[9:59] Okay, we're ready.
[10:07] » The March 9, 2026 regular meeting of the
Malibu City Council is now called to
[10:12] order. In-person participants, if you'd
like to speak, please submit your
[10:15] request to speak form to the clerk. We
have one slip and only one person here,
[10:19] so that makes sense. Remote
participants, if you'd like to speak,
[10:23] please join the Zoom webinar meeting
printed on the agenda and raise your
[10:26] hand in Zoom when the item you wish to
speak on is called. It's going to be
[10:29] called shortly. May we please have a
roll call.
[10:33] » Council member Conrad
>> here.
[10:34] » Council member Rigggins
>> here. Council member Stewart
[10:38] » here.
>> Mayor Promarine
[10:40] » here.
>> Mayor Silverstein
[10:42] » here.
>> You have a quorum.
[10:43] » Okay, we are getting feedback up here.
So maybe that could be addressed during
[10:47] the break.
[10:50] » Okay.
[10:55] » Do we have any remote speakers on the
close session items?
[10:59] » No, we don't have any speakers or
participants on Zoom.
[11:03] » Okay. Um we have one. We don't take a
roll call for this, by the way.
[11:09] » It's not on my um script. Kelsey, do we
take a roll call?
[11:13] » No, you don't need a roll call. There's
no motion before the council at this
[11:16] time to hear public comment.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, we have one
[11:19] public speaker, Ann K.
[11:23] » Hello everybody. My name is an an
comarask or actually it's Anna according
[11:28] to the secretary of state is Anna an A.
It's an an K for everyone else. So, we
[11:34] have two items here on the closed
session and uh there's no information to
[11:39] chat about other just to inform you that
I would love to see a date and well
[11:45] there's a date on there but a clock so
that you can actually see what time it
[11:49] is these meetings start as they
countdown because you know what happens
[11:53] between the close session and the open
session so that kind of stuff. So, and
[11:58] the other thing too, you'll probably see
a little less of me here and there
[12:01] because, you know, I have qualified to
become nonpartisan governor of
[12:04] California. Yay. So, they want me to
further redact my taxes. They said more
[12:10] of the President Trump style, but I
don't know what that means. So, I need a
[12:13] little help. So, but we're there.
There's no official candidates for the
[12:17] 23rd or the 26th of the month. So, there
you have it. So, just a update. And I
[12:23] have no idea what you guys are talking
about because I didn't say here, but
[12:26] thank you
[12:31] » mayor. Your microphone.
>> That concludes public comment for the
[12:35] close session item. We now will recess
to close session to discuss the items
[12:39] listed in the close session agenda. We
will reconvene at 5:30 p.m. or as soon
[12:44] thereafter as we are finished the close
session to begin the regular session and
[12:48] hear the close session report. We're
recessed.
[13:17] testing. Okay.
[13:36] Well, I appreciate
[13:49] That's not
[14:52] I'm going to talk to her.
[14:59] 5:30.
[15:12] So strange.
[1:19:02] » [clears throat]
[1:19:15] » The March 9, 2026 regular meeting of the
Malibu City Council is now called back
[1:19:19] to order. Inerson participants, if you'd
like to speak, please submit your
[1:19:23] request to speak form to the clerk.
Remote participants, if you would like
[1:19:27] to speak, please join the w the Zoom
webinar meeting printed on the agenda
[1:19:31] and raise your hand in Zoom when the
item you wish to speak on is called. And
[1:19:35] remember, the rule is raise your hand on
Zoom before we call the item. And um
[1:19:42] please and submit your blue slip before
we call the item. May you please have a
[1:19:46] roll call.
>> Council member Conrad,
[1:19:48] » here. Council member Rigggins,
>> here. Council member Stewart
[1:19:50] » here.
>> Mayor Promirine
[1:19:52] » here.
>> Mayor Silverstein
[1:19:54] » present.
>> You have a quorum.
[1:19:55] » Thank you. Scott, you want to lead us in
the pledge of allegiance?
[1:19:58] » Want to lead us in the pledge of
>> allegiance?
[1:20:06] To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for it
[1:20:11] stands. One nation
indivisible with liberty and justice for
[1:20:17] all.
[1:20:22] May we please have a close session
report?
[1:20:26] » Oh,
>> I can give you a report on the posting
[1:20:30] of the agenda while we wait for the city
attorney. The agenda for this meeting
[1:20:34] was properly posted on February 27th,
2026. Due to technical difficulties with
[1:20:40] the city's website, the staff reports
for the meeting could not be posted
[1:20:43] online at that time and were posted on
March 3rd, 2026. The amended agenda was
[1:20:48] properly posted on March 6th, 2026 with
all associated reports.
[1:20:53] » Thank you.
So before we go on with the agenda,
[1:20:57] Trevor, can you please give us a close
session report?
[1:21:00] » Absolutely. At 4:45 p.m., the city
council met in open session, recessed
[1:21:04] closed session, the absolute on the
posted agenda. Council member Conrad um
[1:21:08] was recused um from the discussion due
to location of her home um and no
[1:21:12] reportable action was taken.
>> Thank you, Trevor. Okay. Um, can we have
[1:21:18] an approval of the agenda?
>> I can make a [clears throat] motion to
[1:21:23] rearrange the agenda.
>> Let's hear it.
[1:21:27] » Um, can we move item 7B to
after item three?
[1:21:37] » Yeah, I'm anticipating that we will have
um
[1:21:43] people show up. So that's moving the
snack shack to be heard after 6:30 but
[1:21:48] before public comment for items not on
the agenda.
[1:21:50] » Correct.
>> I'll second that.
[1:21:53] » I This is discussion.
>> I I I'm This is for discussion. Um there
[1:21:59] have been some members of the public
that have been critical and and I don't
[1:22:03] fault them for it that um when we've
moved things up that we've moved it
[1:22:07] before general public comment. So, what
I'd ask is a friendly amendment to move
[1:22:11] it up, but move it up after general
public comment, not before general
[1:22:15] public comment. The other thing is, and
I'm not opposed to it for this reason,
[1:22:20] but some people have also said they plan
their schedule when they want to speak
[1:22:24] around the published schedule, and when
something's late on the agenda, they
[1:22:28] don't necessarily come to the meeting
for the first hour or two knowing that
[1:22:31] it's not going to get called till 8
9:00. And when we move something that is
[1:22:35] scheduled late on the agenda to occur
first thing or early on, they missed
[1:22:40] their opportunity to participate. So I
just raised that. It's not a basis for
[1:22:45] not doing it tonight, but I just raised
that. But I would ask that you amend the
[1:22:48] motion to um have the item 7B occur
after general public comment.
[1:22:55] » So after 4 A, but before 4B.
>> Sure. I let me see if I understand it
[1:23:02] because I was I was going to make
something similar. Uh move 7B
[1:23:06] uh to the first item after 4B and before
item five.
[1:23:11] » Yeah, I I actually think that makes more
sense.
[1:23:13] » I think we're going to have a lot of
kids here and our 4 A and 4B has often
[1:23:19] times not been occurring until 7:30,
8:00. So, I'm trying to I know they're
[1:23:23] not here yet, but I know they're coming.
So, um,
[1:23:28] » you know, everybody everybody knows that
that's how these meetings work.
[1:23:31] » How about how about this? Why don't we
put it at 4 A [clears throat] and, um,
[1:23:36] we can revisit it when we get closer to
that time. If there's a lot of people
[1:23:41] here, maybe we can
>> make a motion to rearrange it again at
[1:23:46] that point.
>> Are are you you accept a friendly
[1:23:49] amendment to move 7B following 4 A so
long as it's after 6? Well, it'll have
[1:23:54] to be after 6:30 because we can't take
>> I don't think there's a question. We're
[1:23:56] going to be after 6:30.
>> Sorry.
[1:23:59] » I don't think there's going to be a
question.
[1:24:02] » Agreed.
>> We only have half an hour. Yes, I agree.
[1:24:05] » I agree.
>> Are you in a second?
[1:24:07] » Yeah.
>> So, the friendly amendment was accepted
[1:24:09] to hear item 7B after 4 A and before 4B.
>> Yes.
[1:24:16] » Doug, are you going to be okay with that
or
[1:24:18] » I'm okay with that. Yeah.
>> All right. All in favor?
[1:24:21] » I I
>> No opposed. So ordered. Okay. So the
[1:24:25] agenda is approved with the change that
7B will appear after 4A.
[1:24:35] Okay. We'll now consider the consent
calendar. Remote participants, please
[1:24:39] raise your hand in Zoom if you wish to
speak on the consent calendar. I've got
[1:24:43] one card going once, going twice. Is
anybody signing up for consent calendar?
[1:24:50] No. Okay. So would any
>> Yes, we have one raised hand on Zoom.
[1:24:55] » Thank you. Okay, so we have one live
speaker or in person speaker, Joe
[1:25:00] Drummond.
[1:25:11] » Good evening, city manager Joe Irvin.
Welcome, Bruce, mayor Silverstein and
[1:25:18] city council. Thank you for allowing me
to speak. Um, I'm pulling 1B10
[1:25:23] which is obviously we want you to put
through the property tax 110%. We want
[1:25:30] that to be for all fire victims just to
have the 110%. I was just wanting to ask
[1:25:37] if
um you'll be also I submitting something
[1:25:41] about property taxes needing to be
reduced for fire victims that have
[1:25:46] burned down lots that are over evaluated
like no lots in Big Rock for instance
[1:25:50] are worth more than a million a million
two because it's so hard to get a
[1:25:54] rebuild permit right now averaging over
a year to issue from submission. Jim
[1:25:59] Rogers, one of my neighbors on Seabard,
bought his home 2 and a half months
[1:26:02] before the fire and he applied for the
misfortune and calamity reduction and is
[1:26:06] paying property taxes on $2.7 million
for his lot for instance. So this is not
[1:26:13] accurate or fair. And I just wanted to
let you know Salwa is um arriving from
[1:26:20] Dubai. She might even be here now. So
she has the sales tax letter for you all
[1:26:26] that she will submit to you. I know we
that was another issue that you guys
[1:26:31] were doing. So, that's coming. But,
thank you for approving this. Thanks so
[1:26:34] much.
>> All right. Thank you, Joe. And um just
[1:26:37] so everybody knows, members of the
public don't can't pull items on the
[1:26:41] consent. They can ask that we do that.
So, I'll take that to be a request that
[1:26:45] somebody on council pull that item. We
have one speaker on Zoom.
[1:26:50] » Yes. Ann.
[1:26:55] » Hello. You hear me? This is Ann Kamaras.
>> We hear you.
[1:27:01] » Oh, sorry. I'm at Tony Terron. I'm
supposed to have a dinner here with the
[1:27:05] family. So, listen. Um, most of the
stuff can be taken care of at the state
[1:27:09] level. So, I appreciate uh your
consideration for changing the public
[1:27:14] comment time to be set in stone maybe
perhaps at the beginning of the meeting.
[1:27:19] But, um, whatever Joe Drummond said, I
agree. Thank you.
[1:27:25] Okay, that closes public comment. Um,
would any council member like to pull
[1:27:29] any item for further discussion?
[1:27:37] » I'll make a motion to approve the
consent calendar.
[1:27:39] » Just want to confirm before that that
nobody wants to pull anything.
[1:27:44] » I'm not seeing the one that Joe Oh,
wait. Because it's outside the packet. I
[1:27:50] don't think we have to pull it, but we
should discuss maybe later about the
[1:27:53] other
issue because I I think Okay, let's pull
[1:27:58] 1B10, please.
>> Okay. Anybody else want to pull anything
[1:28:01] else?
>> I'll make a motion to approve the
[1:28:05] consent calendar except for 1B10.
>> I'll second.
[1:28:09] » All in favor?
>> I.
[1:28:11] » Okay. All items except for 1B10 are
approved. Halen, you wanted to speak
[1:28:16] about 1B10. Do you want a staff report
or just want to speak? I just wanted to
[1:28:20] ask this is something totally different.
This is one bill that we are as council
[1:28:24] and the city is supporting property
taxation, newly constructed
[1:28:27] reconstructed property. There's a
separate bill in which I believe Joe was
[1:28:31] talking about where the residents are
looking for support on sales tax on
[1:28:37] items when they do. Do we have an update
on that bill or if we're going to
[1:28:42] support it or
>> I I think since that's not the consent
[1:28:47] item, you have to ask for that during
council member comment.
[1:28:50] » Got it. I'll put it down. Thank you.
That's it. I approve.
[1:28:53] » I'll I'll make a quick comment on it. I
know uh the discussion was about
[1:28:58] overpriced lots. Just to refresh
everybody's mind on this, uh, when the
[1:29:03] fires took place, the first thing the
county assessor did, separated out the
[1:29:07] the two categories that's on the
property tax bill. One's improvements,
[1:29:11] one's land. They immediately took the
improvements off on the total destroyed
[1:29:15] using the Cal Fire assessments as to
what percentage was damaged and so
[1:29:19] forth. Uh, the property uh, land values
or whatever the land value was on the
[1:29:25] tax bill. understand that the land
values are not necessarily what the
[1:29:28] market value is. And uh if you go back
to 1978 or whenever Proposition 13
[1:29:34] passed, those values at that time went
up by 2% if you unless you bought the
[1:29:39] property in the meantime. If they've got
a problem with the assessed value, they
[1:29:42] need to take that up with the assessor.
They can actually file a claim for it
[1:29:46] and the assessor's office will be glad
to talk to about it. The county assessor
[1:29:50] was here two weeks ago, I think it was,
and um had the appraisal people here.
[1:29:55] They're wide open to having discussions
and looking for input on that. All you
[1:29:59] have to do is file the claim.
>> All right. Thanks. Helen, do you want to
[1:30:02] make a motion to approve 1B10?
>> May I make a comment first? Go ahead.
[1:30:05] » Um I believe that meeting with the
assessor was recorded and it would be
[1:30:10] available on our city website or on
YouTube. And so I'd recommend that
[1:30:14] everybody because he he gave a very
detailed uh Jeffrey Pring, our county
[1:30:18] assessor, gave a very detailed um uh
explanation of how assessments are done,
[1:30:25] how they're calculated. Um I think it
was a really good presentation. It's
[1:30:28] good information for everybody to know
regardless of your house was destroyed
[1:30:32] or not. Um anybody at the county. So um
just look on our website for that and or
[1:30:38] on YouTube you can put it in. Um great
information on there. Yeah,
[1:30:42] » I'd like to add one more comment. It was
a good session not just about the
[1:30:46] property tax um valuations on your house
that you might be paying. Now, it all he
[1:30:53] also talked about how you can transfer
that property tax value to another house
[1:30:57] if you were going to move. Uh it's
there's some intricate uh procedures for
[1:31:02] it and it'd be good to listen to that uh
uh type again.
[1:31:06] » Does anybody else have any further
comments? I make a motion to approve
[1:31:10] item 1B10.
>> Is there a second?
[1:31:13] » I'll second.
>> Thank you.
[1:31:14] » All in favor? I.
>> Okay. So, approved.
[1:31:18] » Mayor, can I make a quick comment?
>> As long as it's limited to the consent
[1:31:21] calendar.
>> No, we pass the consent.
[1:31:25] This is about the agenda.
>> Sure.
[1:31:28] » There there were a number of posts I saw
today talking about the roundabouts were
[1:31:32] going to be on tonight's agenda. I don't
see the roundabout people out there
[1:31:36] tonight, but it is not going to be on
tonight's agenda. Come back on the 18th
[1:31:40] and it'll be the meeting. Thank you.
>> Can I also add that there was a lot of
[1:31:45] misinformation or information that
tonight will have antennas and or 5G
[1:31:51] polls being put up. That is not on
tonight's agenda. So, if you're here for
[1:31:55] that, please don't stay.
>> The only thing on the agenda is what's
[1:31:59] on the agenda. Okay. That brings us to
2A. Big Rock Landslide Facts. Community
[1:32:05] Development Director Bundy will present
a PowerPoint presentation.
[1:32:08] » Yes. Good evening, council. Um I'm just
introducing the team. Um the item before
[1:32:14] you will be a tech a brief technical
presentation uh to discuss the big rock
[1:32:19] messa landslide status. With us, we have
MB5 and Jen Associates. So I will pass
[1:32:25] the presentation uh to them.
[1:32:32] Thank you.
Let's see. So, by way of introduction,
[1:32:38] I'm Scott Morris. I'm a um certified
engineering geologist and a certified
[1:32:42] hydro geologist. I've been working in
the Malibu area and surrounding Southern
[1:32:47] California for 37 years. Uh I started
working in Malibu in n well I I started
[1:32:54] working for Malibu in the city uh in
1998.
[1:32:59] Uh I was with Binguna Associates at the
time and I managed the landslide
[1:33:05] assessment districts for 6 years and
then for two more years at Fugro after I
[1:33:11] moved to Fugro and we carried the
contract with us. So I've got a lot of
[1:33:16] experience in Malibu. Uh been out of
town for a little while but uh I'm glad
[1:33:20] to be back. Recently hired as the uh um
>> You might need to move your microphone a
[1:33:26] little closer. a as the fire rebuild uh
geotechnical review manager.
[1:33:33] » And Lori,
>> yeah, my name is Lori Barry. Um I'm a
[1:33:36] project I'm a [clears throat] senior
project manager and engineer for the A
[1:33:40] and Associates. I have 23 years of
geotechnical consulting experience in
[1:33:44] Southern California. I'm the current
project manager for the landslide
[1:33:48] assessment assessment district project
for the public works department here in
[1:33:52] Malibu and have uh held that for the
last six years and four years prior to
[1:33:57] that at FURO. I also managed the
landslide assessment districts for the
[1:34:01] city.
>> So there's a outline uh we're limited on
[1:34:07] time so I'm just going to jump right
into the first slide. Um the little
[1:34:13] history on the Big Rock Mesa landslide.
Um historically the Big Rock Mesa area
[1:34:21] was used for agriculture and cattle
ranching. Um
[1:34:27] that production
[1:34:30] led to the development of the Ocean
Mutual Water Company which operated tin
[1:34:35] water wells for domestic supply and
agricultural support. Um so those uh
[1:34:42] water wells operated for decades and
effectively helped dewater the landslide
[1:34:47] area. Um the tract was permitted in the
early 1960s
[1:34:54] for development and over the next 20-ish
years 216 homes were de were built on
[1:35:02] the landslide area uh all of which had
septic systems. uh following uh heavy
[1:35:10] rainfall years in 1978
and 1980 culminating in one of the
[1:35:17] wetest years on record in 1983.
Um the landslide started to creep
[1:35:22] actively. It had been incrementally
creeping in the late '7s and then it
[1:35:27] started moving much more rapidly. It was
moving at about a quarter inch a week,
[1:35:33] which doesn't sound like a lot, but if
your house is near the crack, that's a
[1:35:37] problem. Um,
uh, major lit litigation ensued. Um,
[1:35:45] one of the outcomes of that litigation
was Bing Yin and Associates was retained
[1:35:50] by Los Angeles County to do a very
comprehensive evaluation of the
[1:35:55] landslide. Um and the other thing that
led out of that was the establishment of
[1:36:01] the landslide dewatering district. Um
one last note, there's 355 landslides in
[1:36:07] mapped by the California Geological
Survey in Malibu and Big Rock Mesa is
[1:36:12] the largest. Um so here is a map of the
Big Rock Mesa landslide area. This is
[1:36:18] the main landslide mass. Uh there's
dozens of homes on the western extension
[1:36:25] uh which is not in an actual landslide
area, but they their sole access is
[1:36:31] provided through the landslide area. So
they're part of the benefit assessment
[1:36:34] district. Um
there's also scores of of surficial
[1:36:43] bluff failures just above PCH all along
the the um the bluff there.
[1:36:51] Uh the next slide is a cross-section
through the SL through the landslide. Um
[1:36:55] down that line here's the landslide
mass. Uh a couple of interesting things
[1:37:00] about this landslide. It's very deep.
It's over 400 ft thick. It fails over
[1:37:07] 100 ft below sea level. Um,
uh, we can trace, uh, geologic beds
[1:37:16] across the landslide. And
[1:37:21] see if I could use my pointer here.
Uh, and I can trace this bed back to
[1:37:28] this bed and this bed back to this bed.
And we can use that to estimate that the
[1:37:33] landslide moved between three and 500
feet over the course of its uh lifespan
[1:37:40] which was thousands of years. Um in 1983
it's estimated it moved on the order of
[1:37:47] 3 to 4 feet.
Uh and if you push that back three or 4
[1:37:53] hundred feet uh of movement, the hill
used to look like that.
[1:37:58] Um, so talking about uh how the C
California Geological Survey has
[1:38:03] classified the landslide, CGS classifies
the Big Rock Mesa landslide as an active
[1:38:09] historic landslide. Um, they
define it as definite, 100% [snorts]
[1:38:16] confident it is a landslide. There's no
question about that. Um
[1:38:22] the definition the California Geological
Survey's definition of the active
[1:38:26] historic landslide is the landslide
appears to be currently moving or
[1:38:31] movements have been recorded in the
historic past. So any landslide that's
[1:38:36] moved in the historic past they consider
to be active. The next definition down
[1:38:42] there list of four definitions is
dormant young and the landforms related
[1:38:50] to the landslide are relatively fresh
but there is no record of historic
[1:38:54] movement. So this definition which is
the next one down clearly does not apply
[1:39:00] to big rock. It it moved in 1983 clearly
and definitively. As a side note, I'd
[1:39:06] mention that the city of Los Angeles
building code defines an active
[1:39:10] landslide as a landslide that has been
active at some point since January 1952.
[1:39:17] Um
the most important point though is
[1:39:21] [clears throat] what's
most important for permitting or policym
[1:39:27] making is not the fact is not the
whether you call it an active landslide
[1:39:33] or a dormant landslide. Uh what's
important to policym is the factor of
[1:39:38] safety of the landslide. So
the factor of safety of a landslide in
[1:39:47] essence is the resisting forces divided
by the driving forces. So the resisting
[1:39:54] forces or the driving forces are
governed by the mass of the upper
[1:39:59] portion of the landslide.
um the amount of water in the landslide
[1:40:04] and the increased pore pressure that
that water puts on the slide plane. The
[1:40:10] resisting forces are the mass of the
lower portion of the landslide and the
[1:40:16] um shear strength of the slide plane,
the rupture surface that the slide
[1:40:20] plane's failing on.
Uh what's worth noting is the only thing
[1:40:26] that changes over time year to year,
season to season, is the amount of water
[1:40:32] in the landslide. Um the mass of the
upper slide, the mass of the lower
[1:40:37] slide, the sheer strength of the slide
plane, those are all fixed and
[1:40:41] relatively constant. So what governs the
current stability of the landslide is
[1:40:46] the amount of water that's in it. That's
why we have the dewatering district. So
[1:40:50] the groundwater levels in 1983 on this
cross-section line looked about like
[1:40:55] like this blue line here. Uh by 1992
after a few years of active dewatering
[1:41:05] the water levels were lowered over 100
ft in the central Mesa area and current
[1:41:12] water levels are almost at about the
same level that we got them to in 1992.
[1:41:18] So, we're keeping up with septic
influent period periodic rainfall. Um,
[1:41:26] and I'll hand it over to Lori for a
moment.
[1:41:29] » Steal the mouse.
>> Hi, thank you, Scott. Yeah, I just
[1:41:33] wanted to point out that the the main
purpose of the landslide assessment
[1:41:35] district is to fund the equipment and
the maintenance and evaluations that are
[1:41:40] needed to look maintain these lowered
groundwater levels and also to monitor
[1:41:44] for potential landslide movement. We do
this through active dewatering system
[1:41:49] consisting of 24 dewatering wells and 36
horizontal drains. We monitor the slope
[1:41:57] um through 23 slope inclinometer
casings. We can measure if there's any
[1:42:01] shear deformation at those locations and
we monitor the groundwater levels at 29
[1:42:05] different monitoring points throughout
the district.
[1:42:09] We also track pavement cracks or changes
in pavement cracking. Um and then we
[1:42:14] also track the two items that of water
that go into the landslide on any basis
[1:42:19] are the imported water usage and septic
systems and rainfall.
[1:42:26] So this [snorts] graph represents uh
presents the historic deatering of the
[1:42:29] Big Brock Mesa landslide dating back to
1983.
[1:42:34] The blue shading.
Oops.
[1:42:38] Okay. Uh the blue shading is represents
the uh portion of the deatering output
[1:42:43] that is from the deatering wells and the
green is the portion of dewatering from
[1:42:47] the hydrogers.
The red is the sum of of the total
[1:42:52] deatering from both of those deatering
methods.
[1:42:55] Why I find this graph really interesting
is that it really points to how dramatic
[1:43:01] the initial dewatering was following the
um when the landslide moved in 1983 and
[1:43:07] the efforts that were made to dewater
and lower the groundwater levels to over
[1:43:11] 100 ft. Following that initial period of
dewatering, you can see that the cycles
[1:43:17] um even from back to the early 90s
remain relatively constant um at or at
[1:43:23] least uh static and predictable where we
do see spikes in the data all coincide
[1:43:29] to where there were historic high rain
seasons. Um and that that's where all
[1:43:34] these spikes uh all cor correspond to
that and that shows that the dewatering
[1:43:38] system increases but it's keeping up
with the increased water from rainfall
[1:43:43] that's entering the system.
Here I just wanted to point out that the
[1:43:48] deatering output was at its all-time low
following the January 2025 Palisades
[1:43:54] fire. That was due to no electricity to
power the deatering wells.
[1:43:59] there was a surge of dewatering in um
spring once we were able to get most of
[1:44:04] the deatering wells at least running
intermittently. And so that that just
[1:44:07] shows there was kind of a surge to lower
those groundwater levels that may have
[1:44:11] risen a bit from January. And then here
we are last month kind of right back on
[1:44:16] track to where we would predict to be in
annual deatering output.
[1:44:21] This is a graph of imported water usage
to the Landside Assessment District
[1:44:26] dating back to 1993.
This is um this is the other item
[1:44:32] besides rainfall that adds water to the
assessment district. And just what I
[1:44:36] wanted to show point out on here again
is that the imported water is at an
[1:44:41] all-time low um following the January
2025 fire. [snorts] And that the bottom
[1:44:47] line is that the dewatering discharge
increases in response to rainfall and in
[1:44:51] response to these water usage demands to
maintain the lowered groundwater levels.
[1:44:55] the system essentially keeps up with the
demand um of imported water and
[1:45:00] rainfall.
And then finally, I just wanted to
[1:45:04] highlight some of the extensive repairs
that were done on the facilities within
[1:45:07] the landside assessment district. We
repaired and replaced over 90 watering
[1:45:12] well pumps. Um we replaced almost all of
the electrical control panels and
[1:45:17] enclosures and Edison meter panels with
new stainless steel equipment. We had to
[1:45:22] pull and replace over 5,000 ft of
damaged wiring. We had the dewatering
[1:45:28] wells. Uh we have them running
intermittently now both on metered and
[1:45:31] generated power to keep up with the
demands of the system and maintain
[1:45:34] lowered groundwater levels. Um the other
uh exciting improvement was we were uh
[1:45:40] as when the city was working on the
storm drain pod drain project, the
[1:45:44] municipal storm drain, we were able to
uh consolidate the drainage and consolid
[1:45:49] conveyance piping for the dewatering uh
system. And all [snorts] of those
[1:45:54] repairs should be completed are expected
to be completed by April of this year.
[1:46:01] So in conclusion and summary um
California Geologic Survey classifies
[1:46:07] the Big Rock Mesa landslide as an active
historic landslide.
[1:46:11] What's most important and guides
permitting and policym is generally the
[1:46:16] factor of safety of the landslide. The
factor of safety is controlled by the
[1:46:22] whatever the groundwater levels are. So
we need the dewatering system to
[1:46:26] maintain
um
[1:46:29] to lower water levels and maintain a
safe uh factor of safety. The current
[1:46:34] factor of safety is uh believed to be
about 1.25
[1:46:39] which is below the typically required
1.5 factor of safety for a len for a
[1:46:45] stable development. Um
and it's 1.25 25 is just marginally
[1:46:51] above the the level the factor of safety
where you'll start seeing creep movement
[1:46:55] in a landslide which is typically
between about 1.1 and 1.2. So we're just
[1:47:00] a little bit above that. Um and that's
uh that's what the deatering system is
[1:47:06] capable of maintaining as it currently
is configured. Um the three elements
[1:47:10] that influence groundwater levels are
rainfall uh septic input and dewatering.
[1:47:19] rainfall every decade we get a we get a
couple of doozy years and uh the system
[1:47:26] has been able to keep up with that.
Septic's relatively constant for most of
[1:47:30] the time. Right now it's at a historic
low. Um groundwater levels remain
[1:47:35] stable. Septic input is currently at
historic lows. Uh no discernable
[1:47:41] movement has been detected in the
landslide for [snorts] at least the last
[1:47:45] decade. um that's based on inclinometer
data and synthetic aperture radar which
[1:47:52] is a fancy form of satellite radar.
[snorts] Um
[1:47:56] and then the last point is the Bing and
Associates report was a very
[1:48:02] comprehensive and state-of-the-art
report prepared in 1992
[1:48:06] and despite technological adv advances
in things like software the physics and
[1:48:12] the science have not changed and the
factor of safety evaluation remains
[1:48:17] valid today.
That is the end I think of our
[1:48:22] presentation.
[1:48:27] Thank you. Does anybody have any
questions?
[1:48:30] » Uh yeah, I've got on your factor of
safety. Um when you show 1.25,
[1:48:37] what's going to be a factor that might
change that to a lower number where we'd
[1:48:42] have a creep. And secondly, I assume
that applies across the entire landslide
[1:48:47] area. Are there pockets that are at
higher risk than others?
[1:48:51] There are pockets in in the Bingan and
Associates report when they really did
[1:48:58] the evaluation. If I get all the way
back there,
[1:49:04] this slide, there's
[1:49:10] there's I showed you if I can get my
cursor over here.
[1:49:15] Where's the cursor?
Help
[1:49:19] me Lori. Where's my cursor?
>> Oh,
[1:49:22] » maybe it has to.
>> It's not showing up over there. It's got
[1:49:27] to there. Okay, I got it now. Sorry. So,
I showed you this slide. Each of these,
[1:49:32] this is another cross-section. We had
cross-section A, B, C, D, E, and F which
[1:49:37] was evaluated, which were all evaluated.
They were actually
[1:49:41] they went well through the alphabet. Um
each cross-section had its own factor of
[1:49:48] safety. Um D was typical and runs right
down the middle. So that's the one I
[1:49:53] presented. And but in general, the
factor of safety for the
[1:49:59] area is about 1.25. That's a reasonable
average. And and changes in groundwater
[1:50:05] are what govern the change in the
stability.
[1:50:08] » All right. So the changes in the
groundwater uh obviously we're
[1:50:11] dewatering and it looks like it's
holding over the past decade multiple
[1:50:16] years. Uh is there anything that would
cause that to rise in spite of our
[1:50:20] dewatering system or is the watering
system the only only thing to be
[1:50:23] considered?
[1:50:26] » So the the big variable is rainfall. We
get wet years. Uh but it is essential
[1:50:33] that we maintain and limit the amount of
water that's input into the slide
[1:50:38] through septic systems which is why we
have controls on development on the
[1:50:42] mesa. You're not allowed to add
you can add small additions but you
[1:50:48] can't add plumbing fixtures. Um, and it
we're always uh as we do reviews and and
[1:50:56] geotechnical input um we're always
encouraging homeowners to uh have limit
[1:51:02] irrigation
uh because that's a big input. Um
[1:51:08] so controlling water into the slide is
is what we need to do. We can't control
[1:51:13] rainfall. we can make sure, which Lori
pointed out, uh they're replacing all
[1:51:18] the surface drains because all those
pipes were mostly HDPE and they all
[1:51:22] melted. Um and uh so restoring that
carries rainwater through the storm
[1:51:30] drain system off the mesa. So that's a
big improvement and an essential
[1:51:35] improvement. Um so but that's how we
control this landslide. it. This
[1:51:41] landside is simply too large to use a
traditional
[1:51:46] concrete queson,
uh, tiebacks, things like that. Uh,
[1:51:53] they're they're too small compared to
the mass of the landslide. You've got to
[1:51:57] control the groundwater. It's the only
way to control the stability of this
[1:52:00] landslide is a practical matter.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
[1:52:06] » Um, yeah, I'll piggyback on that. I
think
[1:52:10] » [clears throat]
>> Thank you for all of that as well. Um,
[1:52:13] sometimes I in my mind I think of all of
these properties rebuilding at once and
[1:52:18] it causing kind of disturbance to the
land regardless of water because I hear
[1:52:23] that this is all about water and
dewatering. Um, but for an active
[1:52:29] landslide, which I'm hearing it is a
historic active landslide, construction,
[1:52:34] would that have anything to do with
movement?
[1:52:38] Not really. What I mean adding you're
you're going to restore these septic
[1:52:43] systems, right?
>> Which will contribute, but that's just
[1:52:47] going to bring it back to where we were.
We're at historic low septic influent
[1:52:52] right now.
>> So, it's not like jackhammering all at
[1:52:54] the same time. And
>> that is inconsequential.
[1:52:57] » That's good for me to question, but it's
good for me to know.
[1:52:59] » It simply becomes dimminimous. Um, also,
you know, speaking of the sewer
[1:53:04] possibility, people have asked why not
go up Big Rock. And I think the answer
[1:53:08] was to people don't want the price and
they also don't want the development.
