[11:00] Right.

[11:18] The January 12th, 2026 regular meeting

[11:20] of the Maliba City Council is now called

[11:22] to order. Inperson participants, if you

[11:24] would like to speak, please submit your

[11:25] request to speak form to the clerk.

[11:28] Remote participants, if you would like

[11:29] to speak, please join the Zoom webinar

[11:31] meeting printed on the agenda and raise

[11:33] your hand in Zoom when the item you wish

[11:35] to speak on is called. May we please

[11:37] have a roll call.

[11:38] >> Council member Conrad

[11:39] » Council member Conrad

[11:39] >> here.

[11:39] » here.

[11:40] >> Council member Stewart

[11:41] » Council member Stewart

[11:41] >> here.

[11:41] » here.

[11:41] >> Council member Yuring

[11:42] » Council member Yuring

[11:42] >> here.

[11:42] » here.

[11:42] >> Mayor Prom Silverstein,

[11:44] » Mayor Prom Silverstein,

[11:44] >> present.

[11:44] » present.

[11:44] >> Mayor Rigggins

[11:45] » Mayor Rigggins

[11:45] >> here.

[11:45] » here.

[11:45] >> You have a quorum.

[11:46] » You have a quorum.

[11:46] >> Thank you. Uh, let's do the pledge of

[11:48] » Thank you. Uh, let's do the pledge of

[11:48] allegiance, please.

[11:53] [snorts]

[11:55] » Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the

[11:58] flag of the United States of America and

[12:02] to the republic for which it stands, one

[12:04] nation under God, indivisible, with

[12:08] liberty and justice for all.

[12:13] » May we please have an approval uh may we

[12:16] please have a report on the posting of

[12:17] the agenda?

[12:18] >> The agenda for this meeting was properly

[12:20] » The agenda for this meeting was properly

[12:20] posted on December 23rd, 2025.

[12:23] >> May we please have an approval of the

[12:24] » May we please have an approval of the

[12:24] agenda. Staff is requesting item 1 B6 to

[12:27] be continued to a date uncertain.

[12:31] >> 1 B6 is what?

[12:32] » 1 B6 is what?

[12:32] >> 1B6 is the Kimley Horn.

[12:34] » 1B6 is the Kimley Horn.

[12:34] >> Okay. Extension.

[12:35] » Okay. Extension.

[12:35] >> I'll make a motion to approve the

[12:37] » I'll make a motion to approve the

[12:37] agenda.

[12:37] >> I'll second.

[12:38] » I'll second.

[12:38] >> All in favor?

[12:39] » All in favor?

[12:39] >> That was with with 1 B6 continue to

[12:41] » That was with with 1 B6 continue to

[12:41] data.

[12:42] >> 1B6 continue. Yes.

[12:46] » Uh no votes against.

[12:50] Okay. Honda consent.

[12:53] Do we have any speaker slips for the

[12:54] consent?

[12:55] >> No, we only had one speaker slip for 1B6

[12:58] » No, we only had one speaker slip for 1B6

[12:58] which has been continued and will not be

[12:59] heard tonight. And we do not have any

[13:02] raised hands on Zoom for the consent

[13:03] calendar.

[13:04] >> Okay. Uh does any may want to pull

[13:06] » Okay. Uh does any may want to pull

[13:06] anything?

[13:07] >> I'd like to pull uh number five 1B5.

[13:10] » I'd like to pull uh number five 1B5.

[13:10] Just want to get a little more

[13:12] information about where we are on that.

[13:13] >> Okay. Do you want a staff report or do

[13:15] » Okay. Do you want a staff report or do

[13:15] you just have questions?

[13:17] >> Um I've just got some Well, I got

[13:21] » Um I've just got some Well, I got

[13:21] questions. Let's do it that way.

[13:22] >> Okay. I'll I want to pull one B4,

[13:25] » Okay. I'll I want to pull one B4,

[13:26] please.

[13:26] >> Okay. So, one B4, 1 B5.

[13:29] » Okay. So, one B4, 1 B5.

[13:29] >> 1 B10.

[13:30] » 1 B10.

[13:30] >> 1 B10.

[13:31] » 1 B10.

[13:31] >> You want to join in?

[13:32] » You want to join in?

[13:32] >> Yeah, I'm done. [laughter]

[13:34] » Yeah, I'm done. [laughter]

[13:34] >> So, four, five, and 10 are being pulled.

