exposure limits, extending into the college and surrounding areas. This pole must be placed at least 50–100 feet away from sensitive public spaces: the college, Labor Exchange, Legacy Park, the public library - frequented by children, Farmers Market, nearby malls, the chili cookoff site, etc.. The required warning signage should, by these standards, appear inside nearby buildings.
This installation is not essential. Existing antennas on the courthouse and a 30-foot, temporary tower behind the library (securely caged and unobtrusive) already serve the area. The tower at the Lost Hills Sheriff’s Station is less imposing than the proposed structure. The County has yet to provide evidence that this new pole improves radio coverage.
Additionally, the site lies near the Malibu Fault Line, and no analysis of the pole’s fall radius in the event of seismic activity has been presented. At the last hearing, Dennis 4/21/25
162
213
Smith highlighted that the pole’s anchor bolts are exposed and easily accessible—an unacceptable security risk.
Expanding this structure with even more high-emission devices would only amplify the danger. The County must not continue profiting from a hazardous and unsightly installation. We respectfully urge you to deny this application. Adequate and far less intrusive solutions already exist.
Should the project proceed, we ask that the County:
Reduce the total height of the pole,
Relocate it behind the college,
Paint it a neutral color,
Limit the number of antennae, and do not permit any 3rd party commercial uses If needed, allow only a slender extension atop the pole, not exceeding 75 feet from finished, lowest grade
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
Respectfully,
Jo Drummond
Malibu Township Council
https://www.malibucity.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/7275?fileID=77306 163
214
164
215
165
216
166
217
167
218
168
219
169
220
170
221
171
222
172
223
173
224
174
225
175
226
176
227
177
228
178
229
179
230
Pole
Behind
Library
Is not
Visible
To
public
from
street
view
180
231
181
232
182
233
183
234
184
235
185
236
From: K Hill
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 4A. Civic center doesn"t need a lighthouse Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 12:51:07 AM
Commissioners,
Greetings to all from the sunny, hot Ojai Valley. Reminder: get ready to not take for granted May Gray and June Gloom in the 'Bu.
Here are couple of observations about the Civic Center tower and proposed CUP.
First, the existing tower was never permitted. The tower included in the CDP was referenced as being similar to the previously existing tower, which was an open-lattice style. Notwithstanding all the water under the bridge since then, the fact remains that the only tower permitted would be an open-lattice style. The compromise that Richard Mollica made to allow the existing tower to remain with modifications was based in politics not law. Therefore it could still be challenged on legal grounds.
Second, a lattice-style tower would be sufficient, except that the County’s overly-robust design gives away their future intent – manifest regardless of what they might say – to host additional, 3rd-party facilities. That use was not contemplated in the CDP; the tower's sole purpose is for emergency communications. So, if you would approve a CUP for any modified version of the existing tower, be sure to include an express restriction on 3rd-party commercial uses. Certainly the majority of Malibu residents are not interested in having their views and rural character sold off to the highest bidder.
Yours,
K
4/21/25
186
237
From: Lonnie Gordon
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Subject: Public Safety Systems Permit – Clarification on Applicable Regulations Item 4.A Date: Sunday, April 20, 2025 5:20:41 PM
Dear Members of the Malibu Planning Commission,
I am writing to provide important clarifications regarding the regulatory framework applicable to the permit application for public safety systems currently under review. Given the nature of this permit, key provisions in the Telecommunications Act (TCA) and federal law that typically govern personal wireless service facilities do not apply in this case.
Exemption from Federal Wireless Facility Restrictions
This permit application pertains to public safety systems, not personal wireless service facilities. As such, the restrictive provisions outlined in TCA Sec. 704 and 47 USC §332(c)(7) do not apply—a position supported by telecommunications attorney Scott McCollough, who has successfully challenged outdated federal health guidelines.
Malibu’s Authority to Deny the Permit Based on Health and Environmental Concerns The prohibition on regulating based on environmental effects under §332(c)(7)(B)(iv) does not apply in this case.
Malibu retains the legal authority to deny this permit based on health and environmental effects, even if exposures fall within FCC limits.
Exemptions from Federal Constraints on Local Oversight
The FCC shot clocks do not apply.
The effective prohibition restriction does not apply.
The nondiscrimination restriction does not apply.