[1:53:13] But would sewer help the big rock slide
and the dewatering this whole watering
[1:53:19] system?
>> Yes, it would.
[1:53:22] » Yes. Yes. A sewer would be a tremendous
benefit to the mesa. I mean,
[1:53:27] » we understand the development concerns,
but but uh you know, as far as the
[1:53:31] landslide stability, it would be a
tremendous benefit.
[1:53:35] » Good to know. Um where does the water go
from the deatering system?
[1:53:41] » It runs through a series of conveyance
piping. So before the fire um it it
[1:53:46] connected at individual facilities on
different streets for the deatering
[1:53:50] wells run into the the closest storm
drain catch basin and followed the
[1:53:54] city's municipal storm drain system down
to um PCH where then it goes into a calr
[1:54:00] culvert under PCH and outlets at
discharge locations on the beach
[1:54:05] » to the ocean. Yes.
>> Okay. And then I was wondering would it
[1:54:09] be um feasible or too expensive to ent
trap the water and then use it again
[1:54:16] because we know that Big Rock doesn't
always have water like other
[1:54:20] neighborhoods in Malibu to ent trap the
water and then reuse it. Is that maybe
[1:54:25] out that's a public works? I don't know.
But instead of having it all go to the
[1:54:28] ocean
>> instead it would
[1:54:31] » I think that just brings up a slew of
other complications. water treatment
[1:54:35] would be required, all sorts of
monitoring. Um,
[1:54:39] » okay.
>> But it it's as feasible as as sewer.
[1:54:42] » Um, and I wasn't sure if you knew the
answer, but residents pay for this
[1:54:46] through an assessment district, which
is, and I don't know that number, and I
[1:54:51] should. Does anybody know that number?
[1:54:55] » Like, one, two, or three?
I mean, I know the number of what our
[1:54:59] budget is for the actual monitoring and
maintenance of the for of Big Rock is on
[1:55:03] the order of $350,000 a year. Oh, okay.
Thank you. 350 a year. Um, okay. And
[1:55:12] then I heard that there's no electricity
on the deatering system. So, let's say
[1:55:16] the power goes out, there's a big fire,
and then it's not doing its job, but
[1:55:20] then there's a huge amount of water
being pushed into the mountain because
[1:55:24] they're trying to get the fire out.
Would that cause a landslide or could
[1:55:28] that
>> um do you
[1:55:32] » Well, you have multiple things going on.
You lost all the dewatering system
[1:55:36] because all the all the electric
infrastructure burned up.
[1:55:40] » That's right. Um, simultaneously you
lost all the septic system inputting
[1:55:46] water because all the houses burned down
and there there was this temporary slug
[1:55:53] of firefighting water, but that becomes
pretty trivial. I mean, it was a lot of
[1:55:59] water for a few days, but it it doesn't
amount to much in the overall stability,
[1:56:06] long-term stability of the slide. That
is sort of a flash in the pan that goes
[1:56:10] away.
>> Got it. And I was absent of a huge fire
[1:56:14] that was like palisades, you know,
moderate PSPS, which is a public safety
[1:56:19] power shut off. Does your system have
backup power?
[1:56:24] » We have several um contractors that we
can call on a moment's notice to bring
[1:56:29] out temporary generators and portable
generators uh within a day.
[1:56:34] » Um yeah,
>> that's great. Um, okay. And then are
[1:56:38] there any other active landslides in
Malibu?
[1:56:41] » Yeah, there's the Cayaba Bargo landslide
and the Malibu Road landslide.
[1:56:45] » The Malibu Road.
>> Yes, that's correct.
[1:56:47] » Got it. Thank you. I wanted to ask that.
And then
[1:56:50] » those are the landslide assessment
districts, but there are scores of
[1:56:54] active landslides in the city of Malibu.
>> Okay.
[1:56:57] » Active or historic?
>> Both active and I mean not not
[1:57:02] necessarily actively move. If you're
talking to a geologist,
[1:57:06] If a landslide has moved in in recorded
history, it's considered active. That's
[1:57:13] the general accepted definition. There's
multiple definitions of what is active
[1:57:19] and not, but but the the widely held
consideration is what the
[1:57:26] California Geological Survey defines it
as. If it's moved within history, it's
[1:57:31] considered active.
>> Okay, that's my questions.
[1:57:36] Thank you.
>> I guess mine's kind of a big question
[1:57:41] and I apologize for not prepping it
earlier, but so we have all these
[1:57:45] questions, you know, about geology
reports, geotechnical reports, things
[1:57:48] like that. And if the houses were
standing before, why can't they just put
[1:57:52] back the same house that they had? Why
do they have to do additional reports?
[1:57:56] So maybe you can just give a little
opine on
[1:58:00] » well why we need this.
>> Well, a lot of these homes were built in
[1:58:02] the '60s.
>> And so in essence they can they can
[1:58:08] rebuild what they had. That's that's the
the the policy. But they have to comply
[1:58:14] their foundations have to comply with
the building code, the current building
[1:58:18] code.
So they can rebuild the same house um
[1:58:22] plus 10% volumeish.
Um but the foundations have to comply
[1:58:29] with the building code. And some of the
homes
[1:58:33] uh
the original foundations don't comply
[1:58:37] with the original the the current
building code. So they have to upgrade
[1:58:41] their foundations and then they can put
their house on top of their new
[1:58:46] foundations.
It really comes down to a code
[1:58:49] compliance issue with regards to current
code standards.
[1:58:52] » Yes. I mean that's required for
>> following the LMA Pria earthquake in
[1:58:58] 1989 and following the 1994 Northridge
earthquake, building codes were upgraded
[1:59:05] substantially to address primarily the
seismic but other hazards that we faced.
[1:59:10] And so codes have advanced and they're
somewhat more stringent now. And so your
[1:59:16] foundations, if your foundations were
built in 1963, they'll need to be
[1:59:20] upgraded.
>> Thank you. A good presentation. I
[1:59:24] appreciate it. Thank you,
>> Steve. Any questions or comments?
[1:59:28] » No, just I agree. I think this this is
very helpful. So, thank you very much.
[1:59:32] I' I've learned a lot. So, thank you.
>> So, I just have one question, which is
[1:59:37] what's the headline? What's the What's
the big takeaway from this presentation,
[1:59:41] if anything?
I I think it's Lor's presentation that
[1:59:46] the dewatering system is doing a good
job keeping up with the you know
[1:59:56] the big thing that changes year to year
is is the amount of rainfall we get and
[2:00:03] that has a substantial consequence to
the stability of the landslide. And if
[2:00:07] it wasn't for the dewatering system, we
would lose that battle. And you know, it
[2:00:14] it would be the the tract was developed
in the 60s and 70s. And after it was
[2:00:21] fully built out, it very quickly started
to fail. Um once it got all those 216
[2:00:28] homes and all their 216 septic systems
putting water into the landslide, it
[2:00:33] very quick it started creeping in the
70s and it started active failure in the
[2:00:38] in the early 80s. U it didn't take long
once all those septic systems were
[2:00:44] putting water in. uh whereas and the
other thing that had happened is as I
[2:00:49] had mentioned there was this ocean
mutual water system that had been
[2:00:54] dewatering the landslide not
intentionally just for municipal supply
[2:00:58] water for decades before but the housing
pushed all those wells out and so they
[2:01:04] stopped dewatering and they started
putting septic in and and the slide
[2:01:08] failed rapidly.
>> Okay, thank you.
[2:01:13] That takes us to commission committee
city manager update. I have three cards
[2:01:20] for commissioner updates. There are no
commissioners online right on Zoom.
[2:01:26] [clears throat]
>> Correct. We don't have any virtual
[2:01:29] commission updates.
>> Okay, Scott Dick, you're up.
[2:01:44] Thank you, uh, Mr. Mayor and Council and
Joe. Um, that was a great report. as a
[2:01:51] public works commissioner for that last
decade. Um we've gotten the reports on
[2:01:58] this on the big rock and the other uh
watering districts, dewatering
[2:02:04] districts. And what we've seen, of
course, is what was just presented is
[2:02:10] that over that time period, um it's been
stable.
[2:02:17] And if it's been stable,
then
[2:02:23] what we call it a landslide for
rebuilding,
[2:02:26] it seems like we don't have any problem.
Um, but Halen brought up something I
[2:02:33] wanted to address.
All that water goes out into the ocean.
[2:02:40] Now, the gentleman mentioned that
the fire department when they come and
[2:02:47] they're trying to put out houses, lots
of water. Except I'm going to remind
[2:02:52] you, the fire department did not come to
Big Rock or any of the other canyons.
[2:02:57] So, that wasn't a contributing factor.
But
[2:03:03] there wasn't water there
to fight a fire.
[2:03:08] Now it comes back to public works.
We would like you guys to direct staff
[2:03:16] and the public works commission to
investigate
[2:03:21] the possibility
of using
[2:03:26] that water somehow. I don't see why
you'd treat it cuz you're talking about
[2:03:30] using it for fire purposes only to build
a tank at the top of Big Rock. Now, this
[2:03:38] just seems logical to me. I'm not an
engineer, but it seems like if we could
[2:03:44] take a bunch of water
and have that available,
[2:03:50] um I know it's not going to take we're
not going to use all the water, but the
[2:03:54] easiest part have a big tank so that if
excuse me, when there's another fire,
[2:04:02] we can use that water to
have at least a resource for our
[2:04:09] firefight. writers. So, I don't know if
it's feasible, but I think we should
[2:04:14] investigate it. So, please
send that over to public works
[2:04:19] commission. We will investigate. Maybe
it's way too expensive, but maybe it's
[2:04:25] possible. So, let's look at what we can
do to make our town a little bit safer.
[2:04:31] Thanks,
>> Scott. Is is that a public works
[2:04:33] commission request or you just raising
that on your own right now? Um, as a
[2:04:38] public works commissioner, I am bringing
that to you.
[2:04:43] » Was that was that something that the
public works commission voted to have
[2:04:45] you present to?
>> No, it it was not.
[2:04:48] » Okay. What I'm asking is let's see if we
could investigate. Thank you.
[2:04:53] » Sure.
>> Um, Judy Viblanca.
[2:05:08] Good evening, Mayor Silverstein, members
of the council, city manager. Um, I am
[2:05:11] the current chair of the parks and
recreation commission and I'm here to
[2:05:15] update you on some of our activities. I
also want to recognize the other
[2:05:18] commissioners, Jake Lingo, Dane
Scophammer, Georgia Goldfarb, and Alicia
[2:05:22] Peak. Uh, first, we are excited beyond
belief that our permanent skate park was
[2:05:27] opened on Saturdays and Sundays on
February 14th. Yes. Since opening, an
[2:05:32] average of 20 to 30 people per hour have
been enjoying it. The park is still
[2:05:37] closed Monday through Friday uh because
construction continues for landscaping,
[2:05:41] irrigation, fencing, and the restrooms.
Tonight, the council will be reviewing
[2:05:46] the commission's recommendation for the
preliminary design of the Malibu Bluffs
[2:05:50] Park snack shack with associated storage
for youth sports, which has been at the
[2:05:55] front forefront of the commission's work
plan since 2023.
[2:05:59] commission has worked very hard to bring
the best design forward and limit costs
[2:06:03] as much as possible while providing the
needed facilities. All of the
[2:06:07] commissioners, many who you'll hear from
later, um strongly support this project
[2:06:11] as a vital amenity for this park where
our youth sports and skate park are
[2:06:15] centered. This will really be a great
community building asset. We realize
[2:06:20] each parks and wreck project requires
significant funding and as the
[2:06:24] commission continues to work with you on
developing desired recreational
[2:06:28] facilities for our community. We would
ask the council to consider developing
[2:06:32] an infrastructure to allow private
funding to be solicited to supplement
[2:06:36] city funds so we can complete these
projects. Um some upcoming events
[2:06:40] include the nominations for the 2026 Jay
Caredian Award are now open until
[2:06:46] Tuesday, March 31st. Uh the nomination
form is available at
[2:06:50] maliboucity.org/jake
award and this award is presented
[2:06:54] annually to an individual or group that
contributes to the betterment of parks
[2:06:57] and recreation in Malibu. Uh the 15th
annual shoe day pow and intertribal
[2:07:02] gathering will be at Bluffs Park March
28th to 29th. There will be free
[2:07:07] shuttles from city hall and theoki
property since there's no on-site
[2:07:10] parking. There will be Native American
dancers, drummers, and singers in
[2:07:15] addition to artists and vendors and food
trucks. Please join the celebration and
[2:07:19] you can find more information at malib
city.org shumash day. Um the parks and
[2:07:24] recck commission is also responsible to
oversee the earth friendly management
[2:07:27] policy in our city parks which which
includes the elimination of herbicides,
[2:07:32] pesticides and rodenocides. Um we are
proud of what we have accomplished and
[2:07:37] we have several goals and outreach
opportunities to achieve in 2026. We
[2:07:41] hope these efforts will provide a model
for everyone in Malibu to become more
[2:07:45] aware of protecting our unique habitat
and implementing these principles on
[2:07:49] their own properties. Um some other
projects that we have in the works are
[2:07:54] um the staff is working with Tranquist
Riders and Ropers to develop a community
[2:07:57] use agreement and potential restoration
plan for the equestrian center. Um staff
[2:08:02] is also working with commissioners to
see if we can do a dog park at Los
[2:08:05] Flores Park which is currently being
restored after major fire damage. Um,
[2:08:10] I'll just end by inviting the community
to attend our meetings the third Tuesday
[2:08:13] of the month at 6:30 in the
multi-purpose room. Thank you.
[2:08:17] » Thank you, Judy.
>> Mel May.
[2:08:31] Good evening, council members. Welcome,
city manager Irvin. We had a safety
[2:08:38] meeting last week. I spoke with Chair
Spiegel who's in attendance tonight and
[2:08:42] just wanted to run down a few things
that we're working on which people may
[2:08:46] be aware of may they may not be. Um
first off I would like to
[2:08:53] plead with everybody if you see
something say something because a lot of
[2:08:56] things that people see they think people
are going to fix but they don't fix
[2:09:00] them. I got a I was party to an email
where somebody hit something in PCH tore
[2:09:05] up their tire. They were stranded. So if
you see something see something in the
[2:09:09] highway report it to um Susan Dwayne's
office here at the city public works or
[2:09:15] CALR.
[2:09:19] We discussed a lot of topics last week.
One of the first things that came up was
[2:09:24] uh Mayor Silverstein's appointment
Alexis brought up the recent fatality on
[2:09:29] Malibu Canyon and so we discussed that a
little bit. Uh, I've worked on Malibu
[2:09:33] Canyon in the Krails and the guardrails
for over 10 years with Jennifer Denakoa
[2:09:36] many years ago and I was on the safety
commission previously. I've reached back
[2:09:40] out to the county to see if we can get
some accelerated action to try to make
[2:09:45] that highway safer as the traffic gets
more congested this summer. Uh, other
[2:09:50] things that were discussed were the
Corell Canyon intersection and the
[2:09:54] safety there, West Winding Way and the
overcrowding that's going on there. uh
[2:10:00] crosswalks and safety there. I've had a
friend that was hit by the Zoomerz
[2:10:04] crosswalk and I actually almost got hit
in that crosswalk, too. So, we've talked
[2:10:08] about safety and crosswalks. The city
has put up some new high visibility
[2:10:13] yellow signs along Cross Creek and uh
Civic Center, and uh I've reached out to
[2:10:19] them to try to redo some stenciling for
some of the worn lines there so people
[2:10:22] will be safer there. Also, the Zuma
underpass, we are pushing forward to try
[2:10:28] to get some action on that to get that
open. So, that last weekend again, uh
[2:10:32] there wasn't enough people taking money
at the parking lots and so and the
[2:10:36] underpass wasn't open and so traffic
backed up on PCH. So, you've got PCH
[2:10:41] gridlocked because of a couple very
simple things to fix. So, we're working
[2:10:46] on that. Uh the fire leaison made a nice
presentation. in the city for those of
[2:10:51] you that don't know that that has a
department for fire safety. They have
[2:10:54] some very educated fire liaison people
which will come out to your property,
[2:10:59] inspect the property, give you
suggestions, defensible space, brush
[2:11:03] clearing, and also home hardening
techniques. So, it's a it's very helpful
[2:11:08] on many different levels. So, please
reach out. Um,
[2:11:14] uh, we have the council members, as I
mentioned, Alexis is on there. We have,
[2:11:19] uh, Richard Garvey who's on CERT, Brian
Merrick, who's been a realer and has
[2:11:22] been in this town forever. And so, we've
got some good depth on the count on the
[2:11:27] commission right now. And we'd love to
hear from people if they have any
[2:11:30] suggestions about things to work on.
And, um, there's also water storage. You
[2:11:36] know, we've had a problem with water
storage in the past. It will in this
[2:11:39] fire.
>> Thank you. So, we're pressing for more
[2:11:42] water.
>> Okay. We received one slip late and we
[2:11:46] already heard one person from the public
works commission. So, sorry.
[2:11:51] » We're going to move to the um city
manager update.
[2:11:55] » Yes. Good evening, mayor, members of
city council, and members of the public.
[2:11:58] Joe Irvin. Uh hello, community of
Malibu. Happy to be here today. Uh, a
[2:12:03] few items I'd like to update everyone on
is, uh, the council members, uh, Riggins
[2:12:09] and Conrad, uh, celebrated Malibu
Village Books. Uh, we highlighted the
[2:12:14] store's resilience through the recent
fires and its role as a community hub.
[2:12:18] Uh, part of this is part of the city's
ongoing efforts to support our local
[2:12:21] businesses from Palisades Fire. Uh, and
resources are available via Malibu
[2:12:27] Rebuilds.org related to these efforts.
Also as part of the public works project
[2:12:32] uh the signal synchron s syn
synchronization
[2:12:36] uh we are connected to real- time video
feeds on traffic conditions on PCH it's
[2:12:41] now available on the CALR website tiny
URL back or.comcalrans
[2:12:49] traffic cams we'll make sure that's
clear on the city's website this is part
[2:12:54] of the city's PCH uh signalization uh
safety projects
[2:12:59] community services has recently
installed three new public telescopes at
[2:13:03] the whale watching uh spot. This is at
Malibu Bluffs Park. Two have stepups and
[2:13:09] one is wheelchair accessible. These are
significantly better than the aging
[2:13:14] telescopes that we're breaking down. Uh
it's a great tool for our kids and
[2:13:18] adults to watch whales uh and observe
the coastline and our beautiful views
[2:13:22] for education purposes and just
enjoyment uh outside.
[2:13:30] Uh some of you may know about the uh
executive order that was issued uh
[2:13:35] probably 45 60 days ago uh from the
[clears throat] president. Uh there's
[2:13:40] been some talk in the community about
the Small Business Administration
[2:13:43] guidance that's being given out to those
who have received uh funding from SBA.
[2:13:49] Uh, I just want to state for the record
and to make it very clear that city
[2:13:52] building permit codes, fire safety
codes, county building codes, all still
[2:13:57] shall be met. Uh, if you plan to
rebuild, get in the door with the
[2:14:02] Yolanda Bundy's uh, office to get your
expedited permit and follow the rules
[2:14:07] that are in place to ensure you uh,
build properly and consistent with local
[2:14:13] codes.
With that, I would like to turn it over
[2:14:17] to Director Bundy to give a brief
overview of our rebuilding process.
[2:14:24] » Thank you, city manager. Um, and thank
you, city council. Uh, just a brief
[2:14:29] update where we are with our fire
rebuilds. Um,
[2:14:34] currently, uh, we have, um, we are close
to the 37, uh, permits issued. We're
[2:14:42] working with three more families uh to
uh issue permits this week. So that will
[2:14:47] give us 40 of those homes for our
families are being built. Uh we have so
[2:14:54] far 629
total building permits issued on that
[2:14:58] affected area and with 176 uh planning
approved uh homes.
[2:15:07] I also wanted to share with the uh
council and with the community that this
[2:15:12] morning staff met with the rebuilds on
capitans uh Darren Graves uh Joe
[2:15:18] Drummond Lu Tenna and um both of our
council members Rean and Conrad to
[2:15:24] continue talking about our better ways
to streamline the process. And one of
[2:15:30] them was uh we are creating a master uh
rebuild guidelines that provide will
[2:15:36] provide a clear easy to follow roadmap
for all of our families. We also um had
[2:15:43] another meeting in regards to the
rebuild website to make sure that our
[2:15:48] documents uh as per Darren's comments
last week follow the policy and that
[2:15:54] direction of uh of council. I feel
confident that with this efforts, we're
[2:16:00] getting to a point that we're
collaborating with the community. We're
[2:16:03] getting things move forward. And lastly,
um just want to share with you a few
[2:16:09] events that are coming. uh one that will
happen tomorrow at at the council
[2:16:14] chambers from 12 to 2 with the zone
capence uh to continue talking about
[2:16:19] those geotechnical guidelines and
provide clarity uh to those families
[2:16:24] that still uh feel that they need a
little bit more clarification that will
[2:16:28] take place here at the council chambers.
Uh we will also be hosting on Wednesday,
[2:16:33] March 11, a design professionals
meetings. To all of our design
[2:16:37] professionals that are out there, uh
please we uh urge you to attend. This is
[2:16:43] to continue answering questions as they
are the ones that are submitting the
[2:16:47] projects for review and we want to
continue um discussing any other uh um
[2:16:54] questions that they might have or ideas
that they might bring on board. Uh so
[2:16:59] please uh we uh urge you to uh join us
on Wednesday 11th and then March 24 uh
[2:17:07] all of our families. Uh we really want
to have a a gathering and this is uh
[2:17:14] with the intent to uh invite families
that have already been through the
[2:17:18] process on policies fires and so they
can give the uh the feedback to the ones
[2:17:24] that haven't submit to those 307
families that haven't submit so they can
[2:17:29] um know that it is doable it is possible
and the city is committed to continue
[2:17:34] helping them. And with that I conclude
my presentation. Thank you so much.
[2:17:40] » Thank you uh Yolanda. And I believe we
have uh Sergeant uh Solderland who's
[2:17:45] here to give a brief update. Mayor,
>> before we move to Sergeant Southern,
[2:17:49] does any council member have any
questions of Yolanda?
[2:17:52] » Just uh curious, how close are we to
getting uh certificate of occupancy on
[2:17:57] any of those permits?
>> Uh the closest one is uh Denise
[2:18:00] Tubberman. Uh she is located on the Big
Rock area. She right now they are uh
[2:18:05] doing the framing. We estimate within
the next six months uh she will be
[2:18:10] calling for a certificate of occupancy.
[2:18:15] » Any other questions?
>> Thank you.
[2:18:18] » You're welcome.
[2:18:28] » Good evening, city council. Welcome,
city manager Joe Irvin. Look forward to
[2:18:33] uh partnering with you and working with
you. Um I have the crime statistics for
[2:18:39] the month of February for the city of
Malibu. Uh in February there were 15
[2:18:44] part one crimes reported. Uh this brings
the total for the year to 32 and that
[2:18:50] compares with 42 from the same time last
year. So that's a almost 24% decrease.
[2:18:55] So still the crime trends are still
trending down. So that is good to
[2:19:00] [snorts] see. A couple notable incidents
that happened uh over the past several
[2:19:05] weeks. Uh the first one uh both of these
involved uh homeless individuals. So the
[2:19:12] first one happened on February 24th at
about 1:00 in the afternoon. Uh this was
[2:19:18] in the 23,000 block of PCH at Malibu
Village books. Um the suspect had set up
[2:19:26] uh a tent on the location, which is
private property, and a security guard
[2:19:30] at the location um went to have that
individual leave the the property. Uh
[2:19:37] the suspect then took out a pair of
scissors and threatened to stab the
[2:19:41] security guard. Um deputies were called
and while they were on the way, the
[2:19:46] suspect gathered their belongings and
left on foot. uh a California State
[2:19:52] Parks officer was nearby and that uh
security officer flagged the California
[2:19:57] State Parks officer down and who
followed the uh suspect to um Legacy
[2:20:03] Park and the deputies were able to
locate the uh suspect and take him into
[2:20:08] custody and he was arrested for felony
criminal threats and brandishing a
[2:20:12] weapon in this case the scissors. Um,
[clears throat]
[2:20:16] another notable incident that happened
uh on February 28th at about 9:30 in the
[2:20:22] morning at the Starbucks on Malibu Road.
Um,
[2:20:27] uh, the victim was seated outside of the
Starbucks. Uh, when she overheard the
[2:20:31] suspect arguing with an employee in the
location about being asked to leave the
[2:20:35] premises. As the suspect walked away, he
suddenly swung his right arm in a
[2:20:39] punching motion towards her, knocking
over the drinks on her table. Uh the
[2:20:43] suspect then swung his right arm again
and this time hit her on the shoulder
[2:20:46] with a closed fist. The suspect
immediately fled on foot. Um when the
[2:20:52] deputies got there, the suspect was
gone. But later in the day, a witness to
[2:20:55] this incident actually located uh the
suspect walking on PCH about a mile from
[2:21:02] the Starbucks and had the presence of
mind to call the sheriff's department
[2:21:06] and deputies were able to apprehend that
suspect. So, thank you to that witness.
[2:21:10] uh that suspect was arrested for elder
abuse because the victim in this case
[2:21:16] was 71 years old. So um thank
[clears throat] you for that to that
[2:21:20] witness for being a good witness.
Um
[2:21:27] finally over the past weekend uh Parker
you can pull up the uh the DUIS. So, the
[2:21:33] Malibu VOPS were out on patrol this past
weekend and uh if you can see and uh
[2:21:41] they were patrolling the area on PCH
near Tranis when they noticed a vehicle
[2:21:46] that was driving erratically and they
thought the uh driver may have been
[2:21:51] having a medical emergency or was
possibly under the influence and they uh
[2:21:54] used the radio to to have the deputies
respond and the vehicle was pulled over
[2:22:01] and inside the uh vehicle, they've
located a nitrous oxide bottle and also
[2:22:08] that French bulldog there and they
determined that the suspect was under
[2:22:12] the influence of not only alcohol but
nitrous oxide and were able to arrest
[2:22:16] him for driving under the influence. So
kudos to the VOPs. Uh they're extra help
[2:22:23] for us out there. They're outstanding
and they did a great job over the
[2:22:28] weekend.
Um, finally, [clears throat]
[2:22:33] uh,
the sheriff's department and the fire
[2:22:37] department went to Dukes last week. They
had a a nice gathering for us for first
[2:22:41] responders and that's int anticipation
of their grand reopening this week. So,
[2:22:47] uh, they will be open and they could,
uh, use your patronage. So, please stop
[2:22:52] by. The food was great. Um, also
deputies from the sheriff station played
[2:22:58] the middle schoolers at Malibu,
um, middle school in a basketball game
[2:23:03] game during their lunch. So, um, we won
26 to 23. Couldn't let the middle middle
[2:23:11] schoolers beat us, but uh, it was a
great event and it was a great time with
[2:23:16] the kids and, uh, everyone had a great
time. So,
[2:23:20] um, finally, if you can bring up the
flyer,
[2:23:26] uh, if you would like to donate, we are
doing a fundraiser for feeding military
[2:23:30] families at the station. You can drop
off, uh, any of those needed items
[2:23:34] there. Um, they support, uh, the armed
forces families at 29 Palms, Camp
[2:23:40] Pendleton, Fort Irwin, and Los Angeles
Air Force Base. So, the deadline to get
[2:23:45] it to the station is this Wednesday.
There's also a QR code there if you want
[2:23:49] to uh contribute directly, but uh we're
accepting donations at the station and
[2:23:54] we'll transport it out to uh Sand Deus
there. So, that is all I have. I'm
[2:23:59] available if anyone has any questions.
Does anybody have any questions?
[2:24:05] » Steve,
>> we played the high school kids and we
[2:24:09] won. You say that with a little more
confidence. [laughter]
[2:24:13] Yeah, we uh it was probably the the
hardest 20 minutes of my life.
[2:24:17] [laughter]
[2:24:20] » You know, you catch these homeless
people with the guy with the scissors or
[2:24:23] what happens to them when you arrest
them?
[2:24:26] » So, in that case, uh he was arrested for
a felony. And so, uh and since it
[2:24:32] involved a weapon, so that's a serious
crime, they stay in jail until they see
[2:24:35] the judge. So, uh, they have an
arraignment date within 48 hours and
[2:24:40] then it goes through the criminal
justice system
[2:24:42] » and typically they just get let go
again. Is that I mean I don't
[2:24:46] » So zero bail is in effect and so a lot
of crimes um are released on citation
[2:24:53] but in this case uh they were held in
custody.
[2:24:58] » We played the kids and we won.
>> Anybody else?
[2:25:03] » Thank you for your report.
>> Thank you.
[2:25:12] I don't have any more. Um,
>> did you want to hear a law enforcement
[2:25:18] update from the MRCA or under public
comment?
[2:25:21] » We we can hear from Ranger Tim now.
>> Ranger Tim and
[2:25:26] » thank you.
[2:25:34] Good evening, mayor and city council
members and city manager. Uh, I'd like
[2:25:38] to give the MRCA uh, Coastal Ranger
report. In the last month, a total of
[2:25:43] 276 st citations were issued involving
park violations and illegal parking,
[2:25:49] including littering, possession of
alcohol, smoking in the back country,
[2:25:54] and dogs off leash, as well as being in
a closed area. Currently, we have
[2:26:00] augmented staffing in Malibu due to
recent wind events and for the for a
[2:26:05] potential or prevention of a wildlife
incident, wildfire incident. Correction.
[2:26:11] And Parker, do you have the picture?
Thanks. On February 9th,
[2:26:17] we're almost there. There we go. On
February 9th at Murphy Way Roadway,
[2:26:21] there are three park signs that were
defaced and vandalized by painting over
[2:26:26] them. Currently, the signs were restored
and are back to their original state.
[2:26:34] Thank you. Thank you, Parker.
Continuous uh ranger safety patrols were
[2:26:39] implemented at Escanido Canyon Park due
to the park visitors roadway safety and
[2:26:44] navigation to the designated trails. A
total of 876 pounds of trash was picked
[2:26:51] up at our coastal area parks, including
all beach accessways. Currently, there
[2:26:56] have been no evidence of new encampments
developments at Malibu Blust Park and
[2:27:01] continuous patrols persist in the area.
And this Oh, also a total of 875 pounds
[2:27:10] of trash was picked up. I I said that
before. And this concludes my ranger
[2:27:15] report. Any questions?
>> I do.
[2:27:19] » Okay.
>> Hi, Ranger Tim. How are you?
[2:27:21] » Good. How are you?
>> Great. Good to see you.
[2:27:23] » Thank you. Likewise. Any details of the
injury that happened yesterday? I think
[2:27:27] somebody might have broken their leg on
the hike.
[2:27:30] » Oh yeah, absolutely. There was a uh
there was a a female
[2:27:34] » girl 18 years old that buckled her her
ankle.
[2:27:38] » So luckily we were on on scene and we
went uh to her rescue. Luckily
[2:27:44] everything was okay. the father, the
parents were there and we put uh we
[2:27:48] ministered first aid, put ice and um got
her safely back to her her vehicle with
[2:27:53] the parents.
>> Thank you. Um any information about the
[2:27:57] accident, the vehicular accident on PCH
and East winding way from last week?
[2:28:01] Yes, there's a a vehicle was going uh
westbound and was trying to make the
[2:28:07] turn, lost control, and then sideswiped
another car that was parked on the
[2:28:13] opposite side of East Waring Way.
>> Yeah,
[2:28:15] » I saw that. I saw the whole thing. I saw
the Tesla was parked illegally and the
[2:28:20] visitors that were coming, are they all
okay? They were
[2:28:22] » Yes, absolutely.
Yeah.
[2:28:25] » Um, so was this weekend a red flag
weekend? It was really windy. It was
[2:28:30] very windy, but not a red flag.
>> Got it. Because you know we close the
[2:28:33] parks during red flags.
>> Absolutely.
[2:28:35] » Yeah. Um and then I was wondering who
gets the money from all of your
[2:28:38] citations?
Is it the city? Is it MRCA?
[2:28:43] » Good question. Um that would I would
have to ask the administration to see
[2:28:47] where the funds do go
>> and I could get back to you on that.
[2:28:50] » I would love that. And then when you
give citations, are they on PCH or are
[2:28:54] they generally just in the 13 spot
parking lot? just in the parking lot.
[2:29:00] » So, you give all of those citations just
in the parking lot. Well,
[2:29:04] » sometimes we will issue citations
adjacent to our parks.
[2:29:08] » Yeah,
>> it depends on severity and
[2:29:11] » Wow. Um, I was also wondering, are you
guys able to tow because there are cars
[2:29:16] that park on East Winding Way and a lot
of the residents there ask me if you
[2:29:23] guys ever tow.
>> Yes, we can. We do have the capacity or
[2:29:28] we can tow a CHP 180.
>> So would we call your Ranger company
[2:29:33] phone number that I have that I would
give that and then you guys would come
[2:29:36] out and tow or do we have to because
people call Lost Hills, it's a private
[2:29:39] road so they can't actually tow.
>> It depends on the area too. If uh if
[2:29:45] it's on PCH um
>> it depends if we have the time to to
[2:29:49] wait for a tow and depends on severity.