[13:36] » So, four, five, and 10 are being pulled.

[13:36] Can we have an approval of the remainder

[13:39] of the items?

[13:39] >> I'll make a motion to approve the rest

[13:41] » I'll make a motion to approve the rest

[13:41] of the agenda.

[13:44] >> Consent calendar.

[13:45] » Consent calendar.

[13:45] >> And the consent calendar.

[13:47] » And the consent calendar.

[13:47] >> I'll second.

[13:47] » I'll second.

[13:47] >> All in favor? I

[13:49] » All in favor? I

[13:49] >> I

[13:50] » I

[13:50] >> Okay.

[13:51] » Okay.

[13:51] Uh so let's start with 1B4.

[13:56] Uh resolution extending the declaration

[13:59] of the existence of a local emergency

[14:00] regarding conditions on Pacific Coast

[14:02] Highway.

[14:03] >> I just had some questions. I seem to um

[14:05] » I just had some questions. I seem to um

[14:05] I just want to get clarity on this. Um

[14:09] because we vote on this every meeting.

[14:11] Um we vote to approve it. And if PCH is

[14:16] in a state of perpetual emergency

[14:18] declaration, does that give us anything

[14:21] um special privileges or I mean we have

[14:24] things like roundabouts and we have uh

[14:27] improvement projects. Does that have

[14:29] anything

[14:30] that is

[14:33] so having a declared state of emergency

[14:35] does give the city certain um additional

[14:37] powers? It does not impact the

[14:39] development projects that are being

[14:41] considered though. Those are in al

[14:43] related to the state of PCH but um are

[14:45] not required to be done under a state of

[14:47] emergency.

[14:53] Okay. I mean it's pretty like when you

[14:55] read it it's pretty indepth that it's

[14:57] you know we're it's the data statewide

[15:01] integrated traffic

[15:04] how dangerous it is resulting in the

[15:06] death of 23 people. Are we always going

[15:09] to be in this state of emergency? Is

[15:11] there ever going to be like a moment

[15:12] where we feel safe on PCH and we lift

[15:15] it?

[15:17] >> I don't know if that's something it just

[15:19] » I don't know if that's something it just

[15:19] comes back to councils over and over and

[15:21] over again, I guess.

[15:24] >> Uh, council member, this was this was in

[15:27] » Uh, council member, this was this was in

[15:27] re in response to the Palisades fire and

[15:31] relative kind of activity that was

[15:33] around that

[15:34] >> 2023. It was for the deaths of the

[15:36] » 2023. It was for the deaths of the

[15:36] >> Yes, the emergency was declared at the

[15:38] » Yes, the emergency was declared at the

[15:38] direction of the council. Um any state

[15:40] of emergency does have to be reviewed

[15:42] and renewed by the council every 60 days

[15:44] or it is terminated. Um so if the

[15:46] council still thinks there is need for

[15:48] those additional powers, the additional

[15:50] spending that can be authorized in their

[15:52] city manager authority, you would need

[15:53] to continue the state of emergency. If

[15:56] you the council determines that isn't

[15:58] necessary, then we can bring back a

[15:59] termination.

[16:00] >> Got it. My recollection is I actually

[16:02] » Got it. My recollection is I actually

[16:02] brought that to council initially after

[16:05] the um the deaths of the um students and

[16:09] um the I think it's stated in there it's

[16:12] it we're going to be in an emergency

[16:13] until Calrans actually fixes it and

[16:15] we're no longer in an emergency and

[16:17] since we don't have the power to fix it

[16:19] ourselves

[16:20] >> and since the emergency does continue

[16:22] » and since the emergency does continue

[16:22] until it's fixed

[16:23] >> and since unfortunately the law requires

[16:25] » and since unfortunately the law requires

[16:25] us to reaffirm this every third every 60

[16:27] days

[16:28] >> it's going to have to just keep

[16:29] » it's going to have to just keep

[16:29] appearing on our consent calendar. I

[16:32] mean, it would be better if we could

[16:34] just say it shall be there until we

[16:35] declare otherwise,

[16:37] >> but we have to keep declaring it so

[16:39] » but we have to keep declaring it so

[16:39] because they continue to leave the

[16:40] problem. You know, they're making some

[16:42] incremental changes,

[16:44] >> but it's it's still a dangerous place

[16:46] » but it's it's still a dangerous place

[16:46] and it's still an emergency. Yeah, in my

[16:48] view, it is.