The federal requirement for a written decision does not apply.
The federal cause of action in §332(c)(7)(v) does not apply.
Future Collocation Concerns:
Once approved, cell companies may seek to negotiate a lease with the county and collocate on the approved site.
This scenario raises serious health concerns for individuals sensitive to EMF (electromagnetic fields).
Potential Impact: The presence of such installations near schools would be particularly harmful. Attending school in close proximity to these facilities could feel akin to being 4/21/25
187
238
in a microwave oven due to the concentrated EMF exposure.
At that point, TCA Sec. 704 and the Spectrum Act would apply, necessitating additional regulatory oversight.
The staff report’s recommendation that any future collocation come back for a separate permit review is correct but can be strengthened further.
Additional Considerations for Permit Conditions
Since this location does not fall under federal mandates requiring the county to allow placement, Malibu could go further in conditioning permit approval. Specifically:
Malibu could impose a condition that restricts the county from leasing collocation space to cell companies to ensure compliance with broader community planning goals.
Conclusion
Given the implications of this permit approval, I urge the Planning Commission to carefully consider these points and ensure that local control remains a priority in this decision-making process. I request that this item be continued to give you time to review alternative sites as Skylar, Dennis, John and Kraig stated in a previous meeting.
Thank you for your time and consideration. Please make your decision based on the input from our legal counsel, and all of the Malibu residents who have voiced their objections to this huge and unnecessary eyesore since it was first erected.
Best regards,
Ms. Lonnie Gordon
Executive Director
MalibuForSafeTech.org
www.MalibuForSafeTech.org
(This email is submitted as public comment. Please include it in the official record.) -- "The world is not dangerous because of those who do harm, but because of those who look at it without doing anything".
Albert Einstein
188
239
From:
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; [email protected]; Skylar; Jo Drummond Cc: R Y A N; Jan Ravlich; Emily Ravlich; Wade Major; Scott Dittrich; Bill Sampson; Ann Doneen; Lonnie Gordon; Dru Ann Jacobson; Mari Ellen; Colin Drummond; Rosemarie Ihde; Mariela Guastavino; Kraig Hill; Charlotte Frieze; Sam Hall Kaplan; Jefferson Wagner; Georgia Goldfarb; Barbara Burke; Hans Laetz Subject: Re: Item 4A / SMC ANTENHA POLE - 23525 Civic Center Drive Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 6:44:58 AM
Excellent! Thanks Jo
On Monday, April 21, 2025 at 06:34:29 AM PDT, Jo Drummond > wrote:
Honorable Members of the Planning Commission,
4/21/25
189
240
190
241
From: Scott Dittrich
To: Planning Commission; John Mazza; Drew Leonard; Elizabeth Riddick; ; Skylar Cc: Patt Healy; R Y A N; Jan Ravlich; Emily Ravlich; Wade Major; Bill Sampson; Ann Doneen; Lonnie Gordon; Dru Ann Jacobson; Mari Ellen; Colin Drummond; Rosemarie Ihde; Mariela Guastavino; Kraig Hill; Charlotte Frieze; Sam Hall Kaplan; Jefferson Wagner; Georgia Goldfarb; Barbara Burke; Hans Laetz; Jo Drummond; Haylynn Conrad; Bruce Silverstein; Steve Uhring; Doug Stewart; Marianne Riggins; Wade Major Subject: Re: Item 4A / The Tower
Date: Monday, April 21, 2025 10:12:51 AM
Dear Commissioners,
You represent the citizens of Malibu and are our voice. Neither the consultant nor staff in our building department appreciate the difficult fight Malibu has had to protect ourselves from becoming an urban clutter beach city like Newport or Santa Monica. But you know and know why our mission and vision statements embody the values of our citizens and of our constant battle to protect the rural character we hold so dear. We rely on you for protection.
This tower was built by those same forces that caused us to rise up and become a separate municipality back in 1990 and 91. Arrogantly the County ignored what had been permitted. They called it an “emergency” even though there was no immediate need. They designed the structure so that it could eventually be leased to various telecom companies.
When citizens rightly complained and demanded the tower be removed and pointed out the violations of the original permit in terms of size and location and color the City sent it back to the County and asked for alternatives. In these meetings it was pointed out that there were several alternatives that existed that did not violate the terms of the original permit and that were much less obtrusive.