If it's a major public safety issue,
[2:29:54] absolutely. We'll we will take the time
to uh to get a tow truck out there and
[2:30:01] then I heard about the vandalism. I'm
sorry to hear that. There isn't I think
[2:30:05] do can you confirm if there's a new sign
at the uh Eddie Albert
[2:30:09] trail head
because that looks brand new,
[2:30:13] » I believe. So, yeah, they restored all
the all the uh deface signs that that
[2:30:18] were in that area.
>> Okay. Looks like different information
[2:30:22] has been put up, but I'm not sure about
that. Like new information on that sign.
[2:30:26] » Could be.
>> Okay. Yeah.
[2:30:28] » How much is your smoking citation?
>> Uh depending on red flag, uh they they
[2:30:34] start at 175 and the red flag it could
be $500
[2:30:39] » or more.
>> All right.
[2:30:40] » And depends on whether we issue
administrative citation
[2:30:44] » or a notice to appear.
>> Got it. Thank you so much.
[2:30:48] » You're welcome. My pleasure. Any other
questions? Anybody else?
[2:30:54] » Thank you.
>> Hey, you're welcome.
[2:31:00] » You want to hear from CHP?
>> There's no CHP reports are done. Thank
[2:31:04] you, mayor.
>> Great. Thank you.
[2:31:07] » Okay, that takes us to written and oral
communications from the public. It's
[2:31:11] after 6:30, so we can get to that.
Um, how many slips we have here?
[2:31:17] » This is
trying to see what item
[2:31:20] » this is for for
>> a
[2:31:29] first.
>> Okay,
[2:31:32] » that's okay. Sorry about it.
>> Okay, got a lot of slips. Are there any
[2:31:35] people on Zoom?
[2:31:39] » There are two raised hands. Okay, lock
them down. So, we'll start with Scott
[2:31:44] Toau,
followed by Susie Chambers, followed by
[2:31:49] Dean Wener.
>> And mayor, I just want to know as you
[2:31:52] called the item, we have four raised
hands if you want to give everyone a few
[2:31:56] seconds warning and then
>> Okay, this is 4 A. And we'll give Zoom
[2:31:59] 10 more seconds. I'll let you count it
down and if no one else raises your
[2:32:02] hand, let us know. Thank you. Glaz
Malibu Film Society wants to invite the
[2:32:08] entire community to our Oscar party this
Sunday at Alo Restaurant. There is no
[2:32:14] fee to attend. The first drink is on us,
either sparkling wine or sparkling
[2:32:19] cider. All you have to do is register on
our website. We have about 20 seats
[2:32:24] left. Um I know we've had a fire, but
it's been over a year and we wanted to
[2:32:30] bring you up to date on several things
related to the film society. As far as
[2:32:34] our free screening series here at city
hall, we've done five out of the 12 that
[2:32:38] were budgeted under the grant. Hugely
popular with attendance averaging around
[2:32:44] 150 a show. Almost all of the Malibu
residents. We're told the AV system is
[2:32:49] still unreliable. We can't do anymore.
Um, when we first launched this series
[2:32:54] in 2024, it was so successful that a
member of this council asked us to
[2:32:59] prepare a proposal to restore this room
in a way that would let us bring
[2:33:03] firstrun screenings back to Malibu. We
did that. We presented the plans to this
[2:33:08] council that October. Of course, then we
had the fires later followed by a
[2:33:13] request and hold off until we had a new
city manager. So, welcome Joe. Looking
[2:33:18] forward to working with you. Call me
when you have time. Um, our big screen
[2:33:23] install. We offered to put up a 24 ft
screen here. Council voted last August
[2:33:28] to approve it. What we wanted to do was
a simple flat screen install behind the
[2:33:33] curtains, but staff said, "Nope, it's
got to be motorized. Got to be suspended
[2:33:36] from the ceiling. It's going to weigh
500 lb. We have to re-engineer the whole
[2:33:40] thing. We'll pay for it." Nothing's
happened in the six, seven months since
[2:33:45] then. Library speaker series. members of
this council voted to uh award an 85 or
[2:33:52] request an $85,000 grant from the
library set aside funds so that we could
[2:33:57] create a new free screening series which
would celebrate the ongoing connection
[2:34:01] between books and film which goes back
well over a hundred years. Well, library
[2:34:06] staff turned that down. Never told us
why. We weren't even advised that we had
[2:34:11] been turned down. Last August, we met
with library subcommittee. this time got
[2:34:16] some specifics on what was needed. We
sent that very detailed updated proposal
[2:34:21] last September and are still waiting for
a response. Library staff now wants even
[2:34:26] more information. Nobody will tell us
what it is. Uh nor have they told
[2:34:31] responded to our request for a sample
invoice from the current speaker series
[2:34:36] so that we can at least see how we
should supply any requested financials.
[2:34:41] We need this council's help. We are
stuck in a bureaucratic morass. All we
[2:34:47] want to do is help the city. So, please
help us. Thank you. Thank you, Scott.
[2:34:56] Susie, you're next.
[2:35:05] » Do I push anything?
>> Thanks.
[2:35:10] Good evening and welcome to our city,
Mr. Irvin, and nice to meet you, city
[2:35:16] council. Hi, Maryanne. Um, I'm Susie
Chambers and I am a longtime proud
[2:35:22] member of Malibu. Thank you for this
chance to speak tonight. I'm here
[2:35:27] because 10 day 10 days ago, a bunch of
Malibu residents received a notification
[2:35:32] that the T-Mobile cell tower be
fasttracking to be put on the public
[2:35:38] utility easements within our residential
areas, one of which polls is being
[2:35:42] proposed at my home. I have
grandchildren. I will homeschool them
[2:35:47] there. I have a baby, a family over here
that's pregnant. I have an elderly
[2:35:53] couple here and here are surrounded. Our
neighborhood is surrounded by people
[2:35:57] that need their health and wellness.
That being said, we understand that the
[2:36:02] FCC does not comply with health
standards for the restrictions of any
[2:36:08] cell towers, but we would like to ask
you as city council to represent us and
[2:36:14] pushing those cell towers and places
that would be in public areas. for
[2:36:18] example, out on beaches and places where
people people don't reside and sleep at
[2:36:24] night. We also see the TMO see this um
the T-Mobile cell towers as not
[2:36:33] necessarily a public utility because
they are not to be benefit
[2:36:39] all of the utilities. They only benefit
T-Mobile customers. So, we have concerns
[2:36:44] with that and we have concerns with the
permits that have been put forth by
[2:36:49] Crown Castle via T-Mobile to the city
that are not what is existing on the
[2:36:56] poll, at least in my neighborhood. Um,
we have so many people, probably 99% of
[2:37:02] our street would like to decline the
motion by T-Mobile and Crown Castle and
[2:37:08] we are beseeching you as our
representatives
[2:37:12] 20 years from now when your legacy
leaving this office and my legacy
[2:37:18] leaving my house to my children and and
people that live there after me. I want
[2:37:22] to be proud of what I've left behind.
And if people are looking up and looking
[2:37:27] at cell towers amidst our residential
beautiful rural Malibu and all of our
[2:37:33] streets that we've worked so hard to
preserve nature and health and
[2:37:36] environment and wildlife and we look up
at cell towers 20 years from now because
[2:37:42] these large corporations mowed over us
as city members and residents, I think
[2:37:49] we are all going to be highly upset by
that. So, it's not been on an agenda and
[2:37:54] we are beseeching you because tomorrow
my letter is due to Crown Castle which
[2:37:59] is on a shot clock which gives us an
urgency and so we're asking you to
[2:38:06] urgently look at this with us and on
behalf of us as residents. Thank you.
[2:38:12] » Thank you
Dean.
[2:38:22] Thank you. I did not know that we were
going to get into the Big Rock
[2:38:25] Assessment District earlier. I would
have spoken then because that was my
[2:38:28] subject. Um
>> there was no public comment then anyway.
[2:38:31] So this is your time.
>> Excellent. Thank you. So relative to the
[2:38:35] assessment district because it got into
some questions that were coming up. Um
[2:38:39] you know there's special and general
benefits separated. The amount is
[2:38:43] limited to the special benefit. Parcel
receives direct and special benefit
[2:38:47] distinct from the general public. Uh
there's no regulated method for that
[2:38:52] aortionment aortionment. I won't touch
on the dewatering as they did a great
[2:38:56] job about that. The two distinct
benefits break down into protection of
[2:39:00] property, protection of roads. That
assessment was done by David toig and
[2:39:04] associates in consultation with the
city's geotech consultant and city's
[2:39:09] public works. um the assessment district
is properly represented as they did. Um
[2:39:15] the special benefits basically break
down protection which is reduced risk
[2:39:21] and degree of damage distress suffered
from slope failure. Road access
[2:39:25] maintained for properties reached by
roads benefits were deemed equal for
[2:39:29] both property um and and the road uh to
make sure that it could be enjoyed
[2:39:34] properly. Since roads except for PCH do
not convey through traffic, there is no
[2:39:40] general benefit to the public for such
road access. Um,
[2:39:45] and then stabilization of the area. So,
the method of assessment, which was a
[2:39:51] question somebody raised, there's 348
assessments, 706.1 benefit assessment
[2:39:57] units, that's calculated based on a
single family or a condo/ apartment,
[2:40:03] which also then has an assessment for
what is called the average weekday trips
[2:40:08] per unit. Um, without boring you with
all of that detail, the points I wanted
[2:40:12] to make is I would ask you to prop maybe
agendaize this in the future to look at
[2:40:18] this. I don't think the assessments are
proper and the reasons being CALR
[2:40:23] benefits more than any property in the
assessment district based upon
[2:40:26] equivalent area protection of property
and the fact their parcel trip
[2:40:30] generation factors are in excess of
1,500 times higher than the single
[2:40:35] family home assessment per table C1 of
the document. They receive far more
[2:40:41] benefit than anyone and pay nothing
towards it.
[2:40:45] The city benefits from PCH for use of
city employees, contractors, etc. City
[2:40:50] benefits benefits from tax revenues,
other things. Um, long story short,
[2:40:55] there's a large group of us us beach
owners that don't necessarily feel we
[2:40:59] benefit the same because the drainage is
at the PCH level, not below. We don't
[2:41:04] contribute to the groundwater. But what
we're really after because we think the
[2:41:08] methodology is wrong is we want because
of the situation on the roadway to get
[2:41:14] better access to the roadway for
rebuilding including no fees for
[2:41:18] encroachment access to the roadway and K
rails if necessary. So thank you.
[2:41:23] » Thank you Jean. Okay. Next is Joe
Drummond. Joe I see you have four
[2:41:27] minutes and I see that your extra minute
is here. Uh, Linda Eddie and then Clydy
[2:41:33] Lane,
[2:41:37] you have four minutes.
>> Honorable Mayor Silverstein, city
[2:41:40] council, I want to speak about the
geotechnical review you heard today with
[2:41:44] about Y from Yan Associates about the
big rock landslide. These reports are
[2:41:49] presented to you every year and reviewed
after review by the public and public
[2:41:54] works commission and they consistently
show the same result. There has been no
[2:41:58] meaningful change in the landslide
conditions affecting our lots. As Yay
[2:42:02] stated, there has been no discernable
movement in over a decade. Our factor of
[2:42:06] safety numbers coming out from the 30 to
50 extremely expensive and detailed so
[2:42:11] reports that have been completed so far
in Big Rock are all coming out between
[2:42:15] 1.95 and 2.1 well over the 1.5 limit for
our lots. We are also all rebuilding
[2:42:21] using low water fix lowflow fixture
counts. So water import will be much
[2:42:25] lower than before. thus reducing the
risk further. If conditions have not
[2:42:29] changed, why require additional
geotechnical studies to rebuild homes
[2:42:32] that stood safely for decades? Wildfire
does not suddenly destabilize a
[2:42:37] deep-seated landslide. The controlling
factors are groundwater and soil
[2:42:40] strength. And as Yay stated, our area is
affected mainly by groundwater levels.
[2:42:44] In Big Rock, the hillside has remained
stable because of the well-maintained
[2:42:48] dewatering system that residents and
public works have monitored for decades.
[2:42:52] Our homes that burned down were not
speculative projects on unknown terrain.
[2:42:57] They were functioning homes on lots that
have already proven stable. I do hope
[2:43:01] that the fire victims of Big Rocks are
not paying for that presentation through
[2:43:04] our assessment district and asked to
fund yet another report confirming what
[2:43:08] decades of monitoring have already
shown, unless of course it helps us
[2:43:12] finally streamline DI techchnical
review. If homeowners are already
[2:43:16] required to recompact and grade to
improve stability and build stronger
[2:43:19] foundations, upgrading to current
building codes, why on earth are we
[2:43:22] required another round of geotechnical
studies on lots that have already
[2:43:25] demonstrated and reported decades of
stability? You heard it clearly tonight
[2:43:29] that when a landslide area has been
stabilized through drainage, rebuilding
[2:43:32] homes that stood safely for 20, 30, even
50 years pose no additional risk
[2:43:36] rebuilding. Meanwhile, major projects in
Malibu, including 100 foot piles in
[2:43:40] landslide zones without variances and
the infamous 50 foot 5- foot retaining
[2:43:45] wall behind the Malibu in hotel proposed
received approvals without the same
[2:43:50] level of geotechnical scrutiny. Thank
goodness, a past city council stopped
[2:43:54] the hotel project. But when modest fire
rebuilds face more hurdles than major
[2:43:58] new development, something is clearly
wrong. These requirements also create
[2:44:02] major delays. A soils report with
redundant borings alone takes at least
[2:44:06] four months with several more for
review. Wave upbrush studies for beach
[2:44:09] homes can take over a year, even when
rebuilds must already meet FEMA plus 1
[2:44:13] ft of elevation, which is often
excessive already. Almost all of
[2:44:16] Palisad's fire applications are like
for-like rebuilds within the 10%
[2:44:20] allowance, not speculative development.
We should also be transparent about the
[2:44:23] rebuild statistics. There are now over
233 applications submitted and 37
[2:44:29] permits issued. This is barely over 15%,
not the 45 or 75% presented at the
[2:44:34] planning commission last week. I do
appreciate you, Linda, giving straight
[2:44:38] statistics tonight. Big Rock is at about
80 of these applications submitted also.
[2:44:42] So, only about half have decided to
rebuild. Being honest about where we
[2:44:46] stand is the first step toward fixing
the problem. These redundant
[2:44:49] requirements do not make our homes
safer. They only slow recovery. Even if
[2:44:52] we approve all the applications in
building plancheck today, we will only
[2:44:55] be at 81 permits issued, not the 100
permit goal we had at the end of last
[2:44:59] year. But hopefully you can help us get
to this number faster. Please streamline
[2:45:03] this process so all families in Big Rock
and beyond can rebuild and come home.
[2:45:07] That can start with the council
directing staff to take these issues
[2:45:10] into can into account at tomorrow's
prescriptive geotechnical calculations
[2:45:14] meeting and approach it with an open
mind towards allowing prescriptive
[2:45:18] rebuilding for lake forlike fire
rebuilds up to 10% without unnecessary
[2:45:22] additional soils reports unless required
by a soils structural engineer. We don't
[2:45:26] want another avenue for geotechnical
consultants to demand more and more
[2:45:30] reports that fire victims pay
exorbitantly for. If homes stood safely
[2:45:34] on these lots for decades, the default
should be rebuilding, not another round
[2:45:37] of studies. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Joe. Linda,
[2:45:43] » is Linda here?
>> Okay. Um, Clay,
[2:45:52] » pronounce your name right?
>> Yes. Amazing Grace Clay Lane. Uh, good
[2:45:58] evening Malibu City Council City
Manager. So, I am also um wanting to
[2:46:05] speak out about what Susan spoke out
about. I live on Rainsford Place. So,
[2:46:09] with regards to the 5G cell tower
network and the increase of that setup
[2:46:15] that's already there,
um, my major concern is about
[2:46:19] environmental impacts. This part of
Malibu
[2:46:23] supports a wealth of nature, bees,
birds, and many other pollinators who
[2:46:28] are already under extreme pressure from
drought, habitat loss, climate stress.
[2:46:35] And when this multiple wireless site,
when it overlaps in a small area, the
[2:46:41] cumulative environmental footprint
should definitely be reviewed.
[2:46:46] Pollinators are sensitive to changes in
their immediate surroundings, including
[2:46:52] what's being proposed, new equipment,
more noise, infrastructure placed close
[2:46:57] to their habitat. So please before
approving these upgrades, the city
[2:47:03] should verify what equipment is actually
going to be on the pole and whether the
[2:47:08] cumulative impact of these overlapping
sites connecting all these these towers
[2:47:13] has actually been properly evaluated.
This is especially important in these
[2:47:19] neighborhoods, these areas where there
are gardens, vegetable gardens, fruit
[2:47:23] orchards, and small agricultural
properties and small farms where these
[2:47:28] pollinators play a critical role. So,
this is not just verbiage. We've lived
[2:47:34] on our property for 30 years and before
my daughter was born, there were bees.
[2:47:39] We had honey at the end of every summer
and we've seen this slow decline. So
[2:47:45] these are very real factors for people
who live in this neighborhood and kind
[2:47:49] of have a small farm simple living
highing mentality.
[2:47:54] Um,
another thing I would like to refer to
[2:47:58] is the notification process. So, Malibu
being designated as a very high fire
[2:48:04] hazard severity zone and um this means
that timely public notice is actually
[2:48:10] essential for any meaningful
participation from any of the residents.
[2:48:15] In this particular case, residents
received only a little pink postcard,
[2:48:20] not the actual plans. And even when
people immediately requested the plans,
[2:48:25] they didn't even receive them in time to
review the proposal or submit relevant,
[2:48:31] you know, informed comments before the
deadline. So, there's a little bit of a
[2:48:35] glitch in the system there. In one case,
a resident even received the postcard 2
[2:48:40] days before the comment period closed.
Um, another question I have, I mean,
[2:48:45] there's some confusion around the actual
appeal process. If somebody wants to
[2:48:50] appeal an approval, the fee is $750,
which, you know, having spoken with
[2:48:55] various residents, some people can't
afford that at such short notice, but
[2:49:00] we're trying to clarify. Is that 750 per
person per appeal?
[2:49:05] » Thank you.
[2:49:14] » Tiffany, you're up next. I can see
you've got you've got five minutes. I
[2:49:17] can see your two vouchers are here. Um,
then CC Lee followed by Brian Cameron.
[2:49:29] » It still says three.
>> No, it says three. You have five.
[2:49:33] » Oh, thank you. Thank you.
>> Maybe you can say what you wanted to say
[2:49:37] before when you submitted the late card.
>> I don't think I'll be able to fit that,
[2:49:41] but thank you. Good evening, council
members, mayor, mayor prom.
[2:49:47] I'd also like to welcome our new city
manager.
[2:49:51] Malibu is a rare and remarkable place,
and your leadership in helping protect
[2:49:55] it will matter greatly to this
community. Your guidance will shape how
[2:49:59] residents, wildlife, and the landscape
of this community are cared for for
[2:50:03] decades to come.
I'm speaking tonight because many
[2:50:06] residents feel that something important
is accelerating a Malibu quietly and
[2:50:10] quickly and we're not sure the public or
even council members have been given the
[2:50:14] full picture yet. And the truth is this
isn't really a technology question. It's
[2:50:19] a stewardship question. Right now,
telecommunications installations are
[2:50:24] being presented one 5G pole at a time on
very short timelines as if each exist in
[2:50:30] isolation. But these small tow small
cell towers are designed to work
[2:50:35] together as a network handing signals
from one node to the next. This is not
[2:50:40] about a single pole. The biggest
physical change with 5G is network
[2:50:45] density not higher power because the
system relies on many nodes working
[2:50:50] together. That means more antennas, more
electrical boxes, more power supplies
[2:50:55] and more polemounted hardware. Each
installation may seem small, but
[2:51:00] cumulatively the network spreads across
entire neighborhoods. Yet, the public is
[2:51:05] being asked to evaluate them one piece
at a time without being shown the full
[2:51:10] scope. That prevents residents from
understanding the cumulative effect on
[2:51:14] safety, aesthetics, and the ecosystem.
And the record shows this is not
[2:51:19] hypothetical. When residents have called
to report dangling wires or maintenance
[2:51:23] issues on existing poles, most often
nothing happens.
[2:51:27] Typically, no one knows which company is
responsible, so the request is left
[2:51:32] unresolved. In fireprone areas like
ours, these are not minor concerns.
[2:51:37] Overloading poles with additional
equipment increases risk. Every
[2:51:41] electrical system eventually fails.
Prevention is not optional, its
[2:51:45] survival. Malibu was incorporated to
protect something fragile. the rural
[2:51:50] character of this coastline, the
wildlife corridors of the Santa Monica
[2:51:54] Mountains, the dark skies and the living
landscape that connects the mountains to
[2:51:57] the Pacific Ocean. Residents look to
this council not just to manage growth,
[2:52:02] but to guard the character and safety of
this place. Places like Malibu are
[2:52:07] rarely lost all at once. They change
slowly, decision by decision, permit by
[2:52:12] permit, pole by pole, until suddenly the
landscape is totally different. We may
[2:52:19] be temporary residents here, but Malibu
should be a permanent one. The wildlife
[2:52:23] moving through these hills at night has
no idea these meetings even exist. Last
[2:52:29] night, I stepped outside my home. The
sky was full of stars. The ocean was
[2:52:35] breathing in the distance and a bobcat
crossed the road. [clears throat] That
[2:52:40] is Malibu. Not infrastructure, not
convenience, not progress measured in
[2:52:45] metal boxes on poles. This is what
residents are here to protect. So what
[2:52:50] we are asking tonight is
straightforward. Before this network
[2:52:53] expands further into our neighborhoods,
the city should provide a transparent
[2:52:58] cumulative overview of what is being
proposed for Malibu. Not one poll at a
[2:53:02] time, but the complete picture. We are
asking for full RF specifications and
[2:53:08] exposure analysis for every proposed
site. a cumulative analysis that
[2:53:12] includes already approved installations
like the rains for a tower, public
[2:53:17] access to the this information so
residents can make informed comments
[2:53:23] because Malibu doesn't get a second
chance with infrastructure mistakes. And
[2:53:27] the question isn't whether technology
will come to Malibu. The question is
[2:53:31] whether Malibu will still look like
Malibu when it does. Malibu is not
[2:53:36] valuable because it's developed.
Malibu is valuable because it's still
[2:53:40] wild. Some things can be restored, but
Malibu's wild character can only be
[2:53:46] protected, and it deserves to be
protected.
[2:53:52] This is not just about one pole. This is
about how our city manages growth,
[2:53:56] technology, and the landscape for the
next generation. Every decision sends a
[2:54:03] message to residents, wildlife, and the
natural systems that sustain Malibu.
[2:54:07] Thank you.
>> Thank you, Tiffany. Uh,
[2:54:14] » just use your hands.
>> CeCe,
[2:54:24] the tree was my home.
Like it was yours.
[2:54:32] The tree was my home.
Deeper my roots
[2:54:38] lost like never before. The tree is a
connectivity to the wifi of the planet.
[2:54:47] We don't need 5G. We don't need more
stalkers. Okay, let's limit that. You
[2:54:52] guys are empowered to say no to these
people coming in. Okay, Tim, we don't
[2:54:58] want that sign up of our houses. That's
stalking and invasive. It needs to be a
[2:55:02] sign of the wildlife in the area. So
that sign needs to completely come down.
[2:55:06] I don't know who's spray painting. It's
not me. I don't believe in spraying
[2:55:09] those toxic chemicals.
Lato is the best road for a parking lot.
[2:55:16] There's two for sale. There's $99
million in the bank that belong to the
[2:55:20] city of Malibu and the people. Thank
you, Judy from Villa Blanca calling it
[2:55:24] Park. Yes, that is what it's called. We
have made progress. We have made great
[2:55:29] decisions and we're moving forward. I'm
here to speak about many different
[2:55:33] topics. There were 32 trees cut down in
what used to be a park for Malibu at the
[2:55:38] campus at Malibu Middle School, Malibu
High School. That's not right.
[2:55:44] The structure of a palm tree, if you
look at a map of the roots, it's like a
[2:55:49] nail into the ground. We're talking
about landslides, but we're not building
[2:55:52] any trees. The trees can do a much
better job than any structural pylon you
[2:55:58] could create. But yet, I'm looking at a
full campus. 32 trees completely
[2:56:03] disappeared from these kids' future and
existence. The only thing that we all
[2:56:08] own together is what we breathe. So if
we can work on a campaign of building
[2:56:12] more trees and again that parking lot at
Lato, maybe we can help the people cross
[2:56:17] the street better as well cuz that turn
is the most actually dangerous turn in
[2:56:21] Malibu. The wildlife passage and the
wildlife bridge. And I would like to let
[2:56:26] you know that the least qualified
individual, his name is Eric, is running
[2:56:30] the Olympics and the money for it. Okay?
If I've ever seen a qualified job given
[2:56:36] to a my like it just is like the least
qualified and I think maybe we need to
[2:56:42] look into that and put into an
infrastructure of creating again the
[2:56:46] London hub. Each of these pods cost
$9,000 with the elevated execution of
[2:56:52] people who want to take a cut. it then
costs $48,000.
[2:56:56] We can create a system with the city and
if we kind of like point out that we are
[2:57:02] an integral part of the Olympics because
they will be visiting us and we will
[2:57:06] have non-stop traffic and that's when my
horse will be the most valuable.
[2:57:09] Anyways, yehaw. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you Cece
[2:57:15] Crystal Brian.
[2:57:26] Mayor Silverstein,
uh, Mayor Proing, and city council
[2:57:31] members. Uh, good evening. My name is
Brian Cameron, and I'm a Calabasas's
[2:57:36] resident. I've had the privilege of
serving as a Calabas's public safety
[2:57:40] commissioner for the past 10 years. In
the aftermath of the Woolsey fire, the
[2:57:45] city council asked me to help create an
independent nonprofit focused on
[2:57:51] emergency preparedness, outreach, and
education. In 2021, I co-founded
[2:57:58] emergency preparation
in Calabasas, a fires safe council.
[2:58:03] We're a 501c3 organization, and I
currently serve as president.
[2:58:09] We are a volunteer-run community
outreach organization and we were
[2:58:13] honored to be named Calabas's
organization of the year in 2024.
[2:58:18] Our mission is simple. Help residents
better prepare for emergencies before
[2:58:23] they happen. To that end, we're
currently executing several initiatives,
[2:58:28] some in partnership with the city. These
include free home hardening evaluations
[2:58:33] to reduce wildfire risk, helping
neighborhoods qualify as firewise
[2:58:38] community, and distributing emergency
radios pre-programmed to the Calabasas's
[2:58:43] repeater so residents can receive
critical information when all other
[2:58:48] systems fail. We also publish weekly
safety articles that reach more than
[2:58:53] 2600 local residents.
All these efforts share one goal. Making
[2:58:59] emergency information easier to access,
easier to understand, and easier to act
[2:59:05] on. By improving how quickly and
reliably residents receive trusted local
[2:59:11] information, EPIC directly supports the
city's broader resilience goals of
[2:59:17] preparedness, communication, and
community safety. That's why I'm here
[2:59:22] this evening to introduce what we
believe is one of our most impactful
[2:59:26] initiatives to date. Our free smarthome
smartphone app. The app tr the app
[2:59:34] stores trusted locally relevant
emergency preparedness and response
[2:59:40] information on residents smartphones so
it is available right when they need it
[2:59:44] most. Rather than describing it myself,
I'd like you to hear directly from the
[2:59:50] person who designed and built it. With
that, I'm pleased to turn the PO podium
[2:59:55] over to Michael Stall, the creator of
the emergency preparedness and Calabasas
[3:00:00] app. Thank you for your time.
[3:00:08] » Good evening.
>> My name is Michael Stall. I am a
[3:00:11] Calabasas resident. Feel a little out of
touch here, but that's okay. Um,
[3:00:16] » hold on. We didn't call you yet.
>> Oh, [laughter]
[3:00:20] » did I announce that you were next?
Because you actually are, but
[3:00:23] » Okay. Do I get to restart the shot
clock?
[3:00:25] » Well, let's let's identify who the next
few speakers are going to be. So, hold
[3:00:29] on.
Mike Stall, followed by Scott Ditrich,
[3:00:33] followed by Molen Watts. Now, you may
start.
[3:00:37] » Okay. So, uh, I developed this app at
the request of this is a nonprofit. We
[3:00:43] don't get any money for it. What we did
is we got some funding from the city of
[3:00:47] Calabasas along with from Lindseay
Horvass office. We created this app
[3:00:52] about 2 and 1/2 years ago. We've gotten
about a 25%
[3:00:57] people downloading this app. The app is
um we can white label the app. About a
[3:01:04] month ago, Malibu West Hoa has created
their own version. They take our version
[3:01:10] and put their their branding and any
other editing they want to do. The goal
[3:01:15] was really simple is how do we get the
best information in the hands of people
[3:01:21] when there are no more communications.
So how do we take all of this excellent
[3:01:27] information from FEMA, from the state of
California, from the cities? How do we
[3:01:33] get this? I if I ask you where these are
right now in your homes or anybody here
[3:01:38] you go I think it's in the top drawer
someplace
[3:01:42] and if you do you have copies in your in
your car and in your workplace how many
[3:01:49] people here can put their hand on their
phone right now.
[3:01:53] So what we did is we took every bit of
information that I could gather from all
[3:01:58] of these vetted sources and put it on an
app. Now, you might be asking, well, if
[3:02:04] there's a loss of power and we don't
have internet, how's that going to help?
[3:02:09] The way I program this is that it will
always be on no matter if you have any
[3:02:15] connectivity. The topics on there go
from the very rudimentary like how to
[3:02:20] open a garage door when you don't have
electricity, how to harvest water out of
[3:02:25] a hot water heater, how to turn off the
gas. So with that we have
[3:02:32] gotten a lot of feedback on people that
maybe are not so sophisticated on what
[3:02:37] to do. Everything is by step by step.
The the white label program that we
[3:02:43] would like to see you or offer to you
would allow you to take all the
[3:02:47] information that we give you. You can
edit it as much as you want. You can add
[3:02:51] to it you want. You can brand it. You
can skin it. You can do anything you
[3:02:55] want to with it. And it gives you the
ability to reach out. You can also push
[3:03:00] information out. We when we are we are a
member at the EOC, we have a seat there.
[3:03:05] We push out information that we get from
either the PIO or from the EOC. So as
[3:03:11] long as there is that connectivity, we
can push out information to that. Um,
[3:03:21] the other thing that is really kind of a
unique thing is we have a built-in
[3:03:25] checklist for home, family, pet, and
it's dynamic, meaning you can keep track
[3:03:31] of what you need and it also keeps track
of what you can do in the future. Thank
[3:03:35] you for your time. We look for the
opportunity to maybe present this to you
[3:03:38] in a committee meeting. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Mike. Scott, you're up.
[3:03:50] Thank you. Uh, good evening again.
You got to ask yourself, why do you live
[3:03:56] here?
Malibu is a uniquely special place.
[3:04:04] But there's a lot of pressure from, as
I've said before, from outside agencies,
[3:04:11] things that seemingly are beyond our
control.
[3:04:16] And one of the things that is really
most annoying and has just seemingly
[3:04:22] blossomed out of control is noise.
Halen started this and we've been just
[3:04:31] asking ourselves, why do we allow these
gigantic packs of motorcycles?
[3:04:40] Even one Harley with its baffles blown
out
[3:04:46] can make so darn much of a racket on
PCH. You get the cars racing and there's
[3:04:54] a nexus between noise and street racing.
We're all trying to make PCH safer,
[3:05:02] right? So,
if the guys revving up their engines
[3:05:10] and speed are connected, we have a
safety issue and we can fix it. Now,
[3:05:17] thank you to Doug because one of we were
hoping technology would be a way out of
[3:05:22] this that like a speed camera, you could
have a noise camera, but apparently that
[3:05:29] technology failed.
But there's things we can do now. The
[3:05:36] Cog cities face the same issue. I was
with a friend in Calabasas today and
[3:05:44] yep, they've got the same racing down
Stunt Road, racing on Mullhalland
[3:05:50] and [clears throat] we need to stop this
if we're going to maintain the integrity
[3:05:56] of our city. Lagona Beach does it. They
do a great job. So, I'd urge our council
[3:06:03] people who are on the cog to talk. we're
going to be interfacing with CHP
[3:06:12] and so we can do something about it.
The other thing that's really annoying
[3:06:20] is gasoline powered leaf blowers. I did
I wasn't sure if they were banned or
[3:06:26] not. Maryanne when I reached out to her
said yes there banned in our city.
[3:06:31] There's electric ones that I've seen
that, you know, you could be standing
[3:06:36] five feet away and have a normal
conversation, but we're constrained by
[3:06:43] uh staff and trying to enforce it. But
there's something we can do and I'm
[3:06:49] going to run out of time, but I did mail
you how to do it. Thank you.
[3:06:54] » Thank you, Scott.
