^uS^^SO ¡¡¢£¤¥¦¤ ¡§¨¤ ¡¦¤ ©¡¡ ©ª«¢ _SQO~Nii`UU`NcSOU
aS]mOOSc^¬SiSOVSc]o¬^NPSO^aQ^U^Qdd`UOS]NiiScR`cVvSQffON{SR`UQcQddONc^^N^aSfSNfuSNdTQu`vmQcR^N SQ]aNdoNmh NmO~Nii`UU`NcQffON{SRQ^NPSOQcmivSONdoSQOUQVN^aQ^PQU®dSS^uSUU`caS`Va^QcRvuScRSR`c^N^aS UmOONmcR`cVuQcRU]QfSh aS~Nmc^oaNPS{SOR`UOSVQORSRPaQ^^aS}uQcc`cV~Nii`UU`NcQffON{SRgcNP`cV^aQ^NmO~`^oU^QddPNmuRcN^ ]NcdONc^^aSih a`U`UNcSNd^aNUSiNiSc^UPaSOS^aS~`^oQcR^aS}uQcc`cV~Nii`UU`NcimU^RS]`RS`dPSLQcRoNmLU^QcRdNO Qco^a`cVh¯dUNiSNcS]Qcvm`uRPaQ^S{SO^aSoPQc^QcR^aS~`^oP`uuRNcN^a`cVQvNm^`^vS]QmUSNd^aSfNPSONd^aS Qffu`]Qc^TQu`vm`U`cRSSf^ONmvuSh_NPSU^QcRdNO^aS]`^`qScUNdNmO~`^oQcR°NONmO±`UNc\^Q^SiSc^NOP`uuPS ]Q{S^NfNPSOSu`^SU²¯d`^`U³y^N]NcU^Om]^PaQ^S{SOoNmPQc^gcNP`cV^aQ^^aS~`^oP`uuQ^PNOU^OS´m`OSi`cNO OS{`U`NcUPSiQoQUPSuuR`UvQcR^aS}uQcc`cV~Nii`UU`NcQcRQffON{SS{SOo^a`cVh M`OU^^aSOSQOSiQcoOSdSOSc]SU^N^a`UvS`cVQc¬SiSOVSc]o¬]NcU^Om]^haQ^Nd]NmOUS`UQcQvUNum^Su`Sh¯UmVVSU^ U^QddRONfQuuUm]aOSdSOSc]SUhaSOS`UcNUaSO`ddµUU^Q^`NcU`c]S]mOOSc^uo¶\_aQUcS`^aSO^aSiQcfNPSONOvmRVS^ dNOQUmvU^Q^`NcaSOS^aNmVaPSQuuPQc^iNOSScdNO]SiSc^h Exhibit 10 106
157

"
#

$

%

&

(

)

107
158
From: Bill Sampson
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Agenda of June 3, 2024, Item 5C
Date: Sunday, June 2, 2024 8:21:37 AM
Commissioners:

It is well past time for a little law and order. There is presently an unlawful tower at the site in question. It was knowingly built illegally and the scofflaw who erected it now wants to compound its misdeeds.

It is long past time to cease rewarding illegal behavior simply because the miscreants are "good dudes" or people who resemble yourselves.

Let the punishment fit the "crime:" The applicant should take down that eyesore. If it wants to develop something, let it bring it through the process established by our laws and comply with our codes like citizens should. "Pay to play" is a terrible idea and you should help stop it.

Bill Sampson
108
159

!
" # $%&'
" # ()&"
*%
&+ ,-./0101213451267 8
56
..".)
&&"99"
.$:
..".)%
&&"99"
.(&
";-%"<*

)+=>"%
?7

"%$
&

"%(&
";-%"<*

)+=> ; %%@A.9 $
A.9(&
";-%"<*

)+ B%& .9CB/DEF 1213G/G16
..".)
&&"99"
.G
&&-."%"
.98
H
IJ*?
%K= 6
9 '".?% ?

L- 9".)? ."

' 8
H
* 6
9 .

".

%

?9* 8.M<
-A
<&-%N

GG 7*!
" # 7
";-NO
®
109
160

CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE
Planning Commission
Malibu, CA 90265
RE: Planning Commission Meeting of June 3, 2024
Agenda Item No. 5C – Communications Tower
23525 Civic Center Way
Sent Via Email: Planning [email protected] June 2, 2024 Cc: Richard Mollica [email protected]
Patricia Salazar [email protected] Rebecca Evans [email protected] Honorable Commissioners,
The current “emergency” tower that staff is recommending be approved is an affront to the residents of Malibu, visitors to Malibu and to each of you. It commands the City Center, the Farmer’s Market, our shopping district.