The current plan of removing the antennas on top is not sufficient to meet the permit. Worse, the design chips away at everything that makes Malibu unique. The location is still in violation and the consultant did not seem to weigh alternatives that would not compromise our environment.
Several speakers in the last round of meetings warned that building staff would never go against the County. It is up to you to protect Malibu residents and our visitors.
Thank you,
Scott Dittrich
4/21/25
191
242
CUP No. 22-004
Los Angeles County Sheriff Emergency
Communications Facility Use
23525 Civic Center Way
APN 4458-022-906
Planning Commission
April 21, 2025
Item 4A
192
243
Legend
Project Site
193
244
••
194
245
•••
195
246
• CUP No. 22-004 for the use of the emergency
communications tower;
• Lowering the existing tower height back to the
originally approved 75 feet; and
• Painting the tower a color compatible with the
surrounding environment.
196
247
197
248
198
249
199
250
200
251
201
252
18. Any wireless communication carrier must obtain City approval before attempting to collocate on this tower. Collocation without City approval will result in a violation of this permit.
18. At the applicant’s request, a deed restriction shall be recorded that prohibits the tower from being leased or used by any entity other than the County of Los Angeles for the purpose of the County providing emergency communications for the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. This restriction prevents detrimental aesthetic effects that would result related to increased height or massing, which were not evaluated in the Coastal Development Permit approving the original design and height of the tower.
The property owner shall submit the proposed deed restriction to the City for review and approval prior to recordation to ensure conformity with this condition. Following City approval, the deed restriction shall be recorded without delay and before use of the tower commences.
202
253
• Height
• Colors
• Location
• Lattice vs. Monopole
203
254
SUMMARY
CONSIDER THE PROJECT AND DIRECT
STAFF TO BRING BACK A RESOLUTION
WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION
204
255
205
256
City Of Malibu
23825 Stuart Ranch Road
Malibu, CA 90265
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
Phone (310) 456-2489
www.malibucity.org
Nගඑඋඍ ඎ Pඝඊඔඑඋ Hඍඉකඑඖඏ
The Malibu City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, September 29, 2025, at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Malibu City Hall, 23825 Stuart Ranch Road, Malibu, CA for the project identified below. Public comment can be submitted ahead of the public hearing to [email protected] for inclusion in the public record. To participate during the public hearing, please review the meeting agenda posted at MalibuCity.org/AgendaCenter and follow the directions for public participation.
APPEAL NO. 25-005 - An appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No 25-38 approving Conditional Use Permit No. 22-004 to allow for an emergency communication facility at the Los Angles County Sheriff’s substation on the Santa Monica College-Malibu Campus to be utilized by the County of Los Angeles LOCATION / APN / ZONING: 23525 Civic Center Way / 4458-022-906 / Institutional (I) APPLICANT / OWNER: M6 Consulting / County of Los Angeles APPELLANT: Jyoti Drummond on behalf of the Malibu Township Council APPLICATION FILED: December 7, 2022
APPEAL FILED: April 30, 2025
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: State Clearinghouse No. 2012051052 CASE PLANNER: Tyler Eaton, Principal Planner, [email protected] (310) 456-2489, ext. 273
The final EIR, State Clearinghouse No. 2012051052, was prepared and certified in accordance with CEQA to examine the potential environmental effects of the original project, including the proposed height and operation of the Emergency Communications Tower. The proposed Conditional Use Permit does not constitute a substantial change that would require a supplemental EIR pursuant to CEQA Section 15163 nor an addendum pursuant to CEQA Section 15164.
A written staff report will be available at or before the hearing for the project. All persons wishing to address the Council regarding this matter will be afforded an opportunity in accordance with the Council’s procedures. Copies of all related documents can be reviewed by any interested person at City Hall during regular business hours. Oral and written comments may be presented to the City Council on, or before, the date of the meeting.
IF YOU CHALLENGE THE CITY COUNCIL’S ACTION IN COURT, YOU MAY BE LIMITED TO RAISING ONLY THOSE
ISSUES RAISED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE, OR OTHERWISE HELD BY THE CITY, OR IN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE DELIVERED TO THE CITY, EITHER AT OR PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YOLANDA BUNDY, Community Development Director Date: September 4, 2025 Exhibit 11
206
257