[3:06:59] » Uh good evening. I'm uh Molina Simple
Watts and I'm your local wershed
[3:07:03] coordinator with the North Santa Monica
Bay wershed and I serve safe clean water
[3:07:08] LA which all of you voted for back in
2018 with Major W. Um I want to thank
[3:07:14] Mayor Silverstein and uh Mayor Prom
Urick and especially our brand new city
[3:07:18] manager. We're very happy you're here um
for allowing us to be here and I
[3:07:22] especially want to thank council member
Conrad who invited me to come and do
[3:07:25] public comments for you guys. I am here
to share funding with the city of
[3:07:29] Malibu. Essentially, there is funding
for a project of approximately I'm
[3:07:33] excited. Okay. There's about$1 to5
million dollars to come to you guys to
[3:07:37] do a water project in your community.
Um, essentially it's hard to get money
[3:07:43] from Major W. Speaking without notes,
that's just the truth. But I have a
[3:07:47] shortcut that I would like to offer you
to get the money in hand. There's this
[3:07:50] program called the TRP, the technical
resources program. If your city staff
[3:07:55] works with me, we can whip through that
grant. It's like five or six pages and
[3:07:59] then you'll get $400,000 worth of a
civil engineer to help you design the
[3:08:04] project of your dreams and actually make
this extremely difficult application for
[3:08:09] you and then you'll get to that rosy
number of $1 to5 million. Now the
[3:08:13] question is what do you want to do with
that money? Well, I have a vision.
[3:08:16] There's obviously if you have a TMDL
implementation project, we would
[3:08:19] prioritize that. But what I think you
really need, having been just gutted by
[3:08:23] watching the Palisades fire blast
through all these communities I love,
[3:08:27] what you really need is a really large
sistern at city hall. If you take water
[3:08:33] off of your rooftops and gather that
into a sistern up on the upper parking
[3:08:38] lot, you have so many buildings in this
in this little area that we're in right
[3:08:42] now that you could get to 900,000
gallons of water a year just from
[3:08:47] rainwater. So, you store that in your
big system. You connect it to your
[3:08:52] buildings. You put in a little diesel um
pump, right? And then you put um
[3:08:56] irrigation all around your building.
Then, when the fire comes blasting
[3:09:00] through, you have the option of turning
on um sprinklers and saving your
[3:09:04] buildings. Now, I know our beloved fire
department has done a fabulous job of
[3:09:08] protecting the city in the past. They
probably always will, but it is an
[3:09:13] awesome backup plan. How awesome is it?
Well, our beloved council member Conrad,
[3:09:17] she and her husband have built something
just like this at their home. So, if you
[3:09:21] guys think this is an interesting idea
and you would like a free technical
[3:09:25] resources program application, ask me to
meet with city staff and I'll help you
[3:09:29] set this up. Now, I will share with you
that city of Calabasas is already in the
[3:09:34] process of making this application.
We're a small wershed, so we only have
[3:09:38] $400,000 per TRP every other year. So,
I'm going to ask you and invite you to
[3:09:43] take the city of Calabasa's kind offer
and do a half half application so we can
[3:09:48] get both city halls covered at the same
time. That will reduce the work for the
[3:09:52] application and it will really help us
um be proactive about serving our entire
[3:09:57] larger Santa Monica Mountains uh entity.
That's it. Three minutes.
[3:10:02] » Thank you.
>> Thank you so much everybody.
[3:10:04] » Thank you.
>> All right. Next three speakers are
[3:10:09] Darren Graves, Norm Haney, and then an
K.
[3:10:24] » Uh, good evening, council, uh, honorable
mayor and new city manager. Um, thank
[3:10:29] you for taking the time to hear my
comment. Uh, I am equally as excited by
[3:10:34] her idea as, uh, she is, so I hope you
are, too. That sounds like a great
[3:10:38] avenue to um beat Calabasas to the punch
on getting a sister installed somewhere.
[3:10:44] Um I wanted to speak about the Big Rock
Mesa presentation. I thought that was
[3:10:48] very timely and appreciated. Um my whole
life I'd been hearing about the Big Rock
[3:10:53] Mesa landslide of 1983. I was born in
'84, so I didn't witness it, but I heard
[3:10:58] from my grandmother and my mother about
how terrifying it was for my grandmother
[3:11:02] as her house is in the toe of the Big
Rock Mesa on the south side of PCH. The
[3:11:07] property directly adjacent to her
property was destroyed by the Big Rock
[3:11:12] Mesa landslide. And for 30 years, she
lived in fear of a subsequent landslide
[3:11:17] taking out her house. Um, presumably
many people on the beach still have that
[3:11:21] fear. And so I wanted to ask uh if it
would be possible based on the
[3:11:27] statements given tonight by Mr. Moors if
an ad alternate could be added to the um
[3:11:32] sewer study to include Big Rock Mesa
properties. Um as he clearly said that
[3:11:38] pumping effluent into the hill did
potentially
[3:11:42] cause or make the groundwater supply
much uh more dense than it may have been
[3:11:47] had there not been any septic systems
pumping effluent into the groundwater.
[3:11:51] and continuing to do so could cause a
different landslide. I don't think we
[3:11:56] want the problems of Portuguese Bend and
Palace Veries proliferating through
[3:12:00] Malibu. Uh definitely not onto Pacific
Coast Highway. So please give that some
[3:12:04] thought. Thank you.
>> Thank you
[3:12:09] Nor. You're up.
[3:12:15] [clears throat]
>> Good evening uh mayor, city council
[3:12:18] members. I'm happy to uh to welcome uh
Joe Irwin
[3:12:25] and city manager and we really need you
and look forward to working with you. Uh
[3:12:33] with regard to Big Rock,
um I absolutely agree that we should
[3:12:39] look into hooking them up to a sewer uh
that's coming in uh and uh going to the
[3:12:47] Hyperion treatment plant. I think it's a
great idea
[3:12:52] on that topic as well. Malibu has a
limitation on impermeable surfaces for
[3:13:00] everyone. Okay. It should not apply to
big rock property. We're trying to keep
[3:13:06] the rainwater out of the substructure,
out of the geology, and as much water as
[3:13:14] we can gather through impermeable
surfaces
[3:13:18] goes into drains and out to the ocean.
That's exactly what we should be doing.
[3:13:24] So, I'm I'm strongly in support of
eliminating that restriction on the
[3:13:32] square footage or percentage of your
property that can have impermeable
[3:13:36] surfaces on it. So far, there are
limitations. There shouldn't be. Big
[3:13:42] rock is a very different piece of ground
and we should look at it differently.
[3:13:47] Thank you very much for your time.
>> Thank you, Nor. And you're up.
[3:13:59] Hello, my name is an K. Uh, I have a
video. Uh, Parker, if you want to play
[3:14:04] it. Um, first of all, before Oh, we
played it anyway.
[3:14:10] » Oh, uh, pause it real quick. Thank you,
Parker. Um, I am a communications
[3:14:16] executive per the California Secretary
of State and I like to be proactive and
[3:14:22] this might seem very comical, but I'm
going to play this video because it
[3:14:25] deals with roundabouts and it's coming
up on the city council agenda and I'd
[3:14:29] love to stop this stuff before it gets
to the state. Please, Parker.
[3:14:40] So long be anything.
Hello everyone. This is Anastasia
[3:14:46] Comaras live around the world and we
found a roundabout. So you folk in
[3:14:54] Malibu dealing with a roundabout. Well,
here's a live view of a roundabout with
[3:14:59] a stop sign. And so let's see how this
works. Okay, so we come up to a stop
[3:15:04] sign. Okay. So,
oh, there's an ice cream truck.
[3:15:11] Look at that. What? You know what? It's
a It's a roundabout. So, what I just go
[3:15:16] around and round.
[music]
[3:15:26] It's a roundabout.
Why not? This is
[3:15:31] I'm getting dizzy.
It's a stop sign. I keep going round and
[3:15:36] Okay, I'm going to exit. Okay, so there
you go. It's a roundabout. I hope you
[3:15:41] guys enjoyed that. Thank you, Parker.
That's just absolutely
[3:15:47] uh Thank you. It goes a little longer,
but I just wanted to get ahead of it. Uh
[3:15:52] because I also want to remind everyone
that I'm running for governor of
[3:15:57] California, nonpartisan 2026. And
Parker, I think we have some more uh
[3:16:01] slides to show. Uh, so one of the things
is no governor is qualified yet. It
[3:16:09] doesn't happen until the 26th. So the
the 23rd is the earliest. Anything you
[3:16:14] hear about people running for governor
doesn't happen until they meet these
[3:16:17] qualifications,
which I have to too. So I can't stay at
[3:16:21] this meeting. So I got to had to finish
it. Uh, next slide, please. There you
[3:16:26] are, sir. I had to write them a big
blank check. There you go. And next one,
[3:16:30] please. And there you see. Uh, I'm
listed as a communications
[3:16:35] executive. So, the bees probably want to
live. So, they we need to communicate
[3:16:43] the 911 signals and all the
communication needs to be done so we can
[3:16:46] save all everything all the nature in
general. That's what communications
[3:16:53] executives do. And Secretary of State
has certified me as a communications
[3:16:56] executive for California governor. Thank
you very much.
[3:17:03] Thank you, Ann. Carrie Clasby, you're
up. You're the last in person speaker.
[3:17:11] » Best for the last. Thank you for having
me. My name is Carrie Clasby. I have the
[3:17:16] Sterling Farms, the Malibu Fig Ranch up
there at Sterling Farms. Welcome, Joseph
[3:17:21] Irvin. My condolences. No, I'm just
joking.
[3:17:25] Um I'm speaking about the um cell phone
towers. So I just want to say
[3:17:32] um three points. Number one uh the major
thing is that cell phone uh towers is
[3:17:40] not that it's safe is not settled
science. And I think it's very important
[3:17:46] as a community especially with the
amount of science that's coming out
[3:17:50] about it for us to take a deeper look
with scientists who have been doing the
[3:17:54] real studies on it. So the three
elements of this that are important is
[3:17:59] one the health of the people that are
living near these cell towers. We're
[3:18:04] going into 5G next to 6G.
How the vegetation is affected by it
[3:18:10] which is a real thing and the bees as uh
Ann so aptly said. And the third thing
[3:18:16] is that these strandmounted wireless
equipment are um they're threats to the
[3:18:25] wildfire fire communities and they've
seen this in Australia, they've seen it
[3:18:29] in Maui, they've seen it across the
world. So, it's a third thing that I I
[3:18:34] would uh ask that we take a close look
at and um maybe we can appeal some of
[3:18:40] these approvals while we wait for the
proper science and scientists to come
[3:18:45] forward. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you, Carrie. We still have two
[3:18:50] speakers on Zoom.
>> There are four raised hands on Zoom.
[3:18:55] » They were all raised before the 10
seconds were elapsed.
[3:18:57] » Yes. Okay, let's go. Jacob Loza.
[3:19:04] » Glad I made it before the 10-second rule
came into play. Um, I want to talk about
[3:19:10] Tranus Park. Um, obviously this issue is
not new. The Malibu Township Council
[3:19:17] sued the city over Tranis Park back in
2009.
[3:19:21] And um, you know, they're obviously
opposed to youth sports, especially
[3:19:25] league play, and it's been tied up in
that dispute ever since. But I do want
[3:19:30] to point out that the president of the
MTC in 2009 was Steve Yuring. Um that's
[3:19:36] um Vice Mayor Steve Yuring. That's
council member Steve Yuring. Um he led
[3:19:41] the charge on a lawsuit against the city
and that's what we're living with today.
[3:19:46] It's a park that could serve a large
number of kids and families, but it
[3:19:50] remains effectively padlocked when it
comes to league play.
[3:19:55] Um, you know, those restrictions have
continued to be defended by the MTC and
[3:20:00] supported by Steve and more recently
public works commissioner and MTC
[3:20:06] stalwart Joe Drummond. So, and John Maza
the other night at uh at planning
[3:20:12] commission. So, it's important that we
don't let this issue just end up in the
[3:20:16] dust bin of the MTC's
um uh latigious behavior. I know that
[3:20:23] council member Rigggins has been clear
that this issue deserves a fresh look
[3:20:27] and that the status quo is not working
for families or kids. And Bruce, this
[3:20:32] seems like a meat and potatoes issue for
you to get behind. Will you? You know,
[3:20:37] we spend a lot of time talking about the
skate park, which we absolutely need.
[3:20:41] I'm glad there's progress on that. Kid
need kids need places to go. What we
[3:20:45] need is to address an existing park that
could be serving dozens
[3:20:50] of teams, hundreds of kids, and
countless families right now if we took
[3:20:54] a common sense approach. This isn't
about reopening old lawsuits. Um but we
[3:21:01] should um have the fortitude to just
take a look back and see if it was the
[3:21:08] right decision um for now. And so let's
just remember that Steve Yuring, John
[3:21:15] Maza, Joe Drummond, and the MTC have the
power to fix the situation they created,
[3:21:20] but they've chosen not to. And let's
remember this is the same group that
[3:21:24] appealed the PCH safety project. Same
people, same pattern. They say they
[3:21:30] protect Malibu, but in practice, they
protect their positions, their
[3:21:33] influence, their past decisions, even
when the community doesn't clearly
[3:21:37] agree. So Steve, maybe you can comment
tonight and commit to a new approach to
[3:21:42] drinkus. Thanks.
>> Thank you. Next speaker is
[3:21:50] Lonnie Gordon.
>> Good evening, Lonnie.
[3:22:00] » Lonnie, you're unmuted.
>> Good evening. Can you hear me?
[3:22:02] » We can hear you.
>> Okay. Well, my name is Lonnie Gordon and
[3:22:06] I'm the executive director of Malibu
forsafet.org.
[3:22:10] And I'm here tonight because a serious
flaw has come to light in the way that
[3:22:14] Malibu is processing small cell wireless
permits. That's why you're hearing all
[3:22:18] of this tonight. Over the past several
days, I personally verified the
[3:22:23] locations of the recent applications.
And what I found is is that the city is
[3:22:28] being asked to approve these sites based
on incorrect upstream information.
[3:22:33] Information that starts with Crown
Castle is passed to T-Mobile, then to
[3:22:38] the city, and then assigned to a planner
to approve, then the notification card
[3:22:43] is sent out to those who are affected.
And at every step, the data is assumed
[3:22:47] to be correct. But at least in one of
these cases, the Rainsford application,
[3:22:52] it was denied. The pink card told
residents that T-Mobile would be
[3:22:57] modifying an existing wireless facility.
But when the resident went to the poll,
[3:23:02] there was no existing equipment at all.
Nothing to modify. The approval was
[3:23:07] based on conditions that simply did not
exist. If one application contains
[3:23:12] incorrect existing conditions, then
every application relying on the same
[3:23:17] data source is now in question.
This matters because these are not
[3:23:22] isolated poles. They form a mesh network
with overlapping emissions. On Point Dum
[3:23:29] alone, there are more than 10 recent
sites spaced roughly 350 to 2,300 feet
[3:23:35] apart. And that spacing is intentional.
It creates a continuous RF field across
[3:23:42] entire neighborhoods. And I want to be
clear, these installations are not being
[3:23:47] built for voice service. They're not
needed for phone calls. They're being
[3:23:51] built to support fixed wireless home
internet, a high-capacity data system
[3:23:57] that requires dense overlapping nodes.
And that's why these poles are clustered
[3:24:02] so tightly. It's not about phone
coverage. It's about the volume of data
[3:24:06] the system can push through. And this
raises another concern. I don't know
[3:24:12] whether the Rainsford approval was
processed with the full Malibu fire
[3:24:15] protocol, which is the strongest in the
country, but if the application was
[3:24:20] based on incorrect information, such as
claiming equipment existed on a pole
[3:24:24] when it didn't, then the fire review may
have been built on the wrong foundation.
[3:24:30] And no protocol can be reliable when
it's based on incorrect facts. and
[3:24:35] residents should not have to pay $750 to
appeal a permit that was flawed before
[3:24:40] it ever reached them. And the city
should not be approving installations
[3:24:44] based on information that no one has
verified in the field. Given all of
[3:24:48] this, I'm asking the city to do one
reasonable thing. Pause all pending
[3:24:54] small cell approvals until the source of
this misinformation is identified and
[3:24:59] the accuracy of each application can be
verified. This is not anti-technology.
[3:25:05] It's not anti-ell service. It's simply
asking for accuracy, transparency, and
[3:25:10] safety.
>> Thank you, Lonnie. [applause]
[3:25:13] » Uh, come on. No clapping. Sorry.
>> Next speaker, Steve Price.
[3:25:24] » Yeah. Yeah, I'm here. Can Can you hear
me? Okay,
[3:25:26] » we can hear you fine, Steve.
>> Oh, great. Thank you. So, yep. Like uh
[3:25:30] like they said, my name is Steve Price
and I'm here to talk tonight, you know,
[3:25:36] mostly about my my good buddy Steve
Yuring. And I call him my good buddy
[3:25:41] just because we have the same first
name. I don't really know Steve Yuring,
[3:25:46] but I I digress. Uh you know, Steve
often lectures about rules, compliance,
[3:25:53] and what residents and property owners
should or should not be doing in this
[3:25:58] city. He is outstanding
at positioning himself as someone who
[3:26:03] protects Malibu and guards the public
interest.
[3:26:08] But leadership carries a simple
expectation.
[3:26:12] If you are going to sit on this council
and tell residents how the rules should
[3:26:16] be enforced,
you yourself should be willing to follow
[3:26:21] those same rules.
And that's where the problem keeps
[3:26:25] arising.
Steve has accumulated a number of
[3:26:30] violations and enforcement issues
involving his own property. We talked
[3:26:35] about these just a few weeks ago. He
hides behind the council policy to avoid
[3:26:40] talking about his violations. He's even
gotten Jean Maza covering for him behind
[3:26:45] this council policy, which as I've
mentioned before is not a law.
[3:26:51] Anywh who, the contradiction matters
because credibility in public office
[3:26:57] depends on consistency.
So, how about the rest of us? Well, we
[3:27:03] apply for permits, respond to
inspections, correct violations, and
[3:27:08] work through compliance issues. That's
part of living in a community governed
[3:27:12] by rules.
But when a council member demands strict
[3:27:16] adherence from everyone else while
facing unresolved issues of his own, it
[3:27:22] raises an obvious question I just cannot
seem to get answered.
[3:27:27] Are we experiencing principal leadership
or just a lot of noise and tail chasing?
[3:27:33] because it starts to feel a little like
watching a squirrel dart around the
[3:27:37] yard, warning everyone else about the
dangers of buried nuts while quietly
[3:27:42] digging holes of its own. Public office
should hold people to a higher standard,
[3:27:48] not a lower one.
The people sitting on the dis make
[3:27:52] decisions that affect property rights,
enforcement priorities, and the daily
[3:27:56] lives of Malibu residents. Those
decisions carry real weight. So, Steve,
[3:28:04] don't you think the public has a right
to expect that the people making those
[3:28:08] decisions are following the same rules
as the rest of us? Malibu deserves
[3:28:13] leadership that spends less time chasing
its tail and more time demonstrating the
[3:28:17] standards if ask everyone else to live
by. So, can we for once get an answer on
[3:28:23] this? Finally, does anyone up there
care?
[3:28:29] Thank you.
Thank you, Steve. Last speaker.
[3:28:34] Andy Lion. Hey, Andy.
>> Hey there. Hear me?
[3:28:41] » We can hear you, Andy. Go ahead.
>> Okay, cool. Hey. Uh, welcome to the new
[3:28:45] city manager. Good luck. Um,
I'm I'm calling tonight in on the public
[3:28:51] comments about this skate park. Um,
enjoying it. It's great. Um, just had
[3:28:58] some questions about, you know, we got a
lot of kids there tonight for the for
[3:29:02] the little league thing and, you know,
the the opening opening day was sort of
[3:29:06] a nightmare because this contractor
hasn't finished the parking lot and the
[3:29:11] bathroom. And we had our temporary skate
park ripped out, which was supposed to
[3:29:16] stay there the whole time, six months
ago. and CS Legacy who was given the
[3:29:21] contract and then subbed out the skate
park skate park portion
[3:29:27] um they haven't really I mean they could
have finished they haven't finished the
[3:29:31] bathroom they haven't finished the
parking lot I'm sure they have excuses
[3:29:34] why but I don't understand really how
six months they haven't finished that
[3:29:39] they um it's somebody needs to like
check into that because it's ridiculous
[3:29:46] they're making a lot of money I think
the whole park was like $4 million
[3:29:51] and I don't see a whole lot of progress
and I've been following it from before
[3:29:55] it even started. Um,
you know, if that's any indication of
[3:30:01] the snack shack moving forward to
something to look at, maybe, you know,
[3:30:06] vet the the contractor a little better.
Um, the other thing is this landscaping
[3:30:11] stuff with the trees that were supposed
to be going in. I I next door, you know,
[3:30:17] the whole thing got delayed because of
Gillan suing the city and we've caved
[3:30:21] and I do we not me but certain council
members um that project next door is
[3:30:28] like dead in the water. I haven't seen
any progress on any those houses are not
[3:30:32] doing anything right now and I was just
wondering if he promised to pay for
[3:30:38] those trees if he paid for them yet or
what's going on because I don't think
[3:30:42] he's part of that project anymore. So,
I'd like the city to look into that to
[3:30:46] see before they, you know, start, you
know, taking on these trees or whatever.
[3:30:53] Um, but that's something that should be
looked into because there's nobody
[3:30:58] working on those houses and that's why
we should have had that skate park two
[3:31:02] years ago. You made all those noise and
now they're not. The houses are like raw
[3:31:07] looking like, you know, just abandoned
construction. So, maybe city should look
[3:31:12] into that. I'll be back for the uh snack
shack thing later. Thanks.
[3:31:18] » Thank you, Andy. Okay, that closes
public comment or that closes item 4 A.
[3:31:24] It's 8:05. We're going to take a
10-minute recess and then we'll resume
[3:31:28] with um item 7B.
[3:46:10] If everyone could be quiet and sit down,
the meeting will resume.
[3:46:14] » Everyone take their seats, please.
[3:46:22] Okay, everyone, please take your seats
and let's retain order now.
[3:46:29] » Okay, we're now up to item 7B.
[3:46:36] Malibu Bluffs Park Snack Shack and Park
Enhancement Project. Please raise your
[3:46:41] hand in Zoom if you'd like to speak on
this item. And you'll be called after
[3:46:45] the staff report. Well, actually after
the people that are here speak. So,
[3:46:50] first item is a staff report.
>> Good evening, Mayor Silverstein and
[3:46:55] honorable members of council. The item
before you is the Malibu Bluffs Park
[3:46:59] snack shack preliminary design. The term
enhancement project was added to reflect
[3:47:05] the amenities and uh the requirements
for the improved park conditions. At
[3:47:10] this time, I just want to take a moment
to thank the parks and recre recreation
[3:47:14] commission for their time and dedication
and providing feedback and design
[3:47:19] modifications that both serve our youth
leagues and enhance the park experience
[3:47:24] for our park patrons.
Uh, presenting tonight's report with me
[3:47:28] is Nathaniel McLean, assistant engineer
in our public works department. um he's
[3:47:33] been a great teammate and has been
working on the project with me and uh
[3:47:38] has attended the commission meetings as
well. So I'll get started on our
[3:47:42] presentation.
[3:47:46] So, to give the council um an idea of
the project timeline, prior to 2024, the
[3:47:52] council approved an assignment for the
parks and recreation commission to
[3:47:55] provide feedback regarding the snack
shack and general uh design elements of
[3:48:01] this project. In November, the council
approved a contract for design services
[3:48:06] and in June, the parks and recreation
commission reviewed the conceptual
[3:48:09] design and provided feedback to staff.
In September, the commission reviewed
[3:48:15] modified designs and appointed an ad hoc
to this project, which was Commissioner
[3:48:21] Lingo and Commissioner Snope Scopehammer
who kind of honed in on some of the
[3:48:25] design elements and gave us uh some
great feedback. In December, the Parks
[3:48:31] and Recreation Commission actually met
on the site at Malibu Bless Park and
[3:48:35] approved a recommendation to move
forward with a final snack check design.
[3:48:39] In January of this year, uh, city staff
met with the public parks and property
[3:48:44] ad hoc committee and appro that
committee uh, approved the
[3:48:47] recommendation to present the snack
shack for county property uh, park
[3:48:52] operations. So, that will be the
improvement.
[3:48:55] And to just take you back a little bit,
this was our snack shack in 2023.
[3:49:02] And, uh, this snack shack uh, was
inherited by the city. So from 2006 to
[3:49:09] about 2018 it was uh operated by Malibu
Little League and the snack shack for a
[3:49:17] couple of years was not used and uh
became uh deteriorated and so it was
[3:49:24] deemed we had to remove it for safety
concerns.
[3:49:28] And if you don't remember that's what it
looked like on the inside.
[3:49:34] So, in this picture, I wanted to point
out that the uh container behind the uh
[3:49:41] picnic table is the Malibu Little League
storage container and then the picture
[3:49:46] on the right hand side are the portable
restrooms and then the city container is
[3:49:50] right behind it.
So, this is kind of the general
[3:49:55] operation of our temporary snack shack.
We have a rented sink which is a
[3:50:01] requirement from the LA County Health
Department. Um little league has to
[3:50:06] erect these canopies every time they
want to serve food and we have uh or
[3:50:11] they uh corner off the space so to make
it a a safety um
[3:50:18] to make sure that nothing no one goes in
the space that isn't allowed. So there's
[3:50:23] quite a few people who visit the snack
shack. This is um Malibu Little League
[3:50:27] as well. They serve food through these
netting openings, which is a requirement
[3:50:32] also from the LA County Health
Department.
[3:50:36] So, here is the new and improved snack
shack uh restrooms and storage
[3:50:42] container. And, uh I'll go into a little
bit more detail about what this all
[3:50:47] really means, but here's a general
overview.
[3:50:52] So, the new kitchen is uh 374 square ft
and includes the equipment. Uh restrooms
[3:50:59] are required as part of the uh kitchen
amenity through the LA County Health
[3:51:04] Department. We have two women's and two
men's, both ADA accessible. We have a
[3:51:09] storage upgrade for the youth leagues
and the city. Um we have a new ADA
[3:51:13] accessible path and railing near the
snack shack. We have an it's not
[3:51:18] depicted in here, but we have a modified
handicap parking in the main parking lot
[3:51:24] with an ADA accessible path and a
pedestrian sidewalk behind the snack
[3:51:28] shack building which gives better
accessibility for all park users.
[3:51:33] Uh we have improved the paved area in
front of the snack shack. Um, there is a
[3:51:38] retaining wall that's approximately 26
linear feet and a janitor's closet, data
[3:51:45] room, and a modified baseball field
access for equipment and vehicles, which
[3:51:50] is also a safety element. And we also
added some new stairs behind the major
[3:51:55] baseball field. That uh slope behind uh
the major baseball field is pretty
[3:52:00] steep, so we want to make sure we have
improved accessibility.
[3:52:06] So here I tried to color code some
elements of this design. So ADA ADA
[3:52:14] access uh new path, new railings, new
paving. Um the kitchen is a standalone
[3:52:21] building 20 ft x 20 ft 12 ft high. It'll
have a dedicated service window, side
[3:52:27] entrance, and we are uh proposing
electric, no gas in this facility. We
[3:52:33] have added new and improved added
storage. um that will house city storage
[3:52:38] and little league storage. And then
other improvements include a pedestrian
[3:52:42] pass stairs data room which can be used
for uh putting out information either a
[3:52:48] digital menu or information on the
league or city programming and then uh
[3:52:54] access between the baseball field and
snack shack has also been increased. Um
[3:53:00] and we pushed that area that we pushed
that building back by 12 ft. So there is
[3:53:05] extra space in front of the building in
between the building and the baseball
[3:53:10] field for uh team meetings, community
gatherings
[3:53:15] and uh lines for the snack shack.
So this is the rendering uh provided by
[3:53:21] our design team. So as you can see um we
have the standalone Bluffs Park snack
[3:53:26] shack. We have a men's and women's
restroom. We have storage area and we
[3:53:31] have uh kind of an elevated area which
uh the sidewalk will be located.
[3:53:38] And here's just another angle uh for
that design rendering.
[3:53:46] Just some information about the
building. It is a pre-cast concrete
[3:53:49] building. Um this was the best option
when we looked at all of the all of the
[3:53:54] options. Uh it has a very long lifespan.
will hold up in uh fireprone areas and
[3:54:03] this will be built off site and
delivered in 12 foot sections. The color
[3:54:07] palette matches our skate park and we
work with our commission on the type of
[3:54:12] equip kitchen equipment that will be
inside the snack shack and all of these
[3:54:17] items uh will serve uh our community's
needs. [clears throat] I will pass it
[3:54:22] along to Nathaniel.
>> Thank you, Kristen. I'll start with the
[3:54:26] estimated project timeline. This slide
shows the project timeline for the
[3:54:31] project. It starts with preliminary
engineering at around March, April of
[3:54:36] 2026 and finishes with construction in
around October November of 2027. We have
[3:54:43] um estimated our preliminary engineering
to take around 8 weeks. Our planning
[3:54:47] commission approval to take 16 to 24
weeks. Final engineering at around 10
[3:54:52] weeks. Building permit approval at 8
weeks. Preparation of our final bid
[3:54:57] package at 6 weeks. City council award
at 4 weeks and 30 weeks for our
[3:55:03] estimated construction of a snack shack.
to go into some cost savings for this
[3:55:10] project. Um, we presented to the parks
and recck commission and the snack shack
[3:55:15] ad hoc committee committee with multiple
design options and we worked with our
[3:55:19] designer to revise our plans and cut
costs. Our starting cost was nearly $5
[3:55:23] million and with our revisions, we saved
nearly 1.7 million. To go into more
[3:55:29] specific cost-saving factors, we opted
for no electrical upgrades. Our parks
[3:55:35] and recreation commission determined to
use the existing electricity to run all
[3:55:39] the kitchen equipment. They minimized
their kitchen equipment requests. We are
[3:55:44] using the existing shade structures and
picnic tables. And we opted to um use a
[3:55:51] retaining wall and had our pre-cast
concrete manufacturer use the building
[3:55:57] wall to function as a retaining wall
instead of a separate 122 ft linear
[3:56:01] wall.
During our skate park construction, we
[3:56:06] have added stubouts for wastewater and
electrical lines. This will place these
[3:56:11] utilities closer to the snack shack
during its construction. We have also
[3:56:15] reduced the footprint of the paved areas
for what's required with ADA access and
[3:56:20] we minimize the amount of paving in
front of the building.
[3:56:24] To get into the cost estimate, our total
is 3,711,744
[3:56:32] with the breakdown being $200,000 for
preliminary design, $225,000
[3:56:39] for permitting and final design, $2.5
million for the construction of the
[3:56:43] snack shack, a 15% contingency at
$383,000,
[3:56:48] and $350,000
allocated to construction management. So
[3:56:53] now to dive deeper into our construction
costs, the building cost breakdown for
[3:56:58] the snack shack we have at $2.3 million.
This is for general requirements
[3:57:04] mobilization at 20,000 for the
contractor. A $17,000 building pad for
[3:57:09] our snack shack. Equipment at $26,000.
This includes the kitchen equipment, its
[3:57:16] finishes, um flooring, any storage
equipment, and trash enclosures. Our
[3:57:21] special enclosure special construction
at $1.17 million is the actual cost for
[3:57:27] the pre-cast concrete snack shack
building, restroom and um storage rooms
[3:57:32] and its delivery. Our exterior
improvements at $124,000 is all the
[3:57:38] paving pavers in front of the snack
shack, its um base and subbase. Our site
[3:57:44] work at three $331,000
is for the demo of existing asphalt
[3:57:51] concrete and concrete. The cost of new
concrete walkways, curbs, gutters, ADA
[3:57:57] concrete ramps and rails, new pavement
markings, water lines, sanitary sewer
[3:58:02] lines, and storm drains. Our estimated
contractor cost is at $432,000.
[3:58:09] This is for their estimated overhead,
bonds, and insurance.
[3:58:13] to dive deeper into our site
enhancements breakdown. This is to push
[3:58:17] the snack shack back towards the street
and have our 4 foot concrete um sidewalk
[3:58:23] which is 150 ft long runs around the
back of the snack shack. Um this will
[3:58:28] provide more space in front of the
building and adds the sidewalk and
[3:58:31] stairs to wrap around the snack shack.
This work is around $223,000
[3:58:37] through the increased grading and
foundation for the building and the
[3:58:41] sidewalk and retaining wall.
To go into the next slide, we are
[3:58:46] requesting council to approve the
preliminary design. We already have
[3:58:51] approved $425,000
in the budget for preliminary design,
[3:58:55] permitting, and final design. And we
would like to ask council to direct
[3:58:59] staff to review potential funding
sources for the project for the 3 point
[3:59:04] around $3.3 million for construction
contingency and construction management.
[3:59:10] Some of those considerations can be
fundraising, naming rights, grants, and
[3:59:14] general fund allocation.
And that is the end of our presentation.
[3:59:19] Thank you.
[3:59:23] » That concludes this effort.
Okay. Thank you. Do any members of
[3:59:26] council have any clarifying questions of
the staff before we move to public
[3:59:30] comment?
[3:59:35] No questions.
[3:59:38] Okay, we'll go to public comment.
This is now the deadline for raising
[3:59:43] your hand in Zoom
and we'll now start with the in person
[3:59:48] people. Um Jake Lingo, you got four
minutes. Is Judy still here? Yes. Okay.
[3:59:54] John Alfano
and then Sarah and Claire and Freddy.
[4:00:03] You have four minutes. Thank you, mayor,
council members. My name is Jake Lingo.