[16:49] >> I agree. I vote on it every two weeks.

[16:51] » I agree. I vote on it every two weeks.

[16:52] I'm very um I'm just interested in how

[16:54] that works because like at what point do

[16:56] we feel that it's not dangerous anymore?

[16:58] But I guess that we'll cross that bridge

[17:00] when we cross it. Maybe it's two years

[17:02] without death. I don't know. I

[17:05] >> think we'll know it when we see it.

[17:06] » think we'll know it when we see it.

[17:06] >> Okay. Well, um just wanted to double

[17:10] » Okay. Well, um just wanted to double

[17:10] check on that because we vote on it.

[17:13] That's it. Thank you.

[17:14] >> Would you like to pick a motion or

[17:16] » Would you like to pick a motion or

[17:16] >> I'll move that we approve that one.

[17:18] » I'll move that we approve that one.

[17:18] >> Yeah, I want to continue approving it.

[17:20] » Yeah, I want to continue approving it.

[17:20] So,

[17:20] >> you'll second.

[17:21] » you'll second.

[17:21] >> Second. Okay. All in favor? I I none

[17:24] » Second. Okay. All in favor? I I none

[17:24] opposed. Okay. Okay. 1B5.

[17:28] >> Yeah, I pulled 1B5 primarily because as

[17:31] » Yeah, I pulled 1B5 primarily because as

[17:31] I read this, we got a serious problem on

[17:33] Insul Canyon with this U um storm drain

[17:38] pipe. And I'm just wondering if we're

[17:41] going to not approve the repair, which

[17:42] makes sense. I read the read the report.

[17:44] It looks like it's in a lot worse

[17:46] condition than when you first envisioned

[17:47] it. But are we what kind of risk are we

[17:49] taking? And is it still serviceable now?

[17:52] I I just want to just want to know what

[17:55] we're looking at since it seems to have

[17:56] gone downhill since we put out the

[17:58] original RFP.

[18:01] >> That is an excellent question, council

[18:03] » That is an excellent question, council

[18:03] member. The answer to that is yes, it is

[18:06] still serviceable. We will be going

[18:07] through an expedited redesign. The pipe

[18:10] still does require repair, but we do um

[18:14] believe that it can withstand um

[18:16] upcoming storms, especially after this

[18:18] recent storm that it went through. but

[18:20] it will be um expedited and and

[18:22] hopefully repaired soon.

[18:25] >> I'm assuming that you're not going to be

[18:26] » I'm assuming that you're not going to be

[18:26] able to put a liner in it like you like

[18:28] you proposed. It look from what what I

[18:30] read here, it looks like it's in pretty

[18:31] bad shape. So, you're going to have to

[18:33] dig it out.

[18:35] >> The exact method has not been identified

[18:38] » The exact method has not been identified

[18:38] yet. Um but it will be a lot more

[18:40] extensive than the liner which was

[18:43] originally anticipated.

[18:44] >> Okay. All right. I just want to know if

[18:45] » Okay. All right. I just want to know if

[18:46] we had a safety issue here. It doesn't

[18:47] sound like we do, but if we get on it

[18:49] quickly, we can solve it. That's right.

[18:51] All right.

[18:52] >> Correct.

[18:52] » Correct.

[18:52] >> Uh, I'll make a mo That satisfies me.

[18:54] » Uh, I'll make a mo That satisfies me.

[18:54] I'll make a motion to approve.

[18:56] >> Do we have a second?

[18:57] » Do we have a second?

[18:57] >> I'll second.

[18:58] » I'll second.

[18:58] >> Okay. All in favor?

[18:59] » Okay. All in favor?

[18:59] >> I

[18:59] » I

[18:59] >> I

[19:01] » I

[19:01] none opposed. Uh, 1B10.

[19:04] >> I ask that be pulled.

[19:06] » I ask that be pulled.

[19:06] >> Yes. I guess my question is are we

[19:09] » Yes. I guess my question is are we

[19:09] required to terminate that declaration

[19:12] at this time or can we leave or do we

[19:14] have discretion to leave it in place at

[19:16] least one more um two-month session I

[19:21] guess because I know it's rained a lot

[19:25] but we you know this is the time of year

[19:28] when historically we're in danger so it

[19:30] seems to me that it's a little premature

[19:32] to pull it

[19:34] >> um well according to the criteria period

[19:37] » um well according to the criteria period

[19:37] that were established by this council.