But most importantly it is NOT the TOWER that the Planning Commission approved.

Your Commission approved a tower a number of years ago that was 18 feet shorter and blended into the surrounding landscape.

The County, however, disregarded what the Planning Commission approved, knowing that our City staff would not confront them.

The City and the Planning Commission must stand up for the residents and the Vision and Mission statements. Not for those they deem more powerful. Not the developers.

When something does not meet code, it should be changed. NYC is famous for making a developer remove 5 stories from the top of a building.

The tower is not an “emergency “construct. There is no sheriff’s station since currently LASD has neither the manpower nor budget for a substation.

There is no proof that the site of the existing tower is the best or only possible site.

CHARLOTTE M FRIEZE
110
161
I agree that there should be more testing of other possible site locations. Most importantly the new location must meet fire and electrical standards for unhealthy emissions. We do not want a huge disaster in the center of Malibu.

The color scheme is also offensive and more appropriate for an airport.

I respectfully request that you require the County to remove the existing tower and reapply. The process should determine the best location.

Thank you,
Sincerely,
Charlotte M. Frieze
111
162
From: Emily
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Dangerous Radiation - No Antenna Tower at SMC Malibu Date: Monday, June 3, 2024 3:44:49 PM
This antenna is already emitting dangerous levels of radiation….this is from a half mile away! The radio frequency RFs exceed maximum permissible exposure limits as currently designed! It needs to be reduced in size and made a neutral color. To enlarge it would produce dangerous levels of radiation to the students at the school and nearby community. 112
163
1 Planning Commission
From: Jo Drummond >
Sent: Monday, June 3, 2024 1:41 PM
To: Planning Commission; Kraig Hill; John Mazza; Kelsey Pettijohn; Patricia Salazar Cc: Rebecca Evans; Patt Healy; Charlotte Frieze; Lonnie Gordon; Bill Sampson; Ann Doneen; Colin Drummond; Dru Ann Jacobson; Rosemarie Ihde; Scott Dittrich; Georgia Goldfarb; Sam Hall Kaplan; Mari Ellen; Malibu Township Council; Hans Laetz
Subject: Item 5C: 23525 Civic Center Antenna Pole
Attachments: #2pole.jpeg; #3pole.jpeg; #4pole.jpeg; #5polejpeg.jpeg; #6pole.jpeg; #7 FAA's 3-7-22 NO CONFLICT letter_516416933.pdf; #8 librarytower.jpeg; #9 library tower.jpeg; #10 MPEs.jpeg; #11 MPEs.jpeg; #12 antennas.jpeg; #13polefrompch.JPG; mtcsmcpoleopposition.pdf Please find MTC's public comment on the above item attached below.

If these additional images attached can be available for slideshow presentation during public comment on the item tonight pls advise.

Thank you, Jo Drummond
113
164
114
165
115
166
116
167
117
168
Mail Processing Center
Federal Aviation Administration
Southwest Regional Office
Obstruction Evaluation Group
10101 Hillwood Parkway
Fort Worth, TX 76177
Aeronautical Study No.
2021-AWP-2365-OE

Page 1 of 5 ends

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
169

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:

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.

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
170

Page 3 of 5 ends

cc: FCC
120
171

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
172

Page 5 of 5 ends

TOPO Map for ASN 2021-AWP-2365-OE
122
173

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
174
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
175
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
176
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
177
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
178
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
179
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
180
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
181
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
182
132
183
133
184
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
185

!"#$%#&'()*%+$,-.%/ 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
186
136
187
137
188
138
189
139
190
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
191
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
192
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 193
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
194
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
195
145
196
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
197
County of Los Angeles
Emergency
Communications Facility Project
Malibu Civic Center
23519-23555 W. Civic Center Way, Malibu
April 21, 2025
147
198
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
199
h
Emergency Communication Facility Location
and LARICS Sites
149
200
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
201
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
202
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
203
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
204
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
205
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
206
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
207
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
208
Emergency Communications Facility Project Color Options New Emergency Communications Facility will be repainted to earthtone selected by City. 158
209
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
210
Fire Station 88
160
211
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
212
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

Malibu City CouncilDecember 17, 2025

Malibu City Council
December 17, 2025