[4:00:07] Uh I serve on the park and recreation
committee commission and I'm also the
[4:00:11] vice president of Malibu Little League.
Um I'd like to start by addressing
[4:00:15] something that's important. Uh this
project is often referred to as a snack
[4:00:18] shack, but what is actually being
proposed is a park support facility that
[4:00:22] solves several long-standing
infrastructure needs at Malibu Bluffs
[4:00:25] Park. Uh the project includes permanent
restrooms, ADA accessible paths and
[4:00:29] ramps, storage for the city and the
youth leagues, improved pedestrian
[4:00:33] circulation, and basic technology
infrastructure for the park. In other
[4:00:38] words, this is simply not just a food
facility. It's essential park
[4:00:41] infrastructure.
It's also worth noting that over 20% of
[4:00:45] the proposed building space is dedicated
to city storage and janitorial
[4:00:48] functions, further supporting the
project's operational value to the city.
[4:00:53] Today, the park relies on portable
toilets, temporary storage containers,
[4:00:57] and informal walking paths. I can
personally attest that parks and
[4:01:01] recreation committee commission took it
responsibility to the taxpayers very
[4:01:05] seriously. Uh the commission reviewed
multiple design iterations and
[4:01:09] repeatedly sent the project back for
cost reductions.
[4:01:12] Um, through value engineering, including
a smaller kitchen, reduced equipment,
[4:01:16] eliminating a new transformer, and other
measures, the project cost was reduced,
[4:01:20] as stated, from 5 million down to
approximately 3.1. But that's actually
[4:01:24] just hard costs. So, we actually saved
over $2.5 million in hard cost. The soft
[4:01:28] costs were already baked into that. So,
that was just one thing I wanted to
[4:01:31] clarify. They did a great job with the
staff report, but that is something that
[4:01:35] I think is noteworthy. Um, I also think
it's extremely important to kind of talk
[4:01:40] about the history of Bless Fields and
how they became about. Um, in 1982,
[4:01:44] Malibu Little League was at a crossroads
with nowhere to call home and due to the
[4:01:48] coastal commission actions basically
beyond our control. Uh, the league
[4:01:52] leased the Bluff site and built the two
baseball fields that now make up Bluffs
[4:01:57] Park. uh with the help of local
businesses, contractors, and volunteers
[4:02:01] from Malibu, including Doug O'Brien,
Carrie Schmidt, Jack Ging, Bill
[4:02:04] Bennowski, and countless others, the
Bless Fields were built. Those same
[4:02:09] fields, including the original back
stops, still stand today.
[4:02:14] Over the past four decades, Malibu
Little League has literally invested
[4:02:17] millions of dollars into that facility.
In the last 5 years, we spent close to a
[4:02:22] quarter of a million dollars fundraising
for new scoreboards, converting the
[4:02:26] field into a softball field,
um installing new infield grass, infield
[4:02:31] dirt, clay, and spending roughly $25,000
on maintenance every year to keep the
[4:02:36] fields in the shape that they are in.
And of note, these fields are open to
[4:02:40] everybody in Malibu, including softball
leagues and city programs.
[4:02:45] While the days of volunteer building
park facilities themselves have largely
[4:02:48] been replaced by regulation and
liability, the mission of Malibu Little
[4:02:52] League remains the same. To leave our
community better than we found it.
[4:02:57] Those original volunteers built
something that has served generations of
[4:03:00] our community and the facility
improvements before you tonight will do
[4:03:04] the same. The investment simply ensures
that the infrastructure surrounding the
[4:03:09] fields finally matches the legacy our
little league community created.
[4:03:13] With your leadership and support, we
have the opportunity tonight to carry
[4:03:17] that legacy forward for the next
generation of Malibu families. I hope
[4:03:21] you'll join us. Thank you for your time
and your consideration.
[4:03:24] » Thank you, Jake.
Please, let's be silent in our in our
[4:03:30] support. John Alano
[4:03:49] My name is John Alfano and I am the
president of Malibu Little League and I
[4:03:53] am not running for governor.
[4:03:58] [laughter]
>> Before taking time to talk about the
[4:04:01] building and infrastructure that Jake
just kind of reviewed, I want to talk
[4:04:04] about what it really means to be a part
of Bluff Park and what Malibu Little
[4:04:08] League and softball is all about. Every
week, hundreds of kids, almost a
[4:04:13] thousand people come to the field every
week, and they do what they love. They
[4:04:17] play, they compete, and they grow.
They're learning teamwork, resilience,
[4:04:22] confidence, and the value of hard work.
They're building friendships that last
[4:04:26] for years. And most importantly, they're
having fun. They even sat through this
[4:04:31] meeting this long with smiles on their
face. God bless them.
[4:04:35] That culture does not happen by
accident. For more than seven decades,
[4:04:40] Malibu Little League has built almost on
entirely on volunteer effort. Parents,
[4:04:45] coaches, board members, and thousands of
hours have made this experience
[4:04:49] possible. I personally spend about 40 to
60 hours a week volunteering, making
[4:04:54] sure kids have uniforms, they're on the
right teams, the fields are safe,
[4:04:58] there's dirt out there, there's no
gopher holes, yada yada yada.
[4:05:05] And at the heart of all this is the
snack shack. Believe it or not, it's
[4:05:09] more than an experience. It's not just
about the food. It's a place where
[4:05:13] families gather between innings, where
teammates hang out with their after
[4:05:17] games, and where siblings run around
with their grandparents to watch the
[4:05:20] next generations play.
Come on a Saturday and you'll walk up
[4:05:25] and see kids with their tickets
wanting to redeem them at the snack
[4:05:31] track for a treat. walk away smiling
like they just won the World Series.
[4:05:38] Jake already mentioned the millions of
dollars that Little League has put in
[4:05:41] over the last 40 years, including over a
quarter million in just the last five.
[4:05:46] But the truth is, you cannot put a
dollar amount on the volunteer hours
[4:05:49] that have built this program and keep it
thriving. And tonight, I'd like to ask
[4:05:54] something very simple.
I'd like you to look at the kids that
[4:05:58] are standing next to me. I'd like you to
look at their faces.
[4:06:03] Look at the excitement they have tonight
wearing their uniforms and just being
[4:06:06] here representing Malibu Little League
and softball.
[4:06:10] Three years ago, I stood right here in
the same room with another group of
[4:06:14] legal leaders, little leaguers. [snorts]
Those kids have now grown up and aged
[4:06:19] out of the league. And they never got to
experience what it is we're asking for.
[4:06:24] Please do not let that happen to this
group. I'm asking you tonight to make a
[4:06:30] commitment. not to me, not to the
league, but to these kids that are
[4:06:35] standing right here beside me. That
Malibu will continue serving its
[4:06:40] investment in the places where these
kids learn teamwork, friendship, and
[4:06:45] confidence. Because Malibu Bluffs Park
isn't just where kids play baseball and
[4:06:50] softball. It's where they grow up and
become young adults. Thank you.
[4:06:55] » Thank you, John.
[4:06:59] » [snorts]
>> Sarah, Claire, and Freddy.
[4:07:17] » Hi, my name is Sarah and um we're all
here to talk about how much we love the
[4:07:24] Snack Shack. Personally, I love it
because of all the awesome snacks it has
[4:07:29] and the fact that we turn the money we
paid for the snacks into tickets. I love
[4:07:34] the ticket idea because I think it's
awesome and way cool and way better than
[4:07:38] waving around normal money. Another
thing I love about the snack shack is
[4:07:43] that all the people who work there are
very nice and friendly. Another reason I
[4:07:48] love the snack shack because it is an
awesome place to just be able to buy a
[4:07:53] snack then go to practice.
It is also a good place for all the
[4:07:57] parents to just buy lunch, hang out, and
watch their kids play softball or
[4:08:02] baseball.
Um
[4:08:06] um hi, I'm Freddy Fink and I'm here to
talk about this snack shack and it's
[4:08:11] already pretty cool, but um it would be
way cooler if we could get like
[4:08:16] bathrooms and make it a little bit
cleaner and bigger and
[4:08:22] um
yeah, thank you.
[4:08:27] » Hi, I'm Claire Toledo and um I'm here to
speak about softball. We love playing
[4:08:34] softball. And after softball, we would
go to the snack shack to get plenty of
[4:08:39] snacks like sunflower seeds, gum, dip,
and dots, lollipops. It is really good.
[4:08:47] » That's it. Thank you.
>> Thank you for your comments.
[4:08:54] Um Josh Spiegel followed by Hug Janice,
followed by Olivia and Skyler.
[4:09:08] Hi. Um, I don't really have all that
much to say other than just looking at
[4:09:13] this from afar. It's [snorts] super
important that Malibu has these great
[4:09:18] parks, these great facilities. It's part
of keeping families here and these kids
[4:09:24] are going to be the future of Malibu and
protecting what Malibu is in 100 years.
[4:09:30] So, we need to attract that. Um, I'm
pretty sure I see where this thing is
[4:09:33] going, so I'm gonna shut up and go sit
down.
[4:09:38] » Thank you, Josh. Hugh,
[4:09:43] is Hugh here?
[4:09:46] » No. Okay. Olivia and Skyler.
[4:09:57] » Hi, my name's Olivia Alfano.
>> Hi, and I'm Skyler Lingo. The reason why
[4:10:01] we like the snack shack is because it
can bring the community together
[4:10:05] » and people can make new friends. Thank
you for supporting this idea idea. We
[4:10:10] love the snack shack.
>> Thank you.
[4:10:15] » Seeing a pattern here.
[laughter]
[4:10:18] » Okay. Um Sienna Graham and Havana
Keenan.
[4:10:29] Pull that.
>> Pull that mic down for
[4:10:34] That's even better. All right.
>> Hi, my name is Sienna.
[4:10:38] » Grandma.
>> Hi, my name is Savannah Keenan.
[4:10:42] » First of all, the snack shack is a big
part of Malibu Little League.
[4:10:48] I save up all my allowance for it. It is
such an honor to be a part of that
[4:10:52] community.
It gets a
[4:11:01] It gets me hyped up for softball games
in the morning.
[4:11:06] » I mean, I do dishes for get to get snack
shack.
[4:11:10] » Thank you. Thank you for listening.
>> Yeah. Thank you. That's all.
[4:11:15] » Thank you,
Heather.
[4:11:20] Alfano, Leo Gigliadi,
and Mila Mustakus and Jenna Alfano.
[4:11:29] » Hi everybody, Heather Alfano, also known
as the first lady of Malibu Little
[4:11:33] League. I have inherited the role of the
snack shack queen, and I never could
[4:11:37] have guessed how much joy this position
would bring. Every Saturday during the
[4:11:40] spring season, I can be found grilling
from about 8:00 a.m. till 2:00 p.m. in
[4:11:44] some capacity. Two weekends ago, we
celebrated opening day, bringing back
[4:11:49] our infamous Bluffsburg burger. We sold
180 burgers and 60 hot dogs that day. We
[4:11:54] also served breakfast quesadillas for
our early morning teams. The snack shack
[4:11:58] has truly become a pinnacle of social
connection here in Malibu. I am standing
[4:12:02] before you today to personify how
important pushing the plan for a
[4:12:06] permanent snack shack really is. Last
year after the Palisades fire, we were
[4:12:10] beyond hesitant to ask our local
businesses to sponsor a little league
[4:12:14] team, which is a staple for our
fundraising efforts. We relied heavily
[4:12:18] on the profits of the snack shack to
keep things moving for all of our
[4:12:21] players. One of the major hurdles that
we deal with on a weekly basis is how
[4:12:25] cumbersome our setup and breakdown can
be. We have a lot of parents who are
[4:12:29] willing to volunteer. However, it is not
easy to set up a temporary restaurant
[4:12:33] each week. We are hooking up water to a
mobile sink, a water heater, a drainage
[4:12:38] system, building easyups that are not
easy. Temporary trash cans, running
[4:12:42] extension cords to power our register,
speakers, and cotton candy machine, as
[4:12:46] well as the grill, food prep, chilling
drinks, and laying out an array of big
[4:12:50] leak chew. If we were able to show up to
a permanent snack shack, I wouldn't be
[4:12:54] so fearful of this snack shack idea
dying when I finally need to retire. So,
[4:12:59] when you find an item on your agenda
pertaining to Snack Shack, please think
[4:13:02] of me in my grandmother's apron,
pleading with you to make it happen.
[4:13:06] Lastly, I encourage all of you to stop
by on a Saturday and get a Bluffsburg
[4:13:10] burger. It is truly the tastiest burger
in Malibu. Thank you.
[4:13:14] » Thank you,
Leo.
[4:13:28] Is Leo here?
>> No.
[4:13:30] » Okay. Mila Mustakus and Gemma Alana.
[4:13:43] » Good evening everyone. My name is Milas
and my name is Gemma Alan. One of the
[4:13:49] main parts of Maba Little League is the
snack shack. I love going to the snack
[4:13:54] shack, but if it was bigger, it would be
even better. I love going there with my
[4:14:00] family and friends. It's so yummy and
fun. When we get done with our softball
[4:14:06] games, we go get a lot of food and
drinks and candy. It would be amazing to
[4:14:12] have a building to keep it all. Thank
you. Any questions?
[4:14:19] » [laughter]
[4:14:21] » Thank you very much.
[4:14:26] Do we have anybody on Zoom?
[4:14:30] Yeah, there's two raised hands. First is
Andy Lion.
[4:14:37] Hey there. Um,
did I go unmuted?
[4:14:42] » We hear you, Andy.
>> Okay. I had a picture. Uh, Parker has
[4:14:49] There we go. That's the original, my
original that I the snack shack I knew
[4:14:56] down at the little league in the Malibu
Lagoon area.
[4:15:00] And uh you know, listening to all these
K we that was the worst best pizza ever,
[4:15:06] the pizza ball, snow cones that were
like as hard as hard balls and all kinds
[4:15:13] of candy, you know. And the memories I
have of that that snack shack are, you
[4:15:20] know, they go back. That was a long time
ago. Um, and I'm listening, you know,
[4:15:26] seeing this whole thing. I I I'm
listening to the kids and like, you
[4:15:30] know, the idea of the snack shack, but
what they have right now and they're
[4:15:34] just so happy to get to the like if I
asked Glider, he as long as he could get
[4:15:38] dipping dots. I mean, if they were
coming out of the back of the trunk of
[4:15:41] somebody's car, he'd be stoked and just
hanging out with everybody. But it's
[4:15:45] great that there's going to be something
coming. It's just unfortunate that this
[4:15:50] whole bureaucracy and the the designs
and everything is so expensive and
[4:15:55] crazy. And it used to be I I'm sure like
the parent like the dads probably built
[4:16:00] that snack shack and just put something
in that had some character and stuff and
[4:16:05] wasn't you know tied into every kind of
bureaucracy, red tape, design fees and
[4:16:13] whatnot. But, um, yeah, that's that, you
know, do the right thing for it. Um, I'm
[4:16:20] just I I don't know why we got stuck
with the skate park having to have
[4:16:24] bathrooms too, right across the street,
literally like, you know, 50 feet away
[4:16:30] and they have to make more bathrooms for
that and charge more for I don't I don't
[4:16:34] understand, but you know, more bathrooms
the better, I guess, because whatever.
[4:16:39] Um, but yeah, it's it, you know, I hope
that you can get it done before like
[4:16:44] while those kids are here that are there
coming before you and talking about how
[4:16:48] great the snack check is. Hopefully it
gets done while they're still in Little
[4:16:51] League. Um, you know, like the skate
park, you know,
[4:16:56] the the construction, so many of the
kids that went to those meetings that
[4:16:59] were like the kids tonight, they didn't
they're already gone. So,
[4:17:05] um, push it through and push it through
fast and maybe get something in the
[4:17:08] interim, you know, so, you know, maybe
like something that can happen and they
[4:17:13] can use right now as a, you know, that
would be great to have a have something
[4:17:19] that's better than there, whether it's
a, you know, a,
[4:17:25] you know, food truck or some something
that is better. I don't know. I like it
[4:17:31] right now. It's great. Blessberger all
the way they you know after skating too
[4:17:36] but I'm in the little league. Go Angels.
Let's go get a snack check. Bye.
[4:17:40] [laughter]
>> Thank you Andy. Who's next?
[4:17:47] » Alicia Peak.
[4:17:54] » Wow. It's so nice to see all you smiling
on the dis tonight because this is what
[4:18:00] local government is all about. our
future and our youth. Kids in the room,
[4:18:05] can you please stand up? Adults in the
room, can you please stand up? Please
[4:18:09] stand up to show the amount of support
that we have tonight.
[4:18:14] My name is Alicia Peak. I'm a parks and
rec commissioner, AYSO commissioner,
[4:18:19] teacher, but most importantly, a mother
of three ball players, and proud to know
[4:18:23] every single person in this room because
you being in this room tonight shows the
[4:18:28] support that we all share for this
I promise you that this snack shack is
[4:18:34] not just about little league. It is
about AYSO. I see it being used for flag
[4:18:39] football, chew mash day, outdoor movie
nights, an emergency kitchen. We always
[4:18:45] talk about emergency services. This
could be used in that way. And our new
[4:18:49] skate park. We could use this for having
events for the skate park. You can sit
[4:18:54] down now. Thank you all. I appreciate
you so much.
[4:18:57] » I think that this is the heart of our
community.
[4:19:00] Kids get to learn and immerse themselves
um of what it means to volunteer, take
[4:19:07] orders, make orders, and learn how to be
a cashier. Unfortunately, Heather, I
[4:19:12] don't foresee kids rolling that 100
pound sink up and down the shelf every
[4:19:16] week like you do. God bless you. I say
this all the time, but the only thing
[4:19:21] economists always agree on is that the
best investment is to invest in kids. As
[4:19:28] a city, we have committed to this with
our school district, with our community
[4:19:32] lands. And this is one more commitment
we are making. We are asking the city to
[4:19:36] make in our youth. It is also very
important tonight, as you guys discuss,
[4:19:42] we need a robust fundraising effort to
make this a dream. Let's vote tonight to
[4:19:47] make this a reality and use this also as
an opportunity to create a great
[4:19:52] fundraising effort that we can continue
to use for all future projects. Jake
[4:19:57] Lingo and Dne, if everybody could please
give a clap for them. They have worked
[4:20:02] so incredibly hard on this. I am proud
to know you and thank you.
[4:20:09] » Thank you, Alicia.
One more.
[4:20:13] » Those are all the raised hands. Okay,
that ends public comment. Brings back up
[4:20:18] to council. Who wants to go first?
>> Okay.
[4:20:23] Um, so obviously I've been pushing since
I got on council to get this project
[4:20:28] forward. So I'm a big hearty yes. And um
I I I'm hoping that we're going to be
[4:20:34] able to find some cost savings um some
time savings. Um it would be great to
[4:20:40] have this open um as early as possible.
That's all I'm going to say. But
[4:20:46] anywhere we can can shave a couple weeks
off here and there, it's going to add up
[4:20:50] to to being um so uh and then also
fundraising. Um I know I've already
[4:20:57] talked to some about that. It would be
great if we could um move towards having
[4:21:01] a more robust
uh way of uh finding dollars for this.
[4:21:07] But um I think regardless if city ends
up paying for this or we are able to be
[4:21:12] successful and get some fundraising,
we're not going to regret um this
[4:21:16] improvement. Having those shipping
containers that are out there and
[4:21:20] portable restrooms are the last thing
that we need uh when we're trying to
[4:21:24] encourage residents to rebuild here. uh
we need to have something that is
[4:21:28] attractive and that you know families
when they're looking at homes and
[4:21:34] they're looking to build here. These
amenities are really important and
[4:21:39] having something that shows value in our
community is going to show our residents
[4:21:44] that we value them and we want to
encourage them to be here. So I'll even
[4:21:48] make a motion to um
move this forward. So it's
[4:21:56] what is it? Review and approve the
Malibu Bless Park snack check and part
[4:22:00] enhancement project um for final
preliminary design and I don't know why
[4:22:08] I'm not putting my glasses on. What a
crazy person. Um and then uh yeah direct
[4:22:13] staff to find other um funding sources
for it. So my motion is the recommended
[4:22:18] action by staff.
[4:22:22] Somebody want to second that?
>> Uh, I've got some recommendations to it,
[4:22:26] but I'm supportive. If I could uh maybe
have the mic for a minute here.
[4:22:31] » You can have the mic for as long as you
need, but are you making a second or you
[4:22:34] just speaking?
>> Uh, speaking in a second will come up.
[4:22:37] I'm going to need to amend it a little
bit, I think, and see if Mariana will go
[4:22:41] along.
>> First off, Andy, uh, I I'm right there
[4:22:45] with you. I look back on that picture
and I remember what it was like when I
[4:22:48] was a kid except uh having a water
fountain was really a garden hose and
[4:22:53] you ran it for a while to get the water
cool. But that's the way it was then and
[4:22:58] I don't know better or worse that's not
the way we are now. Uh although I
[4:23:02] survived as that seems so don't think it
kills you. Uh I love the design and I
[4:23:08] applaud the consensus that went into
building putting this before us tonight.
[4:23:12] Um costsaving considerations as well. I
I could feel the conversations as you
[4:23:17] guys were talking about it. Well, let's
take a little bit out of here. Let's
[4:23:19] take a little bit out of there. It It's
absolutely wonderful what you guys have
[4:23:23] done. And this is a solution that's long
term. Uh this isn't about next week or
[4:23:29] next day. And it's like our skate park.
It's a it's a investment in our kids.
[4:23:34] It's investment in our park system. And
these will be here forever. Uh and I
[4:23:39] talk about making decisions on this DAS
that last a hundred years. This is one
[4:23:42] of those ones. You look at the parks
that are there and Jake and John and
[4:23:46] Heather, you guys have have taken over
the mantle for today, but there's 60 70
[4:23:51] years of history on this. There'll be 60
or 70 years history going forward and
[4:23:55] we've got to invest wisely and make sure
it works. Um, and honestly, if it was
[4:24:00] only the snack shack, it'd be the most
expensive hot dog stand in America. But
[4:24:04] it's far more than that. You pointed it
out very well, and the diagrams are are
[4:24:08] support that. Our issue, though, is
money. Um, I hate to be the the the
[4:24:15] banker up here, but in fact, Joe and I
had a conversation this afternoon about
[4:24:19] this. Um, not just about the skate park,
but the whole city's finances. Um, you
[4:24:25] go back two or three years ago, we were
cashri. We had a $9 million surplus.
[4:24:30] Life was good. Uh, we approved the skate
park and said, "We'll pay for it."
[4:24:35] today with the fire behind us and I'll
go back to Zeviroski who um made his
[4:24:42] comment to an earlier city council
member.
[4:24:45] He was very proud of the fact that he
had a big surplus reserve and Seroski
[4:24:50] goes, "You're one disaster away from
bankruptcy." And he's right. Uh, city of
[4:24:57] Maloo right now is rebuilding the city
that burned and we've got somewhere
[4:25:02] between I'm gonna say 18 to$22 million,
I don't know what the number is right
[4:25:06] now on a non-interest bearing loan to
FEMA.
[4:25:10] » Uh, we have to advance the money and
then they decide if they're going to
[4:25:13] give it back to us. We also don't have
the property tax we had a year ago. We
[4:25:18] don't have the sales tax we had a year
ago. Don't have the transit occupancy
[4:25:21] tax, the hotel tax. So income is down,
expenses are up, especially in support
[4:25:26] of our rebuilding. We're not going to
not support our rebuilding efforts. And
[4:25:31] at the same time, we got to take care of
the town that didn't burn. So I am all
[4:25:36] in favor of this, and I will do
everything I can to get it done. But I'd
[4:25:39] like to maybe put this in a two-step
process.
[4:25:44] We've already got $425,000
in the budget to do the preliminary
[4:25:48] design and permitting, final design. as
I look at the sheet and Kristen or
[4:25:52] whoever uh nod at me or give me the the
stink eye and tell me I'm wrong, but we
[4:25:57] that's going to take us about a year to
get there.
[4:26:01] We have got to have some help to build
this financially. And I'll tell you
[4:26:06] what, you know, top of my mind is, and
I've got my notes down here that I wrote
[4:26:10] on this, um we need to probably get half
the funding for this from donations and
[4:26:15] naming rights.
call it a million five million seven.
[4:26:20] There's money like that around here for
things that need to be done and this
[4:26:24] needs to be done. We've got to find a
way to do it. The city right now doesn't
[4:26:29] have a spare million7 but hopefully we
can get some money back from FEMA, get
[4:26:34] the reserves built back up. And that's
really what I'm talking about it. We've
[4:26:37] got to have these reserves to protect
our bond rating and our credit rating.
[4:26:41] We have almost a hundred million dollars
in debt in this city. That's what we use
[4:26:46] to buy all these parks and buy buildings
and everything else. We're still paying
[4:26:50] off the the beginner house in effect.
So, we've got to raise some money here
[4:26:55] to take care of this and we got ahead of
our reserves. So, I'd like to make a
[4:27:00] motion to support Mary going with me.
Let's fully support the design uh
[4:27:05] planning and approvals and engineering
for the $425,000.
[4:27:10] bring this back um at a future date and
I don't know how we want to want to do
[4:27:17] that to confirm the funding. You know,
where where are we at? Where can we find
[4:27:22] the money and and
basically enlist the staff and the
[4:27:28] citizenry and the council to see where
we can come up with the money to build
[4:27:32] this puppy. This is as important as
anything else we do. And it is critical
[4:27:38] that we get it done, but we don't have
the dollars right now. I I hate, you
[4:27:42] know, town is wealthy as Malibu. Hate to
say we're going to need to 10 cup, but
[4:27:46] we need the 10 cup. And we got to go
find some money to make this work.
[4:27:50] That's my opinion. And Maryanne,
[clears throat] I I hearing my story and
[4:27:55] hearing my tale. What can we do to to
amend your uh uh motion? And I'm glad to
[4:28:00] second it. Could you put the timeline
back up, please?
[4:28:06] Thank you.
I I hear what you're saying and I do
[4:28:10] like um the idea of it and um maybe that
will also help spur um if we have a
[4:28:18] deadline for fundraising uh to get our
community motivated. I just don't want
[4:28:24] to
[4:28:28] I'm just kind of trying to think that if
we I want to bring this back as quickly
[4:28:32] as possible, but is what's a reasonable
time frame?
[4:28:36] City manager maybe you can also help me
with I mean to bring it back for kind of
[4:28:42] a [clears throat] goal setting time
frame of it. Yeah, if I'm looking at
[4:28:45] this uh Kristen and uh Nathaniel correct
me, but the final engineering is 10
[4:28:52] weeks and that's scheduled in quarter 4
of 26.
[4:28:57] We would want to come back before then
because we're going to need funding to
[4:29:01] do that work.
>> Okay.
[4:29:05] » 425,000 doesn't cover the engineering.
No, it just gets us through the planning
[4:29:10] commission approval and the CDP, but not
final construction documents.
[4:29:15] » Well, we've got it.
>> Excuse me. Uh, it does get us through
[4:29:20] final engineering. Uh,
>> so we're looking at the item before.
[4:29:26] » Yeah. So, can I
>> Sure.
[4:29:29] » My understanding of this proposal um was
that we're not approving financing.
[4:29:34] We're not being asked to approve
financing tonight at all. We're being
[4:29:37] asked to approve the concept basically
of moving forward with the preliminary
[4:29:43] design and um permitting not permit and
the final design and it will not come
[4:29:50] back to us for a year for approval close
to a year for approval of the actual
[4:29:56] project which would include the
necessity to approve a budget going to
[4:30:00] payment. um there's ample opportunity
for the city to find sources of
[4:30:05] financing in that schedule that's
already there. And if the city can't
[4:30:10] find sources for financing, which I
don't think is likely to occur, then
[4:30:13] we'll have to make the hard decision of
how much of the city's money do we want
[4:30:16] to budget for this. Actually, I don't
think it will be a hard decision. But um
[4:30:20] I don't think it's necessary to amend
the motion because the the motion isn't
[4:30:24] to approve any payment at this point in
time. The motion is simply to approve
[4:30:29] the plan to go forward which still
depends upon our approving the financing
[4:30:33] at some future date.
>> I I agree with that and uh I think if we
[4:30:37] could maybe set a hard deadline. I like
the idea of a goal setting on this um
[4:30:42] and I don't know how we are going to uh
staff both a financing
[4:30:47] option for where the city's money comes
from and then trying to work on naming
[4:30:52] rights and donations. But um we do need
to have a robust effort on both of those
[4:30:56] to make this work.
>> Yeah. Would that be I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[4:31:00] » And I just think this is one of the most
important things we'll do this year uh
[4:31:03] as far as getting getting things
started. Uh and we've got to we've got
[4:31:07] to protect our rebuilding, but we've
also got to protect this aspect.
[4:31:12] » So, so far we have a motion and a
request to amend it. Where do we stand
[4:31:16] on that?
>> Well, are you still requesting to amend
[4:31:19] it or are you just seconding it as it
is? We're just going to approve the
[4:31:22] design
>> microphone.
[4:31:24] » We're just going to approve the design
and the 425,000. I'm all in. I'm with
[4:31:28] you.
>> Okay.
[4:31:29] » The 425 is I think already approved. So,
it's just continuing the the path.
[4:31:33] » Okay. So, we have a motion, a second.
Um, further discussion. Who Who else
[4:31:37] wants to speak?
>> Steve.
[4:31:42] » I I understand the need for a project,
excuse me, a project like this.
[4:31:48] And I'm with I grew up in Rome, New
York, and any given day in the summer, I
[4:31:53] could get on my bicycle, drive around
the city, and get into a baseball game.
[4:31:58] Uh they were always there. As long as
you weren't a spaz, they let you play.
[4:32:02] Uh and it was now and you it was a
baseball town. The commissioner of
[4:32:07] baseball came from Rome, New York. I
mean, with those there's a lot of
[4:32:11] baseball being played there. So, I am in
favor of trying to put something
[4:32:14] together that makes it better for the
children here in Malibu to use that. Let
[4:32:19] me make a couple suggestions.
And I spoke to Rob Dau about this a
[4:32:24] while back.
Malibu High School has got these
[4:32:29] classrooms that they're tearing apart
and they're going to throw them out.
[4:32:34] These classrooms come with eight
bathrooms. Uh they're in great shape.
[4:32:40] Uh, and I suggested maybe it's worth
trying and they're giving them away. If
[4:32:44] someone doesn't take them, they're going
to throw them out. So, I suggested that
[4:32:48] maybe we should take a look at those and
see if maybe bringing one or two of
[4:32:52] those in can give us a a jump start in
getting this stuff done, this project
[4:32:57] done. Uh, and they save you a few bucks.
I think it, you know, you can make it
[4:33:01] look as good as what we're planning
here, uh,
[4:33:05] and save some money. So, I I hope
somebody is taking a look at that. Uh
[4:33:12] because to have these these classrooms
just get thrown out and not used, I
[4:33:17] think is a mistake. Uh that said, and I
agree with everything Doug said, money
[4:33:22] is the issue right now. Now, I assume
who's going to who's going to be the
[4:33:27] fundraising arm to get this thing going?
Do we anybody identify who's going to do
[4:33:31] that? Kristen?
Uh yes, I am working with our city
[4:33:37] manager on a plan um to bring forth some
ideas for fundraising efforts. We are
[4:33:44] taking a book out of uh city of South
Lake Tahoe. Um so I will be meeting with
[4:33:49] those staff members next week to to talk
about a plan of moving forward with
[4:33:54] fundraising, a foundation of some sort.
>> And I agree with Doug. I mean I think
[4:33:59] you guys you start early and do it
often. I mean, there's
[4:34:05] we talked about getting the FEMA money
back. Uh, I don't know if you've
[4:34:09] listened to the news. Donald Trump
doesn't particularly have Malibu next to
[4:34:13] his heart. Uh, so that money may not be
showing up in the very near future. So,
[4:34:18] you know, do what you can to raise as
much as you can because I think when we
[4:34:22] get to the end of it, you're going to
need it. So, I will support the motion
[4:34:25] so far.
>> Yeah. Well, I'm all for community and
[4:34:30] youth and uh seniors as well and
animals. So, I support the idea of all
[4:34:35] of this. I just have a lot of I still
have questions and I don't know if the
[4:34:39] ad hoc has to come back together with
maybe the parks ad hoc. Um I'm still
[4:34:44] supportive of it, but you know, it's
great to have the first lady here, but
[4:34:48] when the first lady's kids grow up, who
is going to man like is there a plan for
[4:34:53] who mans this snack shack? Is it parent
and volunteer? because I know that
[4:34:58] parents and volunteers move on. So, is
it a concession contract and then we
[4:35:02] have to have a contract with there's
just I feel like there's still some
[4:35:06] nuance that I need to understand. I do
like Andy Lion's old snack shack. I
[4:35:11] think it's charming and it also doesn't
block the view. I've said this so many
[4:35:15] times. I want to drive to the bluffs and
see ocean and not storage units. Um I
[4:35:21] don't know why the storage units haven't
been moved already. So, like in the
[4:35:25] meantime, it would be great to visualize
that space. Those storage units are
[4:35:30] rusty and old and run down. I I think if
they're empty, let's just remove them
[4:35:34] and put some money into removing them.
Whatever happens, you can't What's
[4:35:39] inside of them?
>> Baseball,
[4:35:41] » all the equipment from I I got it. There
we go.
[4:35:44] » Okay.
>> So, there's a city uh storage in there.
[4:35:47] And then the little league has their
equipment for um the field maintenance.
[4:35:54] Um one of them has the the snack shack
equipment and things that are stored
[4:35:58] there when um season's in place.
>> Yeah.
[4:36:03] Um
yes. I don't want to labor all my
[4:36:08] questions about food trucks because I'm
sure you guys looked into food trucks.
[4:36:13] Um,
yeah. It's, you know, I want to spend
[4:36:18] money. I want to be up here and be like,
"Yeah, let's do it." But it, it's also
[4:36:21] hard because we have, does the city do
any match funds? Like when you fund
[4:36:25] raise, do you do a matching
which a lot of We don't have anything um
[4:36:32] in line yet.
>> Um, so that would be something we would
[4:36:36] look into.
Okay.
[4:36:40] Um, okay. I have questions about the
concession air and how this is going to
[4:36:47] operate. You know, we also have the Ike
lot which has two regulation size soccer
[4:36:51] fields. Um I also want to know how much
that's going to cost. So it's hard for,
[4:36:56] you know, I'm glad we're not doing the
funding tonight because there's those
[4:37:00] questions about the nursery that we
approved with for nature uh native
[4:37:07] plants.
Do you have to have a food permit for
[4:37:11] this?
Yes, ma'am. We have to We go through LA
[4:37:15] County Health Department to get all the
permitting.
[4:37:18] » Does that cost money every year?
>> Yes, it does.
[4:37:21] » Okay. All right. Well, I'm super into
supporting the youth and making Malibu
[4:37:27] uh memories. I would love to know about
the timeline for the AIO soccer fields,
[4:37:33] but we're not really talking about money
tonight. And I'm excited to hear about
[4:37:36] what you might have in store that South
Lake Tahoe did for funding for parks.
[4:37:40] So, it's not always on the city of
Melbourne. Thank you.
[4:37:44] » All right. Thanks, Alan. So, if you want
to get something approved, bring the
[4:37:48] kids in. Right.
>> Thank you all for speaking. You're
[4:37:51] great. Um, I was super supportive of
getting a temporary snack shack in there
[4:37:58] when it was necessary along with Miriam.
And, um, I was supportive of moving this
[4:38:04] forward with all elacrity. I can't
believe it's taken us as long to get to
[4:38:07] where we are. And we still have a long
road ahead. Sounds like um the cost is
[4:38:12] somewhat shocking to me. I really
thought we were looking when we first
[4:38:15] approved going forward at hundreds of
thousands of dollars, possibly low 1
[4:38:20] million. I this number is startling to
me. In fact, there was a slide said
[4:38:24] starting price. I thought it said
startling price, but then I read it more
[4:38:26] carefully. Um but it is startling. But
you know, I I'm less concerned I think
[4:38:31] than others up here about um the city's
finances. They're going to come back and
[4:38:36] they're going to be fine. I mean, look,
I've said this before. If we have
[4:38:38] another disaster, doesn't matter that we
saved money because we're saving it for
[4:38:42] our creditors. And um if we don't have
another disaster, then we've not spent
[4:38:47] money for no good reason if we're if
we're holding it just because we're
[4:38:50] worried about another disaster. So um
this is an important community amenity.
[4:38:55] It's um we haven't done move forward
with any of the other community
[4:38:58] amenities that we've been talking about
for years and years and years. Actually,
[4:39:02] we we've moved forward with one, the
skate park. That's also been more
[4:39:04] expensive than anyone thought it would
be, but it's it looks like it's going to
[4:39:07] be a great improvement for the for the
kids and for the community. So, I'm
[4:39:10] super supportive of this. I think we
need this. Um I wish there were a way to
[4:39:14] do it less expensively. It I can't
believe we publish what we think things
[4:39:18] are going to cost and then we go out and
ask people to pay to bid it. So, we kind
[4:39:23] of set the floor already. It's
ridiculous the way that this works.
[4:39:26] Government is not meant for um money
saving. Um, but I'm going to support
[4:39:32] this. Um, I I I have an a nent idea
about a way to do this less expensively
[4:39:38] without changing a thing, but it's
premature to talk about that publicly,
[4:39:41] but I'm going to talk to the staff about
that um over the coming week. Um, but I
[4:39:47] I support this and um I would have
supported that if we were approving the
[4:39:52] money tonight, subject to getting it
back in ways that we can look into, but
[4:39:55] if not, not not. But so does anybody
have any further comments before we take
[4:40:00] a vote on this?
>> I just have a question. Has anybody from
[4:40:02] the city looked into um the trailers
that Steve's talking about? Because I
[4:40:07] know Kevin Keegan brought it up at a few
meetings.
[4:40:10] » Thank you for the question. I I have and
um in just a quick email chain with the
[4:40:18] school district um those trail the
portable classrooms have to be removed
[4:40:24] by March 30th of this of this year. So
at the end of the month uh there is
[4:40:30] costs related to transporting them and
getting them off the site that the city
[4:40:35] would be responsible for. Um, so that
just means we would have to store them
[4:40:41] for for a [snorts] bit. Um, I don't
think they're
[4:40:46] I get I think I could talk to Little
League, but a modification to um a
[4:40:51] classroom to have like a rollup gate
would probably be [snorts] an expense as
[4:40:55] well. So, um, that was the information I
received.
[4:41:00] » Thank you. I wasn't sure if we were you
wanted to put them at Heathercliffe or
[4:41:04] Ioke for now sort of because we don't
have to store them but they're there if
[4:41:09] you we decide to do that and I was also
hoping that we could have like actual
[4:41:12] renderings more. Um so I could kind of
understand it better because it's not
[4:41:20] like inspiring to look at that. Um, and
then also to Andy Conrad's Point, Lion's
[4:41:28] Point. Um, how many bathrooms in that
area will we have? Because I know we
[4:41:32] need bathrooms. You've got
uh the Bluff's Michael Landon, which is
[4:41:36] kind of further away, and zero at the
skate park now, or there is a restroom
[4:41:41] facility at the skate park. There are
two genderneutral restrooms at the skate
[4:41:46] park. This facility at the snack shack
will have two women's and two men's. Um,
[4:41:52] if I remember correctly, there are six
inside the uh Michael Lannon Center.
[4:42:00] » There I did speak to Little League about
um the restrooms across the street.
[4:42:06] There are concerns. It was regarding
safety and children crossing uh the road
[4:42:12] if they need to use the restroom at the
skate park. So, this was the best idea
[4:42:18] moving forward just as far as proximity
to the baseball fields, keeping children
[4:42:22] safe,
>> right? I don't know if you know the
[4:42:24] answer to this, but when the money comes
in for the bluff burger, who gets that
[4:42:28] money?
>> It goes back to
[4:42:31] » Little League. Okay. And then when
Little League's not operating the snack
[4:42:34] shack and the first lady's not in the
kitchen, who is operating the snack
[4:42:38] shack so that there can be additional
funds to make it more worth it? There's
[4:42:42] nobody operating it. So right now no one
is operating it there. You had mentioned
[4:42:48] um LA County Health Department. Uh when
they permit the facility, it is only for
[4:42:53] Malibu Little League to use that
facility.
[4:42:56] » So that's three months out of the year.
>> Um they begin in March. It's 3 to 4. Um
[4:43:03] and we do rent the required sink. Um
that is part of the snack check as well.
[4:43:10] So, it's closed the rest of the year for
the skate park. So, there's no dip in
[4:43:15] dots anyway for glider. Okay. Maybe
that's something that we could think
[4:43:20] about to make it a little bit more worth
a while.
[4:43:23] » Yeah, I think once we have a permanent
facility, it'll be used u more often
[4:43:28] than it is now.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
[4:43:33] » One last thing. It was so good to see
all the young girls here tonight for
[4:43:37] Little League. I mean, you know, when I
was a child, if I if there was a event
[4:43:41] like this and the little league's
children showed up, it would have been
[4:43:44] all boys and it was so nice to see. And
you know, one day you'll see a woman
[4:43:49] president of this country and it's a
shame we don't right now because we
[4:43:52] wouldn't be at war with the world.
>> Are we ready to vote?
[4:43:59] » Okay. You want to do a voice vote or
just acclamation?
[4:44:03] » Kelsey shaking her head. Do a single
vote. Okay. Why don't you call the call
[4:44:07] the question?
>> Do you'd like a roll call? Council
[4:44:09] member Rigggins?
>> Yes.
[4:44:11] » Council member Stewart?
>> Yes.
[4:44:13] » Council member Conrad?
>> Yes.
[4:44:15] » Mayor Promarine?
>> Yes.
[4:44:17] » Mayor Silverstein?
>> Absolutely. Yes.
[4:44:19] » Motion carries.
>> Okay. Thank you all.
[4:44:30] » Mayor, your microphone is off. If you're
speaking,
[4:44:32] » turn it off. Okay. It's now 9:19 and we
are only up to city council member
[4:44:38] reports. I'm going to ask that council
members try to keep these as brief as
[4:44:42] possible. I'm going to forego mine
altogether. Who would like to go first?
[4:44:48] » Um I'll go really quick. Um I attended a
clean power alliance meeting last week
[4:44:54] and um since our city is with clean
power alliance and they have been so
[4:45:00] successful in uh negotiating contracts
with uh solar and wind throughout the
[4:45:07] region. Um we're kind of shifting into a
new dynamic as far as when power is
[4:45:13] available. Um there is a an abundance of
power available during the day. So, it
[4:45:19] used to be that you faced higher rates
for using your electrical during the
[4:45:24] daytime. Now, with the abundance of uh
clean power, uh you're seeing more
[4:45:32] availability and lower rates. So,
they're encouraging people uh to charge
[4:45:38] your your electric vehicles during the
day um and uh use of other appliances
[4:45:44] and things like that. if you are on the
um the uh daytime use. The Clean Power
[4:45:50] Alliance is also moving forward with a
pilot project to look at time of use um
[4:45:57] and seeing if they can get people
enrolled to um take part in these where
[4:46:03] you would be on a a demand um and uh
just kind of try out see what the rates
[4:46:09] are going to be and things like that.
So, uh look for it in the mail. They're
[4:46:14] picking people at random throughout all
Clean Power Alliance cities, which uh
[4:46:19] are over most of me uh LA County and
Ventura County. Now,
[4:46:24] um but if you are chosen, they'll give
you additional information about how you
[4:46:29] can confirm, you're able to opt out of
the pilot program if you want to and
[4:46:34] still stay with Clean Power Alliance. Uh
but just look, they will be sending out
[4:46:38] mailers to those uh properties that are
selected to take part in the pilot
[4:46:43] program. Not everybody will be selected.
Uh but just keep an eye out for that so
[4:46:48] you can gain that information. But it's
a 12-month program to start with, but
[4:46:52] eventually it may get rolled out
depending on how successful it is. So,
[4:46:57] um, if you have more questions, please
go to Clean Power Alliance, um, and you
[4:47:02] can chat through and they've got a lot
of great information on there and, uh,
[4:47:06] ways to save on power. Okay.
>> And other than that, um, attended a
[4:47:11] couple other meetings, but, uh, just
working on the city stuff.
[4:47:16] » Steve, yeah, I'll try and be equally as
quick. uh these cell towers. Can
[4:47:23] somebody from the city come back to us
and let us know what are our
[4:47:27] responsibilities, what options we have
to sort of look at these things and get
[4:47:31] them approved or or make comments
because these things are going in and
[4:47:35] none of this is coming in front of the
city council. And I think some of the
[4:47:38] comments we heard from the residents
tonight say it should be right. We
[4:47:42] somebody should take a look at what's
going on and making sure it makes sense
[4:47:45] for what we're doing. So, if someone
could get back to me on that, I sure
[4:47:48] would appreciate that. I hope somebody's
going to chase down Melinda Watts. I
[4:47:52] thought her presentation was worth worth
taking a look at. Uh,
[4:47:57] and Mike's app, I don't [clears throat]
know what that is or how it works when
[4:48:01] there's no cell phone power, but if
someone maybe Susan team could take over
[4:48:06] the public safety could look at that and
see if that makes sense. I, you know,
[4:48:10] it's an idea. Uh, I' I've got I used to
live in the Palisades and I I still talk
[4:48:17] to some people back there and one of the
things they're telling me is a lot of
[4:48:20] the residents of the Palisades are
applying for permits and once they get
[4:48:25] their permit they're flipping their
house and they said just be careful
[4:48:29] that's starting to go on. And over the
weekend I saw a posting I think it was
[4:48:33] Brian Merrick where somebody on the
beachside property was doing the same
[4:48:37] thing. They got their permit. They're
trying to to flip it. So, I just think
[4:48:41] we got to be aware of that. And if we
see a lot of this going on, I do think
[4:48:45] we ought to take a look at doing
something about short-term rentals on
[4:48:48] the beach because if enough of these
things are flipped over, it just could
[4:48:52] be investors coming in, picking them up,
trying to build the the building, and
[4:48:56] turning this place into a, you know, a
motel. So, uh, I hope we keep our eyes
[4:49:01] on that. I certainly will, and as I
learn more, I'll let people know. Thank
[4:49:05] you, Bruce.
>> Thanks, Steve.
[4:49:07] » Thanks, Steve. Halen. Doug, who wants to
go next?
[4:49:09] » I'll go next. Um, following up on
Steve's points, which were very good, I
[4:49:13] um I'd like to propose an infrastructure
resiliency ad hoc to explore water
[4:49:18] solutions, cellular uh these cell towers
that I'm just hearing about uh the
[4:49:23] government bills that keep coming, we
keep coming across, new technology. I
[4:49:28] met with Mike and the app and I asked
them to come to Malibu public comment.
[4:49:34] um things like what Maryann just brought
up and we could work together backup
[4:49:40] batteries
um there's just a lot that's going on
[4:49:44] and so I think it would be really
helpful to have a council member ad hoc
[4:49:49] micro grid solar automatic shut off
valves keep coming up do we have a code
[4:49:54] for that is it in our codes
>> for water or gas
[4:49:59] » for water like we talked about in the
zone captains
[4:50:01] » no
>> no so it would be sort of an exploration
[4:50:04] Do I have council consensus to bring
back an item about a council member ad
[4:50:10] hoc proposing an infrastructure
resiliency ad hoc?
[4:50:15] » So all you're asking for is consensus to
have an item to discuss whether to
[4:50:19] appoint an ad hoc.
>> Well, or just we can't we can't do it
[4:50:22] today. So
>> we will come back and discuss that.
[4:50:25] » I'll support that.
>> Thank you.
[4:50:27] » Anything else?
>> I'll support it as well.
[4:50:30] » Okay.
>> Sure.
[4:50:32] » Okay. You got that.
>> Thank you.
[4:50:35] » Um, okay. The 5G towers. I'd like to
learn everything I can. I don't know how
[4:50:38] they're putting up things on the polls
without CDPs or kind of going through
[4:50:44] the city for that. Um, graffiti.
Do we have any mechanism as a city
[4:50:50] council to enforce graffiti on private
property? Because that is all over PCH
[4:50:57] and it's really people are not I mean
wanting to live here or move here. It's
[4:51:01] a constant reminder. We're getting
emails from people, residents.
[4:51:06] » No, I got the email also. I think the
rule was that we we have asked those
[4:51:10] residents to fill out one of the forms
that allow the sheriff to go onto their
[4:51:14] property. Right. And if we go if if that
is completed, the sheriff's able to make
[4:51:19] sure whoever's doing this tagging, they
can get him to stop it. Without doing
[4:51:23] that, the sheriff can't go on the
property and do anything and the city
[4:51:26] can't do anything.
>> Well, sheriff,
[4:51:27] » private property.
>> Sheriff has to catch him in the act. I
[4:51:29] think you're are you qu asking more
about removal of the graffiti or how to
[4:51:33] stop the graffiti in the first instance
>> city removing the graffiti that's there
[4:51:37] and it's enforcement and going actively
out to the to the homeowners versus the
[4:51:44] sheriff. So I'd be interested in that
and I am done.
[4:51:50] » Doug,
>> um to follow up quickly, I'm going to
[4:51:54] put uh the new city manager on the spot
since he just got here. Uh two things.
[4:52:00] Can you maybe give us some experience on
the cell towers and any recommendations
[4:52:04] on the uh uh graffiti issue?
>> Yes. Uh thanks for the question.
[4:52:09] [clears throat] So what I understand is
back in 2021-22 the city council adopted
[4:52:15] an urgency ordinance uh to address cell
towers. Um
[4:52:20] » I didn't know that
>> the wireless permitting is a very
[4:52:24] rigorous code. uh some have said one of
the most tough in the country. Um even
[4:52:30] though we have these stringent stringent
codes uh the federal law pro allows
[4:52:34] minor upgrades equipment upgrades they
call them consistent with FCC section
[4:52:39] 6409.
Uh 31 were approved in the first part of
[4:52:45] this year. Six have been appealed and
that's what we're hearing about tonight.
[4:52:50] » And the appeal process doesn't come to
the council. when it comes to uh hearing
[4:52:54] officer.
>> Yes, sir. Hearings officer.
[4:52:58] » And what about the graffiti? Any
>> the the the fee for the appeal is $725.
[4:53:03] I think you asked about that as well
>> or 750. The graffiti, we are looking
[4:53:09] into that option right now. I've been
talking with code enforcement and
[4:53:12] Yolanda to [snorts] see what um how we
implement that program to make contact
[4:53:16] with the property owners and then fund
the work to be done.
[4:53:21] » Okay. All right. Thank you. I'll try and
be quick, too. Uh, one thing I want to
[4:53:25] point out, and Luca, uh, brought this
up. Uh, one of the architects that does
[4:53:29] a lot of the work here in the city,
>> he's been getting invoices that are
[4:53:33] phony. Uh, those of us that are in
business, we get phony invoices
[4:53:38] periodically, and sometimes you just go,
"Oh, that's for landscaping." And you
[4:53:43] sign off on it because it's only $25 or
$15. You don't necessarily look at it.
[4:53:48] Well, this is serious money. And I got
to tell you, I think there's a special
[4:53:52] place in hell for somebody that tries to
take advantage of somebody whose home
[4:53:56] has been burned out. Um, so quickly what
I'll say is the city doesn't issue email
[4:54:03] bills. Uh, you'll find you'll find them
at the counter. Uh, that's where the
[4:54:08] invoices and payments are made. And if
you have any questions about it, call
[4:54:12] the city. Uh, but this is and I'll quote
him. He says, "I keep receiving these
[4:54:18] emails that to an untrained eye could
appear to be real."
[4:54:22] And there's no way we can stop it, but
we just want you guys, everybody that's
[4:54:27] got a house under construction or
permits or doing business with the city,
[4:54:30] realize that people have managed to
identify this. It's a scam 101. Um,
[4:54:36] Mayor May comment about Zuma uh
underpass. This has been a problem for
[4:54:41] several years. I know I talked to the
city manager about this and we've got to
[4:54:46] figure out a way to get the traffic
flowing on PCH before two things happen.
[4:54:50] One, everybody gets uh stuck out there
and they can't uh uh get into the beach,
[4:54:56] which affects the quality of life for
everybody that's trying to come into the
[4:55:00] city, especially the residents who are
just trying to get home. And also this
[4:55:03] potential traffic accident. Um so we've
got to get beaches and harbors to clear
[4:55:08] this up. It's a matter of removing the
mud and after a big rainstorm and it
[4:55:12] shouldn't take war and peace to get it
done. Um, another thing I want to
[4:55:17] mention, Tranquus Fields. Um,
[4:55:22] I've gotten a copy of the actual
settlement agreement from 2009. The
[4:55:27] Malibu Township Council looks like they
were just trying to facilitate an
[4:55:30] agreement uh with the city. They're not
trying to stop the league play. And I
[4:55:35] want to be very clear about something.
league play is all that's not permitted.
[4:55:39] There are practice uh uh agreements.
People are using that field all the time
[4:55:44] for practice and the parks uh department
is issuing [clears throat] permits to do
[4:55:49] it. All you have to do is contact them.
The sports people know how to do it.
[4:55:53] It's not a question about the practice
fields and we don't have the money to
[4:55:57] turn that into a league play field.
We've got property with one to two uh
[4:56:02] fields to be used. That's where our
money and our emphasis is going to go.
[4:56:06] Tranquets Park is a settled matter. As
far as I'm concerned, they've already
[4:56:10] got uh practice fields there. It's not
it's not an issue. We don't have the
[4:56:13] money or the time to deal with it if
going to league play. We don't need it
[4:56:17] at this point. Finally, um I want to
talk very quickly about code of conduct.
[4:56:22] Uh the mayor and I two years ago came up
with a code of conduct plan in
[4:56:27] association with the staff and I want to
reiterate two parts of it. uh recent
[4:56:32] planning commission meeting and even our
comments at the council level indicate
[4:56:36] we're not following our own code of
conduct and I want to just emphasize two
[4:56:40] points and I'm going to read them very
quickly on page five it says conduct at
[4:56:46] a public meeting and I'm going to read
it it's quickly read city officials are
[4:56:50] expected to prepare themselves for
public issues listen courteously and
[4:56:53] attentively to all public discussions
before the body and focus on the
[4:56:57] business at hand city officials ought to
refrain from interrupting and other
[4:57:01] speakers, making personal comments not
gerine to the business of the body,
[4:57:05] speaking privately with one another or
otherwise interfering with the order of
[4:57:09] conduct of public meetings. City
officials ought to avoid debate and
[4:57:13] arguments with members of the public and
ought to commit to the practice civility
[4:57:17] and decorum discussions and debates.
That's right out of our document. This
[4:57:22] applies not just the council members but
all of our commission members too and
[4:57:26] our volunteers. And fin use of
smartphones, laptops, etc. during
[4:57:31] meetings can be distracting, create the
appearance that officials are not paying
[4:57:35] attention, and can compromise the rights
of those with business before the city.
[4:57:39] In particular, surreptitious
communications regarding the public
[4:57:43] hearing items undermines the integrity
and fairness of the public hearing. I
[4:57:47] hope no one is texting, trying to find
out the the lay of the land, or getting
[4:57:51] comments back and forth during any of
our commission meetings or up here.
[4:57:55] Finally, the last thing is conduct by
city officials. The professional and
[4:57:59] personal conduct of city officials ought
to be above reproach and avoid even the
[4:58:03] appearance of impropriety. This is the
part I want to emphasize. City officials
[4:58:08] should refrain should refrain from
abusive conduct, personal charges, or
[4:58:12] other verbal attacks upon other city
officials, city employees, or members of
[4:58:17] the public. We can take it, but we can't
dish it out. All right? It's a free
[4:58:22] country. You can say whatever you want
to about us, but we've got to keep a
[4:58:25] professional attitude about this and we
got to make sure we're doing the city's
[4:58:28] business and not uh giving the
appearance that we're not paying
[4:58:32] attention. That's all I have. Thanks
very much.
[4:58:34] » I just make two comments f first which I
wasn't planning to you know there's I
[4:58:39] haven't witnessed any of what Doug was
just talking about and I would I know
[4:58:42] there's also a provision for reporting
what you see if you think there's
[4:58:45] something wrong and I would hope that if
Doug thinks he's seeing something wrong
[4:58:48] he'll spell out the specific details and
that way it can be ironed out. Um the
[4:58:53] other thing is on the 5G or the cell
towers um what Joe says right I I
[4:58:57] remember we had a very robust process
for adopting legislation that deals with
[4:59:02] them. We tried to make it as um
difficult as we are legally permissible
[4:59:07] to deal with the cell towers and um to
regulate them as great as we can
[4:59:12] consistent with federal law. We were got
a lot of push back from our own lawyers
[4:59:15] and I think we might even have pushed a
little further than the lawyers
[4:59:18] recommended but there is a process. I
mean, if as somebody stated tonight, one
[4:59:23] of the applications was false or
misleading, that's obviously something
[4:59:27] that someone needs to take a look at.
Um, but there's, you know, we we are
[4:59:32] part of a national system and
unfortunately we've got a federal
[4:59:35] government that and there's a big lobby
that has billions of dollars that gets
[4:59:38] the laws made in Washington. And um
those laws are not friendly to us and
[4:59:43] not friendly to the environment, but
we're doing the best we can to keep our
[4:59:47] our our town as rural and as um
environmentally safe as possible, but
[4:59:52] there's a limit to what we can do. Um
but we can certainly continue to look at
[4:59:56] what more we can do.
Any further comments from anybody?
[5:00:01] Maryann,
>> I just wanted to respond on the Tranquus
[5:00:04] Field, Tranus Park. Um, you know, this
is something that I've been trying to
[5:00:11] advocate for for since I got on council
and even before I was on council. Um, we
[5:00:18] don't have enough fields and the benefit
of yes, we're at least using Tranquus
[5:00:24] Park for the PR practice facility, which
we weren't for a long long time. Um, but
[5:00:30] there are lots of games that are trying
to find homes and the people who are
[5:00:35] scheduling with AISO. They need that
space and that's why it is important to
[5:00:40] allow for league play on every possible
field that we have within the city of
[5:00:44] Malibu. Um, I know it's not a regulation
field, but it will s certainly fulfill
[5:00:51] the needs of the younger um, AYSO and it
gives an an opportunity. So, I would
[5:00:57] just like to ask Malibu Township Council
one more time, please work with the city
[5:01:04] attorney so we can get that condition
removed. Um, we've been asking for over
[5:01:08] a year uh to have their board make a
determination on this and from what I've
[5:01:12] heard, they have not had a board meeting
to discuss this. So, I would just ask
[5:01:17] that they please um do that, work with
our city attorney, and let's get that
[5:01:22] deed restriction removed so that um
younger AYso players can have games um
[5:01:28] on a field in our city. Thank you,
>> Marian. If I could make a quick comment,
[5:01:32] I I did check into this. It's not just
the Melbourne Township Council, it was
[5:01:36] the local residents that were uh against
league play. And I think if we want to
[5:01:41] ask uh the city attorney or the MTC to
get involved in this, we probably need
[5:01:45] to give some direction from the city
council on it.
[5:01:47] » We did a year ago.
>> Yeah. To be fair, uh I was informed by
[5:01:51] MTC's president that it has been
considered at one of their meetings, but
[5:01:54] he doesn't have anything to report on
it.
[5:01:56] » Okay. And I'm not sure that's true that
the council gave direction. I think
[5:01:59] people made some individual comments.
>> I think I thought we did. I I don't
[5:02:05] know. I I'm pretty sure we gave We had
>> There was direction. Yeah, there was.
[5:02:09] Okay.
>> Um,
[5:02:10] » stand corrected. Yeah.
>> We done.
[5:02:12] » Okay. We are finished with council
comments. Um, we are now at 5A, second
[5:02:18] reading and adoption of flood plane
management ordinance and adoption of
[5:02:21] emergency ordinance. So, we'll hear that
item now. Please raise your hand in Zoom
[5:02:26] if you'd like to speak on this item and
you'll be called after the staff report.
[5:02:30] Are there um comment cards?
>> Great.
[5:02:36] And how many people are on Zoom at this
moment that have raised their hand?
[5:02:42] » There's one raised hand. Okay, I think
that that's enough time for those hands.
[5:02:48] So, we have the one. Uh, can we have a
staff report, please?
[5:02:53] » Good evening, Mayor Silverstein,
honorable members of the council. I'm
[5:02:58] here to uh present an item on the second
reading of the flood plane management
[5:03:04] management ordinance and if you please
allow me to begin with recap of what was
[5:03:09] discussed at the previous meeting. So we
talked about
[5:03:18] yes talked about the national flood
insurance program that city participate
[5:03:24] in and it's a subsidied flood insurance
and it's available to those cities that
[5:03:30] that have adopted flood plane management
regulations designed to prevent and
[5:03:36] mitigate flood damage.
that [clears throat] cities must adopt
[5:03:40] the regulation that meet or exceed the
requirements set forth in title 44 part
[5:03:46] 60 of the code of federal regulations.
And currently the flat plane uh
[5:03:52] ordinance that city has in place
identify authority of the city council
[5:03:58] for uh reviewing and approval of uh
projects that are located within the
[5:04:04] flood plane and approval of the
variances if if that's what the design
[5:04:10] requires for.
[5:04:15] The proposed amendments to the existing
ordinance applies to Palisades fire
[5:04:20] rebuilds
and uh what was discussed previously at
[5:04:24] the previous meeting is the changes are
the changes that were proposed. The
[5:04:30] first change was identifying flood plan
administrator as public works director
[5:04:36] to grant development permits in
accordance with chapter 1520 of the
[5:04:41] municipal code.
defined uh flood plan administrator
[5:04:46] authority to ensure that variances for
septic system and seaw walls that
[5:04:51] protect those system for palisades fire
rebuilds midsp specific mandatory design
[5:04:58] and construction regulation set by FEMA.
[5:05:06] We also talked about more revisions
which are establish an expedited
[5:05:11] administrative process for issuance of
variances for seaw wall protecting
[5:05:16] septic system associated with policy
fire rebuilt
[5:05:21] state that decision made by the flood
blade administrator may be uh may be
[5:05:25] appealed to city council. It outlined
conditions for variances for seaw walls
[5:05:31] project uh protecting uh septic system
and uh requires recordardation with Los
[5:05:39] Angeles County and submittal of a FEMA
elevation certificate.
[5:05:46] Next couple slides go into information
that was requested on the actual
[5:05:52] language of code of federal regulations
and it goes into flood management
[5:05:58] criteria for plot prone areas section
16.3
[5:06:03] which talks about the installation of
sanitary sewer system that uh protection
[5:06:09] needs to be the installation needs to be
ensured that Um the they they have to be
[5:06:16] installed in a way that there is no dis
discharge from the system into flood
[5:06:22] waters. Uh there is no contamination in
flooders infiltration
[5:06:27] and the system uh will be located in
such way that it avoid impairment to
[5:06:33] them or contamination from them during
flooding. There is also a section of the
[5:06:39] code uh that talks about um new
construction or substantial improvements
[5:06:45] in the zones and vzones
um that um need to require the um have
[5:06:54] um open space below the lowest
uh floor elevation. It it has to be
[5:07:01] clear of obstruction. So that also goes
into installation of a septic system and
[5:07:07] the seaw walls that protect them.
[5:07:14] However, if the um certified engineer or
architect can demonstrate that there is
[5:07:21] no other location for installation of
such septic system
[5:07:26] but uh only flat plane then FEMA will
allow installation.
[5:07:35] uh but uh there needs to be a process
for variance and exceptions set by a
[5:07:42] local government
and um this is also spelled out in the
[5:07:47] code of federal regulations in section
60.6 variances and exceptions and um it
[5:07:55] goes into certain conditions that need
to be met. that variances shall be only
[5:08:00] issued by a community upon
showing a good of sufficient cause. A
[5:08:07] determination the failure to grant the
variances would result in exceptional
[5:08:12] hardship to the applicant and
determination that granting of a
[5:08:16] variance will not result in increased
flood height, additional threat to
[5:08:20] public safety, extraordinary public
expense, um create nuisance, cause
[5:08:27] fraud, um etc. and variances should only
be issued upon determination that
[5:08:33] variance is minimum necessary
considering the flood hazard to afford
[5:08:38] relief.
[5:08:42] Um staff um additionally um made
the following findings
[5:08:50] um that uh will allow to make
to adopt the urg ordinency ordinance to
[5:08:58] um uh for this provisions and they
include um protection of public health
[5:09:05] and safety by preventing the discharge
to untreat water,
[5:09:09] delay in improving the construction or
repair of septic system and seaw walls
[5:09:14] may result in environmental hazard
and uh failure to timely administer and
[5:09:19] enforce flood plane regulations in
compliance with FEMA requirements may
[5:09:24] jeopardize eligibility of participation
in national uh flood insurance program.
[5:09:31] With this urgency finding um it's
possible to adopt urgency
[5:09:37] ordinance which will uh go into effect
immediately.
[5:09:42] And thank you very much. This concludes
my presentation.
[5:09:46] » Okay. I have some questions. Does
anybody else on council have any
[5:09:50] clarifying questions before I ask mine?
>> Uh [clears throat] just a quick
[5:09:55] question. uh this language that we have
right now this has been approved by FEMA
[5:09:59] and who else?
>> This been reviewed and approved by FEMA
[5:10:03] stuff work that was multi-mons effort
[clears throat] uh with FEMA. We
[5:10:08] actually also worked with uh scientists
from the building standards uh up in
[5:10:14] Washington the the people who set up
building standards but that was all
[5:10:18] facilitated through FEMA but yes you're
correct the language was approved by
[5:10:23] FEMA.
>> So if we make it If we make changes to
[5:10:26] it, we have to go back to FEMA.
>> We have to go back to FEMA and that
[5:10:30] might delay the process significantly.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[5:10:34] » Okay. So, before I ask my questions, I
want to be clear. These questions are
[5:10:39] not intended to be critical of anybody.
They are because I genuinely need to
[5:10:43] understand things better. Sometimes
people think that when I ask my
[5:10:46] questions, I'm I'm using it as a form of
criticism. It's not. It's a form of this
[5:10:50] is the way we get information. And
secondly, an answer if I don't know is
[5:10:54] perfectly acceptable. It's not it's not
a badge of dishonor to not know the
[5:10:58] answer. It speeds things along speeds
things along and identifies what still
[5:11:02] needs to be determined. It's it's better
than trying to figure things out on the
[5:11:06] fly. Um the other thing is, you know,
I'm a lawyer. I've been a lawyer for
[5:11:10] close to 40 years and I read codes and I
sometimes read them different than I I I
[5:11:15] do read them different than non- lawyers
read them. And um I want to make sure
[5:11:19] that we're reading this code, this these
federal regulations correctly before we
[5:11:25] begin to tinker with our existing
ordinance. So my first question is
[5:11:30] 60.3A6,
I'm sorry, 60.3 E5. This is the um
[5:11:37] provision that deals with um the
obstruction. Now with Rob explained to
[5:11:43] us and maybe touch on it, you might have
explained to us earlier and I I get this
[5:11:46] that an that a seaw wall constitutes an
obstruction. So um correct this would
[5:11:51] apply to seaw walls on new constru
underneath beneath new construction and
[5:11:56] substantial improvements.
>> I don't view new construction and
[5:12:00] substantial improvements to necessarily
capture a rebuild following a disaster.
[5:12:06] And I know we have interpreted the
rebuilds to not be new construction or
[5:12:11] improvements of existing construction
elsewhere outside of FEMA. And I've gone
[5:12:17] through the um FEMA regulations and
there are multiple instances in which
[5:12:22] there's also an or other development
identified besides for new construction
[5:12:26] and substantial improvements. And there
are many that don't have that additional
[5:12:30] language such as this one. So how do we
how have we come to the conclusion that
[5:12:36] 603 apply E5 applies in the first
instance to a rebuild that is a like
[5:12:41] forlike rebuild.
>> Federal um FEMA and uh per federal code
[5:12:47] FEMA reviews this um rebuilds as a new
construction or substantial
[5:12:53] improvements. Is that is there a
provision in another regulation because
[5:12:57] I couldn't find it in this one that says
that for purposes of these federal
[5:13:00] regulations the term new construction
and substantial improvement includes a
[5:13:04] like forlike rebuild of a home destroyed
in a disaster.
[5:13:09] » It doesn't have that specific lang
language. However, rebuilding of the
[5:13:13] structure from ground zero because it's
um it's a destroyed um home considered
[5:13:21] by FEMA considered new construction.
>> Where is that set forth in writing?
[5:13:26] » It it is for application of the
regulation. Uh the the rules and
[5:13:31] regulation have to uh apply as they said
today.
[5:13:36] That's why uh FEMA FEMA needs to make
sure all the requirements are met at the
[5:13:43] construction today.
>> Well, so what is there besides for new
[5:13:46] construction and substantial
improvements that would constitute other
[5:13:49] development that's captured by a few of
the provisions of the regulations but
[5:13:54] which isn't identified here?
>> Um other developments, everything else
[5:13:59] that are not does not constitute new
construction or uh substantial
[5:14:04] improvements. So I guess minor
improvements it's it can be minor
[5:14:08] improvement but if it's in the flood
zone the FEMA still needs to uh the
[5:14:13] regulations set up by um code of federal
regulations still need to be made.
[5:14:17] » All right that those are my questions
about that. I'll have some comments
[5:14:21] later. The second question I have is
60.3 A6 which deals with new and oh and
[5:14:27] by the way this also says replacement
sanitary sewage. So again, it's another
[5:14:32] example of they know how to use the word
replacement when they intended to use it
[5:14:36] as contrasted with only new, which is
what's used for the seaw walls. But
[5:14:40] that's not my question. This is an
affirmative requirement. New and
[5:14:44] replacement sanitary sewage systems need
to be designed to minimize or eliminate
[5:14:48] infiltration of flood waters into the
systems and discharges from the systems
[5:14:53] into flood waters. I am I correct in
understanding that a variance would only
[5:14:57] be required not a variance is not
required for a septic system. It's only
[5:15:01] required for a septic system that
doesn't satisfy this standard.
[5:15:04] » You're correct.
>> Okay. So, we're not if we adopt these
[5:15:08] this ordinance, we're not imposing a
variance requirement on anybody for a
[5:15:13] septic system that satisfies this
requirement. Only for ones that don't.
[5:15:17] » If they Yeah, if they can satisfy this
this requirement. Correct.
[5:15:20] » Okay. Um so, make that clear then.
very
[5:15:25] » it's just if if I may just add it just
it just doesn't apply to the situation
[5:15:29] that we're reviewing tonight because
we're talking about the Palisades fire
[5:15:33] rebuilds on the coastal um on on the on
the ocean side. So we already know that
[5:15:40] uh those require those septic system
cannot meet those requirements.
[5:15:45] » I'm sorry. So the septic systems on in
the ocean or near the ocean will not be
[5:15:50] able to minimize or eliminate
infiltration of flood waters into the
[5:15:53] systems and discharges from the systems
into flood waters
[5:15:56] » by installation of a seaw wall that will
protect septic system.
[5:16:00] » But without a seaw wall they cannot
accomplish that.
[5:16:02] » Correct.
>> Okay. Okay. The variance requirements in
[5:16:08] 60.6A3
they're already in our code, right? We
[5:16:14] already have them in there in hack verba
basically.
[5:16:18] » Yes, we have requirements in our code.
>> Now the proposed variance requirements
[5:16:24] for the seaw wall are far more extensive
than the ones that are already in our
[5:16:29] ordinance elsewhere and are set forth in
the FEMA regulations. Why are we adding
[5:16:35] additional requirements that aren't in
this code?
[5:16:39] Uh you're talking about the comparison
of the local requirements. Yeah, FEMA is
[5:16:44] uh FEMA absolutely fine if the local
requirements actually more restrictive.
[5:16:52] » The problem Yeah.
>> But why are we proposing more
[5:16:56] restrictive requirements than the FEMA
requirements for purposes of a waiver?
[5:17:02] We don't require it currently when it's
the city council that approves it and we
[5:17:08] have a council policy of not imposing
any obligations that are beyond those
[5:17:13] required by federal, state or county law
in the case of these rebuilds. So why
[5:17:17] are we affirmatively creating new more
restrictive burdens on somebody that
[5:17:22] wants to build a seaw wall for their
lake forlike replacement, needs to build
[5:17:26] a seaw wall for their lake forlike
replacement.
[5:17:28] » Right? We are that's why we're talking
only about palisades or builds that are
[5:17:32] in the ocean side because they are
located within the flood zone. So the
[5:17:37] federal federal requirements will apply
for for the house that located somewhere
[5:17:42] else if they're outside of the flood
zone. Uh we uh we won't um we won't need
[5:17:49] to um
[clears throat] require them to comply.
[5:17:54] Okay. But see 60.6A3 6 A3 this is the
the FEMA reg says variances shall only
[5:18:02] be issued upon by a community upon I a
showing of good and sufficient cause
[5:18:07] double I a determination that failure to
grant the variance would result in
[5:18:11] exceptional hardship to the applicant
and triple I a determination that the
[5:18:15] granting of a variance would not result
in increased flood heights additional
[5:18:18] threats to public safety extraordinary
public expense create nuisances cause
[5:18:22] fraud on the victimization of the public
or conflicting with existing local laws
[5:18:26] or ordinances Then you can go to four.
Also, variances shall only be issued
[5:18:29] upon a determination that the variance
is the minimum necessary considering the
[5:18:33] flood hazard to afford relief. That's
the law right now. And if we didn't
[5:18:37] change our code at all and the variances
had to come to the city council for
[5:18:40] approval, that would be what needs to be
determined. That and that and that alone
[5:18:45] for purposes of granting a variance,
right?
[5:18:47] » Yes.
>> Okay. We're proposing in this new
[5:18:51] ordinance to add a whole laundry list of
additional requirements to get a
[5:18:55] variance, are we not?
>> No, we're we're following the same
[5:18:59] requirements.
>> Um, does somebody have the red line? Is
[5:19:02] the red line in our package?
>> Yes. Okay.
[5:19:06] Look at page. It's it's the final two
pages of the uh of the staff report on
[5:19:13] 5A.
[5:19:18] » We have require we have required
determinations here that um it's the
[5:19:25] smallest size and placement as landward
as possible. Um not will not be utilized
[5:19:30] for structural support of the building.
Shall minimize the obstruction to flood
[5:19:34] flow as much as possible. must comply
with all the following regulations. And
[5:19:39] there's there's ones listed. None of
those words are in 60.6A
[5:19:46] three or four. So why are we now
creating those those specific
[5:19:51] requirements that aren't in our law
right right now? If somebody came to the
[5:19:54] city council and asked for variance
under our existing code, we wouldn't
[5:19:58] look at any of those things. Why are we
putting them in here as burdens on
[5:20:01] people who want to rebuild after the
fire? uh we're providing the language
[5:20:04] that are giving um giving set parameters
for designing of the septic system. So
[5:20:10] if if that um if that can follow certain
rules
[5:20:17] um we're just giving them more um
options for
[5:20:21] » well are we giving them more options or
we making it more restrictive?
[5:20:24] » We're not making them more restrictive.
they're they're still within the flood
[5:20:27] zone and we still uh we still make them
follow the federal
[5:20:32] regulations. So is not being permitted
to serve in any way as structural
[5:20:37] support of the building something that
we would currently require under the
[5:20:41] existing code. If somebody somebody
proposed a seaw wall that also partially
[5:20:46] serves as support and it otherwise
satisfies the language of 60.3 A3 and 4,
[5:20:52] would we say no, you can't do that.
We're requiring that it not serve as
[5:20:54] structural support.
>> Uh yes, we're talking about this the
[5:20:59] seaw wall for protection of the septic
system. Those are the changes we're
[5:21:03] making by by uh by this modifications.
So right now, forget the Palisades fire.
[5:21:11] If somebody wants to build a brand new
home on a vacant lot on the beach and
[5:21:17] they come for a variance to build a seaw
wall to protect a sew to protect the um
[5:21:22] septic system, would we in order to
satisfy the variance requirement of
[5:21:28] 60.6A3 6A 3 and 4. Would they have to
establish that their seaw wall that is
[5:21:33] designed to protect their septic system
doesn't in any way, shape or form serve
[5:21:37] as a structural support for the for the
house as well?
[5:21:41] » Yes, they have to they have to follow
the same requirements that are set in
[5:21:44] the code of federal regulations.
>> Where where is that requirement in the
[5:21:48] code of federal regulations that's
before us?
[5:21:52] » That is in the ordinance in the proposed
language of the ordinance. Where is that
[5:21:56] in the code of federal regulations that
we are seeking to implement through our
[5:22:00] local ordinance?
>> It's it's in the in the this section uh
[5:22:04] in title 44 section 60.
>> Can can you identify the provision of of
[5:22:10] section 60 that puts forth that
requirement? It might be there. I'm I I
[5:22:14] don't know. I've just I didn't see it
when I looked quickly.
[5:22:23] I might um
[5:22:29] » at the same time if you [snorts] could
also I want to know where it is that
[5:22:33] where it says that in order to gr a
variance it has to be the smallest size
[5:22:36] and as landward as possible.
>> Yeah that that's that language is all in
[5:22:42] the
um code of federal regulations.
[5:22:46] the one that we have in front of us. 60
>> 16.
[5:22:50] » Okay. Where?
>> Again, I'm I'm not saying it's not. I I
[5:22:55] would like to see where it is.
[5:23:16] The question
[5:23:21] » question is I'm trying to identify where
in the code of federal regulations the
[5:23:27] various requirements that we're
establishing for a variance for our for
[5:23:32] granting a variance are set forth in the
code of federal regulations because I
[5:23:35] see them in our code as I mean the fact
that they're not there already to me is
[5:23:41] troubling because if they're not there
now and we're granting variances. That
[5:23:45] suggests to me that they don't need to
be there. All we're doing, all we're
[5:23:49] supposed to be doing through this change
is grant the public works director the
[5:23:54] authority to do what the council
currently already has the authority to
[5:23:58] do. We can do that in three words. I
mean, that's an exaggeration, but what
[5:24:02] why are we adding substantive
requirements to that the public works
[5:24:07] director has to determine are satisfied
that the city council currently doesn't
[5:24:12] have to determine are satisfied?
>> We're just adding currently we're just
[5:24:16] adding language from the code of federal
regulations. There is just more language
[5:24:21] added to this um variance that's through
our process working with FEMA. So, so
[5:24:27] these requirements are already
implicitly in our ordinance when the
[5:24:30] city council's asked to grant a
variance.
[5:24:33] » They they are in the code of federal
regulations. So, when we receive when we
[5:24:37] review uh the project which proposes a
septic system and a seaw wall, we still
[5:24:42] have to follow all this federal
regulations and have to obtain the FEMA
[5:24:46] elevation certificate and have to and
have to go through all this um checklist
[5:24:51] that we're um we have to verify. So, so
right now under our existing code, if a
[5:24:59] um property owner who wants to rebuild a
lake for lake comes to the city council
[5:25:04] and asks for a variance because that's
the way it currently works, right? We
[5:25:08] would even though these words are not in
our city ordinance, we would require all
[5:25:14] of these very same things to be
satisfied that are now specified in red
[5:25:19] ink.
>> Yes. public works staff through review
[5:25:22] and uh review of process of the project
they will verify uh all these
[5:25:28] requirements are met.
>> Okay,
[5:25:31] those are my questions. I'm I am going
to make a comment because it's pertinent
[5:25:35] to why I'm asking these questions in in
my way of doing legislation. I've been
[5:25:40] I've written legislation and worked on
committees done legislation for years.
[5:25:44] If something's not broke, you don't fix
it because the fix might actually break
[5:25:48] it. Um, if this is already here
implicitly, there's no need to put it in
[5:25:52] explicitly. It may not be there. It may
not be required under the federal
[5:25:57] regulation. If it's not required under
the federal regulation, we're requiring
[5:26:01] it by putting it in here. If it is
required by the federal regulation, it's
[5:26:05] already there. So, we don't need to say
it because it's already there. I'm
[5:26:08] hearing concerns from residents that
we're creating new restrictions, that
[5:26:12] we're making things more burdensome. If
all we do is give the um planning
[5:26:18] director the ability to do what the city
council currently has the ability to do
[5:26:21] and do nothing else, then we haven't
enlarged or or um diminished whatever
[5:26:28] the federal rules are. They're there.
We're being told this is for the purpose
[5:26:33] of facilitating more expedition. I'm
concerned that what this is doing is
[5:26:37] creating more restriction. So, you know,
that that will guide people's comments
[5:26:42] hopefully. I might be completely wrong,
but that's the way I look at drafting
[5:26:45] legislation is you don't you when you're
when you're adopting a local ordinance
[5:26:51] to implement a federal ordinance, you
don't reinterpret the federal ordinance.
[5:26:55] You simply say we have to follow the
federal ordinance, which is what we
[5:26:58] currently have in our existing
ordinance. So, um, does anybody else
[5:27:02] have any questions based on that
public comment? Then, Dean Don Schmidtz
[5:27:09] followed by Dean Wer followed by Darren
Graves. Those are the only inerson
[5:27:13] speakers we have.
[5:27:16] » Evening, council members. Very good
questions. Mayor Silverstein. Um, I
[5:27:22] would uh I would address the the first
prong of what you you raised. It's not
[5:27:27] the rebuild of the house or the
structure per se. It's the increase in
[5:27:32] the size of the shoreline protection
device, which is the new development.
[5:27:36] And that is predicated upon a coastal
engineers report. The shoreline
[5:27:41] protection device needs to be of
sufficient height to protect the septic
[5:27:46] system itself. Uh my experience which
I've done a few of these over the years
[5:27:53] up and down the coastline is pertains to
uh the minimum size and being located as
[5:27:59] landward as possible is something that
has been driven by the California
[5:28:03] coastal act. And so uh I am somewhat
chagrined that I cannot point directly
[5:28:11] to uh the federal regulation and the
questions which you were raising and uh
[5:28:16] I should uh I came here to uh foolishly
thinking that this was going to be a a
[5:28:23] early item on tonight and I I did want
to give you the accolades and your staff
[5:28:28] for taking this necessary step. It is
important and it sounds like uh uh we
[5:28:33] may well be on the same page that if we
can come up with an administrative
[5:28:37] process so that we don't have to have
300 plus city council hearings. I don't
[5:28:45] need that work. I've got plenty already.
Uh that would be a very loudable and
[5:28:52] appropriate goal if this can be handled
administratively. So, uh, and I know
[5:28:56] this is not something that was, uh,
taken on lightly, and I do appreciate
[5:29:01] the fact that the city coordinated
closely with FEMA to make sure that we
[5:29:05] would remain in compliance with our
national flood insurance program. We
[5:29:10] can't jeopardize that. So, there's
definitely u uh something that needs to
[5:29:16] happen here in regards to allowing this
to happen on administrative level. It's
[5:29:20] often been said that Malibu has a
greater challenge on the rebuild front
[5:29:24] because we have unique constraints. I'm
not always convinced by that, but one
[5:29:29] thing that's incontrovertible is 300
plus beach homes burning up. Uh that is
[5:29:36] something that brings in the FEMA and
the shoreline protection devices and the
[5:29:40] and the beach on-site wastewater
treatment systems. A quick a quick check
[5:29:44] with AI, which means it must be true, is
that the 300 plus homes that we lost in
[5:29:50] the Palisades fire is the worst example
of beach homes burning up in a wildfire
[5:29:56] in the history of the United States. So,
we really do need to get this done.
[5:30:01] Otherwise, all the excellent work that
you've done to streamline this process
[5:30:05] is going to be for not. So, uh, I I do
again very much appreciate this
[5:30:10] direction and strongly urge that with
the right verbiage, you come up with an
[5:30:15] administrative process. Thank you,
[5:30:20] » Dean.
Thank you, Don.
[5:30:25] » Thank you. Don and I actually first met
at the planning commission meeting last
[5:30:30] February, and I was there because I was
concerned about this exact type of
[5:30:34] fundamental issue. the the the issue
that we have before us is that the FEMA
[5:30:40] requirements do do not go into the level
of detail of the red text you have in
[5:30:44] front of you. Free of obstruction does
not mean what it says. Free of
[5:30:50] obstruction. It does not prohibit those
things. Free of obstruction means that
[5:30:55] it's an open foundation. Essentially,
you have pylons and the water can move.
[5:31:00] That's all that that means. Okay.
[snorts] At the end of the day, the
[5:31:06] other items, be it septic or seaw wall
or other obstructions such as plumbing
[5:31:12] and other things, FEMA P-348
as well as NFIP technical bulletin
[5:31:18] number five clearly show these items.
The reason they say free of obstruction
[5:31:25] is because they want to counsel people
to realize that if you have
[5:31:29] obstructions, you need to have your
engineer design a more robust structure
[5:31:33] to be able to take the additional forces
that will occur from wave action
[5:31:38] underneath it. That can easily be done
every day. So, it doesn't mean that it's
[5:31:44] a non-specification item requiring a
variance. Not at all. It's never been
[5:31:49] done. It's not a requirement. What's
happening here unfortunately is just
[5:31:54] like the sea level rise and just like
the BFE discussion. We have people
[5:31:59] around here and I respect their
opinions, but their opinions are
[5:32:02] preferences. They're not requirements.
They are coastal act items. Coastal act
[5:32:08] is suspended. They do not apply to us.
If I want to build that way, I can. The
[5:32:14] reason FEMA's not objecting to the
review is because if you recommend
[5:32:18] something more robust, more challenging,
they're happy to approve it. So, it
[5:32:24] means it's the city recommending that,
not FEMA. So, please, this is not good
[5:32:30] discussion here tonight and does not
build the trust I and others are looking
[5:32:34] for. What I suspect this is about, and I
hope I'm wrong, but I'm not usually
[5:32:40] wrong,
[snorts] is we have a situation where
[5:32:44] because it deviates from the Coastal
Act, people want to use this variance
[5:32:49] process as an accounting method to allow
the Coastal Commission, the Water
[5:32:54] District, and others to track these
properties. It's an accounting method.
[5:33:01] I've had discussions with people when I
did my own PV back months ago. You do
[5:33:07] not have my building plans because of
issues like this. I am not going I have
[5:33:11] too much respect for money to build more
than I need to build and where I want
[5:33:15] it. It's my option. So, [snorts] thank
you. Thank you, Dean. there.
[5:33:32] Uh, good evening again. Um, I'm not
going to question the validity of what
[5:33:37] Mr. Winner said, uh, because I'm not
going to espouse conspiracy theories
[5:33:42] about accounting, but I do think that
the intention of this ordinance is a
[5:33:47] good one. Um because at face value one
would understand that any CDP in the
[5:33:53] city of Malibu which does have a seaw
wall below the BFE creates a need for
[5:33:58] variance. Thus maybe 90% of these 320
rebuilds even though they're building
[5:34:04] back like for like they will be
installing a new seaw wall thus
[5:34:09] triggering the need for variance and 80%
of those 320 applicants will be coming
[5:34:14] to the city council for that variance.
it'll clog up the system. I think the
[5:34:19] intent of the ordinance is to get rid of
that potential bottleneck. A bottleneck
[5:34:23] which could cause delays for people
coming back home. Thus, I think you
[5:34:28] should approve it. And if there are some
sort of conspiratorial accounting things
[5:34:32] that come out of it, so be it. But I
don't think anybody's going to notice
[5:34:36] because they'll be back at home enjoying
the sunsets that they appreciate so
[5:34:40] much. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Darren.
[5:34:44] I believe we had one speaker on Zoom.
Yes, Danny Smith.
[5:34:53] » Good evening, council. Can you hear me?
>> We can hear you, Danny.
[5:34:57] » Mayor Bruce, thank you. I appreciate
your questions. I don't know if the new
[5:35:01] language is conflating California
requirements with FEMA requirements as
[5:35:04] Don uh suggested. I do know that
planning is already requiring seaw walls
[5:35:10] to be placed as landward as possible.
So, I'm not sure how that this could
[5:35:14] open anyone up to an appeal if that's
the concern because planning isn't going
[5:35:18] to approve a seaw wall that's any more
seawword than it has to be. It would
[5:35:23] never reach any sort of appeal stage
with an unacceptable design. I'm reading
[5:35:27] the federal regulations right now and
they say that new construction or
[5:35:32] substantial improvements in the VE zone
must be free of obstruction
[5:35:37] or constructed with non-supporting
breakaway walls. You can't build a seaw
[5:35:42] wall with breakaway walls. So, in no way
do I see room to interpret it interpret
[5:35:47] FEMA's regulations as somehow allowing
seaw walls without a variance. So, as I
[5:35:52] see it, there's a federal requirement
that we can't wave nor violate unless we
[5:35:56] want to lose our ability to manage the
flood plane, which we don't. We have a
[5:36:00] current system that works, but it's
slow. Therefore, the city's reached an
[5:36:04] agreement with FEMA on a way to speed it
up to meet the needs of this moment. I
[5:36:08] thank the city for that. It's
unfortunate that we have to deal with
[5:36:11] these FEMA requirements, but it is what
it is. Thank you.
[5:36:16] » Right. Thank you, Danny. That closes
public comment. Bring it back up to city
[5:36:19] council. Who would like to speak first?
[5:36:26] » I guess I will. Um, I was clear on what
I was voting on earlier. Um I I what
[5:36:33] I've studied
over the whole week has been that we're
[5:36:39] um streamlining the process for seaw
walls with a administrator of public
[5:36:46] works that then we can get people back
in their homes safely and quickly and
[5:36:52] get insurance for those homeowners. So
now am I hearing something different or
[5:36:56] deviation from that because I'm
confused?
[5:37:02] » Yes, this um this new ordinance uh will
streamline this process.
[5:37:08] » Yes. [clears throat]
[snorts]
[5:37:11] » All right. Um first of all, I'm going to
say Dean, you're wrong that um this is
[5:37:17] there's anything nefarious behind this.
I I mean I I agree with the comments
[5:37:21] that this is being done for good
purposes. It's being done with the
[5:37:24] intention of facilitating more
efficient, economical, and expedited
[5:37:30] rebuilds on the beach. I am concerned
that it is inadvertently
[5:37:36] um bringing in LCP requirements that
don't exist right now. And I and I and
[5:37:40] you I don't think Don was saying they
were being conflated. I think Don was
[5:37:43] saying he's embarrassed to not know
where in the federal regulation it is.
[5:37:46] But I think the fact is they are being
conflated. I think I think there are
[5:37:50] certain things in here that we're used
to requiring because we're used to
[5:37:54] having the LCP apply and they've been
just put in here without the fact
[5:37:59] without regard for the fact that they're
not necessarily built into the Code of
[5:38:04] Federal Regulations. But as I said
before, even if if they are in the Code
[5:38:07] of Federal Regulations, there's no need
to say them in our local ordinance
[5:38:11] because they're already there by virtue
of the repeating the exact language from
[5:38:16] the Code of Federal Regulations. if
they're not in the Code of Federal
[5:38:19] Regulations, I think we are burdening
people with additional requirements that
[5:38:24] don't exist currently. And that's
contrary to what we're seeking to
[5:38:27] accomplish.
So, I am not convinced that a variance
[5:38:34] is needed for any seaw wall. I I see the
argument that it is. I suspect that
[5:38:40] argument might even be accurate, but I
don't know that it is for certain. And
[5:38:45] again, I don't know why we need to
create an affirmative obligation to get
[5:38:50] a variance for a seaw wall if the
federal regulations currently require a
[5:38:56] variance for a seaw wall. And and if
Dean wants to spend the next nine months
[5:39:01] arguing with people that it doesn't and
and insisting on not asking for a
[5:39:05] variance and maybe going to superior
court to get a determination, it's his
[5:39:08] right to do that. But if we adopt a
local ordinance that affirmatively says
[5:39:13] to have a seaw wall for your lake
forlike rebuild, you must get a
[5:39:16] variance, we are now cutting off any
argument that it doesn't currently exist
[5:39:20] under federal law, which is the opposite
of what we've all been saying we want to
[5:39:24] do for the past year. Same thing for the
um for the um
[5:39:32] the septic systems, but may but maybe
that's not as important. But what I've
[5:39:38] gone through this carefully and you know
I understand that we really don't have
[5:39:42] the luxury of changing these words on
the fly because
[5:39:48] doing so if we were to adopt an
ordinance other than the one the FEMA
[5:39:52] representatives it's not FEMA you know
it's people employed at FEMA just like
[5:39:56] when people say the city council when
it's really the staff that spoke to
[5:39:58] somebody or the coastal commission when
it's somebody at the coastal commission
[5:40:01] staff that's said something. But if we
change these,
[5:40:06] we might do something that they're not
satisfied with. So, so in a sense, our
[5:40:09] hands are tied. It comes to it comes to
us fully baked and we're told take it or
[5:40:13] leave it because if we don't take it
exactly the way it is and make changes
[5:40:17] to it, it'll it'll blow up in our face.
That's not fair. We we we need to be
[5:40:22] able to debate whether these provisions
are necessary and appropriate and have
[5:40:27] our determinations and maybe I'll be the
only one up here that thinks this way,
[5:40:31] but have our determinations be taken
back to FEMA and and asked will this
[5:40:36] work for you? It not not we have to do
this. As I read this whole all the red
[5:40:42] all the red ink, there's really only one
place in which an affirmative obligation
[5:40:47] to get a um
a variance is being imposed. It's in
[5:40:54] subsection F to section 15.20.150 20.150
because it says current if the proposal
[5:41:02] is
seaw walls designed to constructed for
[5:41:07] the sole purpose of protecting septic
systems blah blah blah are subject to a
[5:41:12] variance.
Why not use the exact same language as
[5:41:15] the code of federal regulations? All new
construction and substantial improvement
[5:41:20] that includes now Dean [clears throat]
says it's not even a seaw wall. and I
[5:41:24] and I actually agree with him. That
includes an obstruction. Use the exact
[5:41:28] words of the federal regulation and
leave people if they want to to debate
[5:41:33] that they don't need a variance. That's
up to them. If they go for the variance,
[5:41:36] they're going to get it very quickly and
they're going to be able to move on and
[5:41:40] we've done our our our part to help
them. But if they want to take the
[5:41:44] position that the Code of Federal
Regulations, which is what we're trying
[5:41:47] to implement here, don't require a
variance for a seaw wall, let them make
[5:41:52] their argument.
the um
[5:41:56] section 6 15.20.080
subsection 6 has a lot of red ink.
[5:42:02] There's a huge paragraph that's being
added.
[5:42:05] All we need to say is if a property
owner should need to construct a
[5:42:09] [clears throat] seaw wall to protect the
septic system serving a beachfront
[5:42:12] property destroyed by the Pacific
Palisades fire if they should need to an
[5:42:17] application is submitted for and an
application is submitted for a variance
[5:42:20] to construct such seaw wall. the flood
plane administrator shall have the
[5:42:23] authority to grant such a variance. So,
we're not imposing the obligation. We're
[5:42:28] simply saying if you need a variance for
this thing, which you may or may not
[5:42:33] need, we are empowering the flood plane
administrator to grant the variance.
[5:42:39] Section 15.2.180
is a is proposed to be amended as
[5:42:43] follows. A variance for the construction
of substantial improvement repair to a
[5:42:48] seaw wall. By the way, that there's
there's something garbled there. It says
[5:42:50] a variance for the construction or
substantial improvement repair to a seaw
[5:42:54] wall. I think there's a word missing
that is intended only for the protection
[5:42:58] of a septic system may be issued by the
flood plane administrator conditioned
[5:43:01] upon the provisions and requirements set
out in 15.200
[5:43:05] and 15.2010.
That language is unnecessary. It needs
[5:43:11] only to say
hold. Oh, that that whole that whole
[5:43:15] provision is unnecessary
because it's already covered elsewhere.
[5:43:19] And again, it arguably creates an
inference. 15.20190
[5:43:24] says, "Decision, this is the proposed
amendment. Decisions made by the flood
[5:43:28] plane administrator under the authority
granted in section 15.2070 may be
[5:43:33] appealed directly to the city council if
necessary. Variances granted for seaw
[5:43:37] walls intended specifically to protect
septic systems shall be processed on an
[5:43:40] exped." I like that. Um what it says
though arguably is that a a neighbor has
[5:43:46] the right to go to the city council to
oppose the grant of a variance because
[5:43:50] it says they can be appealed. Um it
should say decisions to deny a requested
[5:43:55] variance made by the flood plane
administrator under the authority
[5:43:57] granted in section 1522070
may be appealed by the applicant
[5:44:01] directly to the city council. Any appeal
from the denial of an application for a
[5:44:05] variance to construct a seaw wall
serving a beachfront property destroyed
[5:44:08] by Pacific Palites fire shall be
processed on an expedited basis. I I
[5:44:12] can't put this up on the board like
staff does when they present, but I I
[5:44:16] think we should be narrowly tailoring
this language and not just having
[5:44:20] general language. Um the title to
1520210
[5:44:25] along with the text of subsection A
imply but don't affirmatively state that
[5:44:30] a variance is required in these
circumstances. That implication can be
[5:44:35] eliminated. We could say we could make
the title special expedition of
[5:44:40] applications for any variances that may
be required with respect to construction
[5:44:44] of lake for lake rebuilds of beachfront
properties destroyed by the palisades
[5:44:47] fire rather than for var special
variance provisions for seaw walls to
[5:44:52] protect septic systems. We could then
say under the heading expedited
[5:44:57] variances simply the following
applications for a variance that may be
[5:45:02] required for the construction of lake
forlike rebuilds of properties destroyed
[5:45:05] by the Pacific Palates fire
um
[5:45:09] are eligible for expedited variances to
facilitate the timely development permit
[5:45:14] approvals. That's that the the the
latter part of that's already in there.
[5:45:18] I just added the the the initial part.
Um,
[5:45:22] I have a couple others, but I mean the
point is I've gone through this very
[5:45:26] carefully with a deliberate effort to
make sure that we're not expanding upon
[5:45:32] whatever's in the CFR because whatever's
in the CFR, we're bound to follow. We
[5:45:37] have an ordinance that we prepared years
ago that nobody's had any problem with.
[5:45:40] FEMA hasn't had any problem with it.
We've been implementing it however we've
[5:45:43] been implementing it. And it doesn't
have a lot of these things in here. All
[5:45:48] we're seeking to do, we're being told.
and I agree is expedite the way you get
[5:45:53] a variance. Not change what you need to
do to get a variance, but expedite the
[5:45:58] way you get the variance. Shift it from
the city council to the administrator. I
[5:46:04] really don't know why we didn't need to
just say that. just say just add a
[5:46:09] provision that says in where it states
that the city council has that a
[5:46:13] variance will be issued by the city
council in cases where a lake forlike
[5:46:17] rebuild resulting from the palisades
fire is being constructed any variant
[5:46:22] should be required the flood
administrator whoever the person is
[5:46:25] shall have the authority to do it.
Bruce, if I could
[5:46:28] » one one last thing. Okay.
>> I also wanted to add and I a provision
[5:46:32] at the very end of this that says
nothing in this chapter is intended to
[5:46:36] suggest that a variance of the type
addressed by this chapter is required to
[5:46:39] construct a seaw wall to protect a
septic system serving a lake forlike
[5:46:43] rebuild of a structure on a beachfront
property destroyed by the Pacific
[5:46:46] Palisades fire. Nor is this provision
intended to suggest that a variance of
[5:46:50] the type addressed by this chapter is
not required for such construction.
[5:46:53] Rather, this chapter simply sets forth a
process for obtaining such a variance if
[5:46:57] and when it's requested. Whether such a
variance is required in the first
[5:47:00] instance is governed by applicable
federal laws and regulations. We should
[5:47:05] not meddle. There have been many appeals
that I've seen and include in including
[5:47:09] the and including the Riddic case that
went to the the appeals court and came
[5:47:14] out against us that were because someone
in this city when mimicking a statute
[5:47:20] somewhere else changed a word, inserted
a comma, made an and or flipped the way
[5:47:25] a sentence was written. And as a result
of doing that, we had a substantively
[5:47:29] different law than we were intending to
have. When you're dealing with
[5:47:33] legislation, you don't make you don't
make changes that aren't necessary
[5:47:38] because every single period, every
comma, every word that you inject can
[5:47:43] have substantive significance. You do
the least harm possible. And we're not
[5:47:48] doing that. We're going out of our way
here with an intention of being helpful,
[5:47:52] which could end up blowing up in the
face of our residents who are trying to
[5:47:56] create like for Lake Rebels. And that's
the point Dean's been making. I don't
[5:47:59] attribute any ill will to anybody. I
think this is being done for all of the
[5:48:02] best purposes, but I think we're going
overboard and perhaps inadvertently
[5:48:07] creating bad requirements. So, I would
defer this. Maybe I'm sure I I suspect I
[5:48:14] would defer this. I would go back to
FEMA with a request that we simply amend
[5:48:18] this to to to shift the the approval
request to the administrator for these
[5:48:26] limited purposes if they're required.
Full stop. It's all we need to do. I
[5:48:31] don't know why we didn't do just that in
the beginning. So, Doug, go ahead.
[5:48:35] » Yeah, Bruce, you know, as I listen to
you, you've you've got major issues with
[5:48:40] this and you're substantially rewriting
what's on here, and I I appreciate that.
[5:48:44] I honestly, I talk all the time about
all five of us bring our skills to the
[5:48:49] table, and you're bringing your skill to
the table, and we need to consider that.
[5:48:54] Um,
I don't disagree with you one bit. This
[5:48:59] the efficiency would be to say reference
such and such and shut up and go home.
[5:49:05] Uh that we don't need to re recite
everything. So my questions are a couple
[5:49:09] fold here. First off, how did this get
written? Did we write this? Where did it
[5:49:15] come from?
We did we work with FEMA and just to add
[5:49:19] a little bit more information about uh I
know we're talking about like for like
[5:49:23] rebuild but from a FEMA perspective FEMA
doesn't look at it like for like for
[5:49:28] like rebuild because some of those homes
might be built you know 50 years ago
[5:49:34] under totally different regulations and
um different flood maps. So that's why
[5:49:40] uh all this language was made um into
that new ordinance to stay there because
[5:49:48] of the all this new um rules apply.
But
[5:49:53] » I mean we look at it as like to like
rebuild but they're not they're not like
[5:49:57] for like rebuild because when we're
talking about like for like we're
[5:50:01] talking more about the square footage of
the house if there is additional
[5:50:05] bedrooms but what FEMA is looking for
it's a totally different uh parameters.
[5:50:12] » Okay. Um,
you know, if you if you really think
[5:50:17] about it, why do we even need to have
FEMA approve
[5:50:21] uh where the appeal is going to be
approved? I guess that's that's the
[5:50:24] start of my question. If the if it's the
city internal, we could delegate this to
[5:50:29] the uh public works director and that
would be it. Would it not? Is that not
[5:50:35] acceptable to FEMA? the fact we've got
the same rules we had before and we're
[5:50:39] just going to have the public works
director approve it.
[5:50:43] » Well, that will qualify us to
participate in the um in the flat
[5:50:48] insurance to continue participating and
even more than that um that might uh
[5:50:54] jeopardize from getting federal grants
and assistant in in the future
[5:50:59] disasters.
>> Okay, I'm I'm aware of what the pitfall
[5:51:02] would be, but I'm thinking this is an
administrative issue. What keeps us from
[5:51:06] administratively assigning it to any
person to do it as opposed to the city
[5:51:12] council having to do the appeal? I mean,
why does FEMA care about how we do this
[5:51:17] internally?
>> That's that's our process. That's our
[5:51:20] current process.
>> Well, I understand that's our process,
[5:51:23] but why does FEMA care if we want to
change it to where the public works
[5:51:26] director can appeal can approve it?
>> We can go back to FEMA and possibly they
[5:51:31] will be open to changing this language.
However, uh that's the language they
[5:51:35] have approved right now and uh for us to
modify anything, I think we we're facing
[5:51:42] uh sign significant delays in instead
for helping all these houses to get to
[5:51:48] get rebuilt faster.
>> How long ago did we start this with
[5:51:51] FEMA?
>> That that took several months.
[5:51:55] » Say again.
>> Several months. More than six months.
[5:51:57] » Okay. So, you think we'd have to do the
same six-month routine
[5:52:01] » at least? Yes, with uh yeah, with the
shutdowns
[5:52:06] of the government, it might be even
more.
[5:52:08] » Yeah, I I really think uh I agree with
Bruce. You run the risk whenever you
[5:52:13] copy and paste something uh you run the
risk of a not following the changes that
[5:52:18] might have occurred in the law as well
as you make a mistake somewhere, you you
[5:52:23] you've tripped yourself up. Um, let's
hear what anybody else might have to
[5:52:28] say, but um, Marian,
>> I I'm I'm troubled by how long it might
[5:52:33] take to get get a change to this.
[5:52:38] » Um, [clears throat] well, I just I think
I want clarification from the city
[5:52:41] attorney. Does the city council have the
authority
[5:52:46] to change and delegate the
flood plan administrator
[5:52:53] as the authority to um make this
determination and grant these variances?
[5:53:00] » So, we have the power to change our
code. Absolutely. You could change this
[5:53:03] to whatever you want. The issue is um
from section 60.1A of the federal
[5:53:09] regulations we're looking here. here
says the app provides that flood
[5:53:12] insurance shall not be sold or renewed
under the program within a community
[5:53:15] unless the community has adopted
adequate flood plane management
[5:53:18] regulations consistent with federal
criteria. So the question being um
[5:53:24] whether they would determine that the
program is consistent with the federal
[5:53:28] criteria. Now, if it's just an
administrative change, I think it would
[5:53:30] be a difficult argument that um it's not
consistent with the federal criteria,
[5:53:35] but you have a guaranteed language in
front of you um here that has been
[5:53:39] signed off by them. Um but um it would
be a difficult argument, I think, for
[5:53:45] them to say that it's not consistent for
just making an administrative change,
[5:53:48] but you are taking on risk by doing
that. Well, I mean there's other areas
[5:53:53] of the code where we designate a staff
member to be the administrator of codes,
[5:54:00] i.e. the building code.
>> Yep.
[5:54:02] » So, I guess I'm just looking for
clarification. Do we have the authority
[5:54:08] to just designate and so do we need to
make changes to our ordinance in order
[5:54:14] to designate
>> that change?
[5:54:16] Yes, because the code currently
designates a process that requires the
[5:54:20] variances to be to go to the city
council. So, if you want to change that,
[5:54:23] we would need to change our code.
>> Okay. But look, it's not a binary
[5:54:27] decision that we either make all these
changes or we make only that other
[5:54:30] change and take our chances. It's very
easy to pick up the phone, call FEMA
[5:54:34] tomorrow and ask them if all we do is
add a paragraph that says where it says
[5:54:38] city council makes these decisions,
we've determined it ought to be for
[5:54:41] purposes of these um rebuilds, the
public works director. And the person
[5:54:46] will either say, you got to be kidding
me, or sure, why are you even bothering
[5:54:50] to think that would be a problem? And I
suspect they're going to say, of course,
[5:54:54] and then we just adopt that one sentence
and we're off to the races. And I would
[5:54:58] have done that six months ago if I had
understood this issue.
[5:55:02] » Well, I well, I agree with what you're
saying. In principle, I doubt that it's
[5:55:07] that easy of just a phone call.
>> Well, other thing I'd add to them is
[5:55:11] that our president wants these rebuilds
done as expeditiously as possible and
[5:55:15] doesn't want to add any requirements,
including building code requirements.
[5:55:20] » Do you have a proposed solution?
>> Yeah, we defer this for one more
[5:55:24] meeting. We call FEMA in the interim and
we find out whether if we just scrap all
[5:55:28] these changes and only make the change
of deferring to the um public works
[5:55:33] director that's satisfactory to them.
And if they say no, then we have a
[5:55:37] harder decision to make. Well, maybe you
all don't have a hard decision to make.
[5:55:39] I I will still have a hard decision to
make.
[5:55:43] I'll move that we defer this for till
the next meeting and then the interim
[5:55:46] staff try to get the cons the sign off
by FEMA to simply change this to def to
[5:55:53] um delegate the authority to grant a
variance in this limited circumstance to
[5:55:57] the public works director.
>> Yeah, we're running into risk that might
[5:56:02] not get any response anytime soon.
>> Yeah, they're closed right now.
[5:56:08] » Federal government shut down FEMA. Um,
also how many applications are pending
[5:56:15] approval this?
>> I know of at least two that are ready to
[5:56:20] receive Darian that are
>> and the only thing that they're holding
[5:56:23] on is a public works stamp with this.
>> Yes. Bring
[5:56:27] » and the option would be then bringing
them forward to a city council meeting
[5:56:31] to have us approve the variance.
>> Correct.
[5:56:35] » Okay. So, if there's only two, how many
are in the pipeline, do you think over
[5:56:38] the next month? Oh, there will be there
will be more. I know there is a two or
[5:56:43] three more that are getting close to
that point.
[5:56:45] » Okay. So,
>> and there will [clears throat] be there
[5:56:47] will be more
>> a handful over the next month or two.
[5:56:50] » Bruce, I got a suggestion for you.
>> Why don't we just do it this way? Why
[5:56:54] don't we just have the uh public works
director say they approve it, bring it
[5:56:59] into the council as a consent item,
that's the appeal done.
[5:57:03] » I think we had a brown eye problem.
>> I don't think we can just put a consent.
[5:57:08] I think I think requires a public
hearing
[5:57:10] » because it's a variance regardless. We
still have to have the full
[5:57:14] » Yeah, be nice to be able to do that.
Makes makes common sense, but violates
[5:57:18] California law. But if if look, if we're
talking about a handful of these over
[5:57:23] the next month or two, I suspect even
three. Um, let's bring them on. Let's
[5:57:28] let's get let's hammer them out here.
Let's do it quickly. Let's get the
[5:57:32] people their approvals. and in the
interim, let's work on getting FEMA to
[5:57:35] agree that all we need is to defer the
authority to the floodplane
[5:57:41] administrator. And you know, so the the
choice is possibly do a bunch of harm by
[5:57:47] adding a bunch of words which maybe we
don't need to add so that we can approve
[5:57:51] it today and not have any public
hearings or have a handful of public
[5:57:55] hearings over the next couple months and
in the interim try to see if we can't
[5:57:59] work it out so that we don't have to
take a chance on saying things we
[5:58:02] shouldn't say. That that would be my
preference.
[5:58:04] » Yeah. Well, I agree with you, Bruce.
Let's let's get these two that you've
[5:58:07] got pinning right now on the agenda for
next next meeting and do an expedited uh
[5:58:13] variance approval, but with the
recommendation of the public works
[5:58:16] director and in this meantime see if we
can't clean this up with FEMA because I
[5:58:24] I don't see the real benefit of
regurgitating all this information when
[5:58:28] all we're really looking for is just a
change of approval form. It's an
[5:58:31] administrative issue. It's not It's not
like we need to recite it. And I'm more
[5:58:35] worried the more I think about this that
FEMA makes a change somewhere in the
[5:58:40] Federal Register. We don't catch it.
It's in our ordinance. And because we
[5:58:44] didn't catch it, now we're out of
compliance. I I'm beginning to be more
[5:58:48] worried about that now than anything
else.
[5:58:51] So why can't we just do a expedited
variance approval? I mean, I got to tell
[5:58:55] you, in in some states when they adopt
laws like these that track federal law,
[5:59:00] they just say you shall follow the
federal law. One sentence, you know, you
[5:59:05] don't need to regurgitate it and risk
saying things wrong. You just adopt it
[5:59:09] as the local law.
>> I I'm I'm with you on that, Bruce. I I
[5:59:12] think we're we're needlessly
entangling ourselves when we don't need
[5:59:17] to. So, I I'll move that we defer
approval of this until we can have a
[5:59:24] further conversation with FEMA about
doing it more simply and in the interim
[5:59:28] bring on the variance requests. Look, I
cannot believe there's going to be a
[5:59:33] public
um upcry outcry when we hear these the
[5:59:38] variance requests. I mean, even the
Malibu Township Council is not going to
[5:59:41] come in here with 15 speakers saying
don't let this person have the variance
[5:59:45] to construct their seaw wall. I I'll be
shocked if anyone says boo. We'll have a
[5:59:50] staff presentation. We'll have the
person whose application is before us
[5:59:53] say please grant us the variance and
we'll vote. I
[5:59:56] » I don't think it's so much an outcry by
the community against these variance
[6:00:02] applications. I think it's the time to
the property owners that are waiting for
[6:00:08] their stamp to commence construction.
So, if we can get this done at the next
[6:00:15] meeting, I wholeheartedly support this.
If it's going to be,
[6:00:20] » you know, we're we're trying to get
permits issued and we can't delay
[6:00:23] getting these permits.
>> Right. That's my point is there's two
[6:00:25] right now. Those two [clears throat] can
be heard in two weeks and we can approve
[6:00:28] them in an hour.
>> That's providing staff can get those
[6:00:31] reports.
>> Hopefully, well, do we have a 30-day I
[6:00:34] mean, this is not an open.
>> Yeah. Can I refer to the city attorney
[6:00:37] to um to see how how they can be done?
The expedited approval.
[6:00:41] » Yeah, this isn't that kind of this isn't
a public hearing like a land use appeal.
[6:00:44] Do we need to follow those kinds of
procedures?
[6:00:47] » We have set procedures for these
variances that have been um that have
[6:00:50] been brought forward before. I believe
it requires a public hearing. Um we'd
[6:00:54] have to go back. We don't hear them very
often, but we have consistently heard
[6:00:58] these on a regular basis for some time,
I believe. Kelsey,
[6:01:03] » if I will jump into I know Yolanda was
telling me there's probably seven at
[6:01:07] least seven to 10 more waiting that'll
soon be coming just so we know like so
[6:01:12] if if we do this we need to make sure uh
it's going to be on the agenda going
[6:01:17] forward for a few months.
>> So what are the noticing requirements
[6:01:20] for this type of a variance?
>> So so we're absolutely certain we just
[6:01:25] can't rubber stamp the public works
director. We have to
[6:01:31] to address
>> we need to have a hearing
[6:01:34] » to address the noticing question. I
don't know the noticing requirements for
[6:01:37] this type of item offhand. I'm looking
at it now for the first time. Um we'll
[6:01:41] have to confirm if there is an
additional notice requirement beyond the
[6:01:44] posting of the agenda and then with that
we do have to at least post the items
[6:01:48] with the agenda. Typically we try
although we often amend we try to post
[6:01:53] them 10 days in advance and we do have a
internal review workflow before that.
[6:01:57] So, it's usually a 19-day process for
most items once the department's ready
[6:02:01] to sign off on it to actually get it
before you.
[6:02:04] » If I may have Kelsey, I have a
suggestion. So, sorry, Council Member
[6:02:07] Stewart. I think uh you know, at the
last meeting, we were planning to bring
[6:02:12] this back for a second reading tonight
and we weren't even going to do the
[6:02:15] ordinance, uh the urgency ordinance. So,
that tells me that there was some time
[6:02:19] in the process to allow a 30-day uh
appeal period to take effect after the
[6:02:27] second reading of the ordinance. Uh, and
is that fair? Uh, city attorney.
[6:02:34] So, if first reading, last meeting,
second meeting was tonight. We did the
[6:02:39] urgency to make it effective tonight,
but we weren't even planning to do the
[6:02:43] urgency,
>> right? But that would have held those
[6:02:47] property owners at least 30 days from
tonight before they would be able to
[6:02:52] have their permit issued to commence
construction. The purpose of the urgency
[6:02:57] was so that we wouldn't have that 30-day
delay or 30-day plus delay.
[6:03:02] » I I I Yeah, that's kind of what I was
trying to For some reason though, we we
[6:03:08] at staff I don't I wasn't here. I don't
know the rationale, but we were just
[6:03:12] bringing a second reading tonight. you
had the suggestion for urgency. It was
[6:03:15] good to streamline, but clearly the
applicant and staff had been talking
[6:03:20] that there was time available. So, I I
think to Kelsey's point, rushing this
[6:03:24] for the next meeting could be a problem.
Probably the earliest if we're going to
[6:03:27] bring back these variances would be the
April 13th meeting.
[6:03:33] » The council also could adopt this
tonight and then come back and change it
[6:03:36] after speaking with FEMA would be an
option, too. It may
[6:03:41] » I don't know if it'll prejudice the
conversation with FEMA, but you would be
[6:03:44] able to make the changes to your code.
>> I have one more. Um, so
[6:03:50] once the variance is approved, is there
a waiting period
[6:03:54] after the city council makes that
approval that the homeowner has to wait?
[6:04:01] » There's an appeal period.
>> And how long is that appeal period?
[6:04:05] » It's a 30 days. 30-day appeal period.
>> Appeal appeal to who?
[6:04:11] » It's it's our uh it's in our municipal
code. It just follows the um
[6:04:17] » the variance requirements for
>> the variance requirements.
[6:04:21] » Well, first of all, Steve's been quiet
and I know he's been waiting to talk.
[6:04:24] So, let's let's get his comments and
then we can continue.
[6:04:26] » Okay.
[clears throat]
[6:04:30] My concern is FEMA's closed down. I have
no idea when it's going to open up
[6:04:34] again. And and we can sit around and say
we're going to talk to them, but there
[6:04:37] just nobody to talk to. All right? And I
think the process of getting these
[6:04:43] variances approved and getting these
homeowners moving forward is the most
[6:04:47] important thing we're supposed to be
doing. Now I I and I'll go back to the
[6:04:51] last comment Trevor made is that if we
approve this, okay, and we get it done.
[6:04:57] So we we can now move forward is what we
have, we can always go back and talk to
[6:05:01] FEMA at some point in time and say,
"Look guys, if there was an easier way,
[6:05:05] would you agree to allow us to make a
change and do it the easier way?" I
[6:05:09] think there's a shot at that. I don't I
don't know what FEMA thinks, okay? But
[6:05:13] it at least I got everything going
forward and I just don't want to see
[6:05:17] this thing get stalled right now because
that is not what we're supposed to be
[6:05:22] doing. I mean our job is at least in my
mind. So I'm I'm inclined to say let's
[6:05:28] approve this thing. If we got an issue,
go back and talk to FEMA, see if we can
[6:05:32] get something done there. If we need
more help, if you need more help, go
[6:05:37] back to FEMA, let us know. I don't know
what I don't know what assistance we
[6:05:41] could provide to make a conversation
with them more meaningful, but I'm
[6:05:45] certainly willing to consider whatever
the hell you might have. But let's get
[6:05:48] this done and move it forward. We We've
been spending an hour and a half on
[6:05:51] this. It's enough. Let's get it done.
>> If I could make a motion, I I think the
[6:05:56] right approach on this is do exactly
what Trevor and Steve has suggested.
[6:06:00] Let's make a motion to approve this
tonight. direct the city staff to go
[6:06:05] back and see if we can get a more
efficient approach. And while we're
[6:06:10] while we're working on the more
efficient approach, we've got this less
[6:06:14] than perfect uh document, but we're
going to get people moving under
[6:06:18] permits. And that's what the whole idea
is. And yeah, we we might have 10 to 15
[6:06:22] that maybe aren't as clean as we'd like,
but at least we got them done. So I'll
[6:06:27] make a motion to approve it
>> with the condition that the staff uh
[6:06:30] explores other options on how to make
this more efficient.
[6:06:35] » So that's staff's recommendation but
directing the uh staff to reach out to
[6:06:39] FEMA to seek to um more narrowly tailor
the process um and the the amendment to
[6:06:46] the ordinance. Is that correct?
>> You said it better than I did. And that
[6:06:50] would be to to uh um adopt urgency
ordinance number 533U, an urgency
[6:06:56] ordinance of the city of Malibu amending
Malibu Municipal Code Chapter 15.20 to
[6:07:00] make technical amendments to the flood
plan management ordinance and finding
[6:07:03] the same exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
[6:07:09] » Anybody like it enough to second it?
>> I second.
[6:07:12] » I have a question. Where in the existing
ordinance does it say that the city
[6:07:17] council has to have a public hearing
pursuant to the traditional land use
[6:07:21] public hearing requirements?
Where where is the public hearing
[6:07:26] requirement
of the city council in our existing
[6:07:29] ordinance?
[6:07:37] I'm not aware of that specified in
there. I do know that we've held these
[6:07:40] before and it's been a public hearing
and that's how it's been processed.
[6:07:43] Okay.
>> I don't know if that's set up in
[6:07:45] resolutions. I don't know if that's how
we process them traditionally um
[6:07:50] according to our other public hearings.
I don't believe it's specified in the
[6:07:53] flood plan ordinance.
>> But is it underneath our regular
[6:07:58] variance requirements under municipal?
>> This is a different type of variance is
[6:08:03] the same principles in effect that a
that a variance under the zoning code or
[6:08:07] under our LCP would involve. um and the
reason that you set it up, but it is a
[6:08:10] different variance. It's not a variance
from those codes. It's a variance from
[6:08:14] the requirements of the flood plane. Um
those codes have specific hearing
[6:08:19] specifications.
>> That's correct.
[6:08:21] » This one doesn't.
If it doesn't, then we don't have
[6:08:26] hearing requirements other than other
it's an agenda item. And if it does, my
[6:08:30] question is then how is passing it to
the um administrator obviating the need
[6:08:37] for them to have a public hearing?
[6:08:42] » What we were doing is we're changing the
code that would that [clears throat]
[6:08:44] would remove any type of requirement for
that.
[6:08:46] » Where do we say that the hearing
requirement is different? Just as just
[6:08:49] as we're saying sending it to a
different person,
[6:08:52] » whatever the law is, it's still going to
be the same law, but a different person
[6:08:55] is going to be making the decision.
[6:09:06] I'm just letting everybody know I'm
going to abstain from this. I'd like to
[6:09:10] go to the bathroom, please. Is that
okay?
[6:09:12] » Well, you can you're free to leave at
any time, but we'll hold off the vote
[6:09:16] for Are you going to Your votes could be
an abstension?
[6:09:18] » Yeah. I have no idea.
[6:09:22] All right.
>> So, so my my question is where do we say
[6:09:25] affirmatively that whatever hearing
requirement that may or may not exist
[6:09:28] isn't going to be required still with
the with the administrator making the
[6:09:32] decision.
>> Bruce, you bring up an excellent point.
[6:09:37] Um,
>> so we may not be accomplishing anything
[6:09:40] except putting a whole bunch of verbiage
into here that's not necessary yet.
[6:09:43] » Well, we may not. We may be doing that,
but I tell you what, let's let's get
[6:09:46] these people moving forward. We've got a
motion and a second.
[6:09:50] » I don't know that it will be moving them
forward. That's my point. If a hearing
[6:09:53] is required of us and it doesn't say a
hearing is not required of the public
[6:09:57] works director, how are we moving people
forward?
[6:09:59] » Well, it's not an appeal. It's a
variance. He's he's
[6:10:02] » No, it's not an appeal here either in
the first instance.
[6:10:06] » This is not an [clears throat] appeal
under the existing law. This is a
[6:10:09] different the word. Forget that it says
the word variance. It could be called
[6:10:12] elephant. It's not the same thing as
under the LCP or the MSC. We're proving
[6:10:16] a the proving a variance, right?
>> But the word variances used in the CFR
[6:10:24] is not the same as the word variance is
used in the LCP or the MMC. Words have
[6:10:29] different meanings in different codes.
They all depend on what you want them to
[6:10:32] mean when you're grafting legislation.
You can call I said you could call it an
[6:10:36] elephant. You could call it a
rhinoceros. It doesn't matter. The fact
[6:10:38] that it uses the word variance doesn't
mean it means the same thing as we're
[6:10:41] accustomed to. Tatiana, when this was
discussed with FEMA, it was understood
[6:10:44] that this would be processed
administratively by the public works
[6:10:48] director. That process was approved from
them to be compliant with the federal
[6:10:52] regulations.
>> Is that correct?
[6:10:54] » You're correct.
>> Where does it say that?
[6:10:59] » That's through the approval of that.
That's how we came up with all this
[6:11:02] language and um to give the authority to
the public works director.
[6:11:07] » All right. Does anybody else have any
comments?
[6:11:12] Let's have a um roll call, please.
>> Yes. And we do need a four-fifths vote
[6:11:17] to adopt an emergency ordinance. Um but
the roll call is council member Stewart.
[6:11:23] » Hold on. Let's wait till council member
Conrad returns because knowing that
[6:11:29] could alter her vote because I'm going
to vote now.
[6:11:49] new piece of information. So, we're
about to have a roll call vote, but this
[6:11:53] requires four affirmative votes. Just so
you know that.
[6:11:57] » Okay, let's have the roll call.
>> Yes. An urgency ordinance requires a
[6:12:01] four-fifths vote of the council. A
regular ordinance can be adopted by a
[6:12:04] simple majority. So, the motion before
you is to adopt ordinance 533
[6:12:10] um and adopt ordinance 533U and direct
staff to contact FEMA um about ways to
[6:12:16] more narrowly tailor the process. So,
the roll call vote is council member
[6:12:20] Stewart.
>> Yes.
[6:12:22] » Council member Rigggins.
>> Yes.
[6:12:25] » Council member Conrad.
>> Are we changing code tonight?
[6:12:30] » This would change the code.
>> To change code, so I'm abstaining.
[6:12:34] » Sorry. It's fine.
Mayor Protoiring.
[6:12:37] » Yes.
>> Mayor Silverstein.
[6:12:40] » No. I move that we defer approval of
this. And
[6:12:44] » just for the record, that motion failed.
>> Yes. Thank you. I move that we defer
[6:12:48] approval of this proposed second reading
for a minimum of two weeks and that need
[6:12:53] well I guess we're not going to be able
to talk to the FEMA
[6:13:02] seeing as how we don't have anything
else on the table I guess we put it up
[6:13:07] for a vote I'll second I'll second
>> I don't want I I don't want this to fail
[6:13:10] and be required to come back for a first
reading again in the event that we're
[6:13:14] required to still do it
>> you can make a motion just for the
[6:13:17] second reading.
>> Can we put the second reading off to a
[6:13:20] time to be determined
[6:13:27] » I'm aware of
>> so people can get their permits going. I
[6:13:29] mean look the we talk about we're going
to help people get going. We're going to
[6:13:34] make them we can make it faster. I guess
I mean how many times have I got people
[6:13:38] yelling at me saying you got too many
rules. You're slowing me down. Let's un
[6:13:41] slow them down. Let's make this thing
work.
[6:13:43] » Well, I'm prepared. I'm prepared to move
at each meeting to approve these
[6:13:48] variances as they come up until we get
this cleared up. And we've got two
[6:13:52] rebuild people sitting right here who
are cheering on. Let's not make these
[6:13:56] changes. So, I I'm not hearing any
outcry.
[6:14:00] » And I was prepared to vote on what it
was when he came in here, which was
[6:14:04] speeding up the process, expediting and
streamlining, but it changed. and it's
[6:14:09] not responsible of me to just kind of
vote on something I don't understand
[6:14:14] fully, but I don't want to delay. So,
>> well, the the vote has failed unless
[6:14:20] somebody I I don't think somebody can
even make the same motion again.
[6:14:23] » So, is there another motion somebody
would like to make or do we just move on
[6:14:25] to the next?
>> You could motion could be you could just
[6:14:28] adopt this. You could move the second
reading. It only needs three votes. If
[6:14:32] you do that, then it comes to effect 30
days from now. So you could take option
[6:14:36] if it's action one would be an option or
you could move to continue the item
[6:14:41] report back.
>> I'll move I move to bring this back in
[6:14:43] 30 days or whatever the closest to 30
days is and that in the interim we bring
[6:14:47] forward expeditiously any variance
request that's currently on the table
[6:14:52] that needs to be approved and hold the
hearing to get the variance approved if
[6:14:56] that's appropriate thing to do. Is there
a second for that?
[6:15:01] And if we get more in the interim, we
bring them back, too. If more if more
[6:15:05] houses show up,
>> yes, until such time as we get this
[6:15:09] ironed out. Hopefully, we can get it
ironed out sooner than later.
[6:15:13] » Mayor Silverstein, in your motion, are
you providing any specific direction to
[6:15:17] staff regarding working with FEMA or is
this solely to continue this item for
[6:15:22] approximately 30 days and begin
scheduling variance hearings? work with
[6:15:26] FEMA as soon as they are capable of
being contacted to get their um input on
[6:15:31] a simple amendment that that moves the
administrative authority to the um
[6:15:35] administrator and not at the city
council level.
[6:15:39] » Trevor, what was the idea you had about
that getting a three-person vote? What
[6:15:42] is that?
>> If you if you just um if you adopt on
[6:15:47] second reading the ordinance that was
introduced on first reading at the last
[6:15:50] at the last meeting, um it will come
into effect 30 days from today. So, if
[6:15:54] we vote to approve the second reading
tonight, we only need three votes to do
[6:15:58] that.
>> That's correct.
[6:15:59] » I'd like to make a motion to take a shot
at that.
[6:16:01] » Second.
[6:16:09] » Okay, we're going to have a roll. I'm
just going to make one comment before we
[6:16:11] have the roll call, which is I I think
this need for speed is acting
[6:16:16] counterproductively right now, and um
people may regret this decision when it
[6:16:21] backfires on them down the line. All
right, roll call.
[6:16:25] » Hold on one second. Let's make sure
we've got the instructions to the staff
[6:16:28] to contact FEMA in that motion.
>> All right.
[6:16:33] » And and and I'll we did the same thing
with the MMC amendments, which could
[6:16:37] have been far more robust in limiting in
making things more narrow, but we we
[6:16:42] sped up the ones that we did and we did
them and then we never came back to
[6:16:45] them. We we moved fast with the coastal
commission when we maybe could have done
[6:16:50] different more things there. We pushed
the governor to do certain limited
[6:16:54] things without having discussion among
ourselves as to whether there were more
[6:16:57] things that we that would be beneficial
to our residents. This is all being done
[6:17:02] ad hoc and um and too fast
notwithstanding the fact that it needs
[6:17:07] to be done quickly. There's a difference
between what what's that saying that
[6:17:11] John Mazes
>> Oh yeah, John Wooden
[6:17:14] » from John Wooden. What is that?
>> Be fast but careful. Something like
[6:17:18] that.
>> Something like that. You'll break some
[6:17:19] shells. But isn't there a rebuild ad hoc
that you guys could be exploring this
[6:17:25] more a little bit? I mean, I was ready
to vote on what it was, but new light,
[6:17:30] new information came to light. So, we
can take the vote and you guys can
[6:17:33] explore it some more. The city will call
FEMA
[6:17:36] » and we'll get these guys permitted.
>> If we're going to have three, if we're
[6:17:39] going to have three votes to amend this
in a minute and it's just going to
[6:17:41] become effective in a couple weeks.
>> Can I say something? And we can always
[6:17:44] have an opportunity if we don't think
it's working. There's problems with it.
[6:17:48] We can go back and change it. I mean,
there's nothing we're doing that is
[6:17:51] written in cement. It is. And I I
understand, Bruce, you'd like to make it
[6:17:56] clean as a whistle out the door. We're
not going to get that done. So, let's
[6:18:00] get something done. Go back. If we have
problems with it, we can address those
[6:18:04] problems. And at the same time, we're
letting people get their houses built.
[6:18:09] By the way, that's coach should also be
the uh perfect is the enemy of the good.
[6:18:14] » Well, and I think that we also need to
remember we have a professional staff.
[6:18:18] They've been working on this. This is
what we pay them to do to be engineers,
[6:18:23] to be the professionals that are working
with the other agencies and things like
[6:18:27] that to bring us forth the information.
And they have been working on this for
[6:18:32] weeks if not months. Um, and this is
supposed to be benefiting our property
[6:18:37] owners to get them rebuilt.
>> Trevor, were you involved in the
[6:18:40] conversations?
>> The drafting of this? No.
[6:18:44] » Yeah. Did What lawyer was involved in
these conversations? Any
[6:18:48] » Rob?
>> Rob is a lawyer, isn't he?
[6:18:52] » Okay. Not a practicing lawyer, but he
but he's but he went to law school.
[6:18:56] Okay. Roll call.
>> Mayor Promirine.
[6:19:02] » Yes. Council member Rigggins,
>> yes.
[6:19:04] » Council member Conrad,
>> Epstein. Council member Stewart,
[6:19:08] » yes.
>> Mayor Silverstein,
[6:19:10] » no.
>> Motion carries.
[6:19:12] » Okay, it's 10:54. Because it's after
10:30, we cannot do new business without
[6:19:17] a four fifths vote. We have an important
but lengthy, I suspect, lengthy item
[6:19:23] left on the agenda, which is the
afteraction report. Who has an appetite
[6:19:28] for moving that forward tonight?
I don't I've seen enough.
[6:19:36] » I have uh an hour short with daylight
savings time.
[6:19:39] » So, it sounds like there's no motion to
move forward. In that case, um we're
[6:19:44] adjourned.
>> All right.