[19:39] Um, we've more than met like cuz there

[19:43] was you know 2 in of rain, we've had

[19:45] more than 12 in of rain. Live fuel

[19:48] moisture should be greater than 80. It's

[19:50] now at 166%.

[19:54] And there are no fire weather watches or

[19:57] red flag warnings in the foreseeable

[19:59] future. So

[20:01] I I think that we have far exceeded the

[20:04] criteria and it's appropriate to um

[20:10] terminate it at this point.

[20:13] >> It doesn't mean and I just want to say

[20:15] » It doesn't mean and I just want to say

[20:15] it doesn't really change what we do. Um

[20:18] our staff is out all the time removing

[20:20] encampments. This just provides us a

[20:24] little, you know, extra tools and

[20:26] justification for moving quickly in

[20:30] areas, but we do this every day. And so

[20:34] it's not like we stop doing it. So I I

[20:38] think we're still protected.

[20:40] >> What would the upside of removing it

[20:41] » What would the upside of removing it

[20:41] then be? Because once it's removed, it's

[20:43] hard to get back and we know that we're

[20:45] just going to go back into dry season,

[20:47] >> right? Well, the whole point of an

[20:48] » right? Well, the whole point of an

[20:48] emergency is that you don't just declare

[20:51] them for any reason, right? So, we put

[20:53] the criteria in there so that we can be

[20:55] consistent. And I mean, it could be in

[20:59] some respects, and Trevor would have to

[21:02] correct me if I'm wrong, but it provides

[21:04] some legal coverage that you're

[21:05] consistent. You have criteria. It's

[21:08] triggered when you meet the criteria,

[21:10] and we we terminate it when we hit the

[21:12] other criteria. So then somebody

[21:14] couldn't accuse us of just having an

[21:17] ongoing emergency and using that to say

[21:21] violate their civil rights or whatever

[21:23] may be.

[21:24] >> That's correct. And if it drops, you'll

[21:26] » That's correct. And if it drops, you'll

[21:26] bring back a new resolution to go reimp

[21:28] implement the the state of emergency.

[21:31] Correct.

[21:32] >> Correct.

[21:33] » Correct.

[21:33] >> Has the fire department been consulted

[21:35] » Has the fire department been consulted

[21:35] about whether this is appropriate at

[21:37] this time?

[21:38] Not specifically because but they would

[21:40] definitely agree and we consulted with

[21:42] them on the criteria but it's it's not

[21:45] within our um

[21:49] um sorry process to get approval from

[21:52] the fire department but we do get the

[21:54] data from the fire department

[21:56] like the live fuel moisture is provided

[21:58] to us by the fire department.

[22:00] >> Right.

[22:04] I I don't support withdrawing this at

[22:05] this time, but we'll see what the vote

[22:07] is, I guess.

[22:09] >> Well, what would um

[22:12] » Well, what would um

[22:12] what would the benefit of not

[22:15] withdrawing it at this time be?

[22:18] >> I think there are some incremental

[22:19] » I think there are some incremental

[22:19] benefits that are set forth in the

[22:21] declaration or else we wouldn't have

[22:22] done it in the first place. So, I would

[22:24] like to see it remain in place at least

[22:26] through the end of February as we've

[22:29] historically done it. I know the

[22:30] criteria have been satisfied or at least

[22:32] I'm hearing that they are, but I'm still

[22:35] I'm still concerned given the time of

[22:37] year and given the history that this is

[22:40] premature.

[22:40] >> Is there any reason why we can't keep it

[22:42] » Is there any reason why we can't keep it

[22:42] on? I mean, it's a problem with PU.

[22:44] >> Well, we've we've met the criteria.

[22:46] » Well, we've we've met the criteria.

[22:46] >> We've met the criteria.

[22:48] » We've met the criteria.

[22:48] >> So, there's okay.

[22:51] » So, there's okay.

[22:51] >> But the criteria to meet it is no longer

[22:53] » But the criteria to meet it is no longer

[22:53] in place,

[22:54] >> right? And I think to for our own like

[22:56] » right? And I think to for our own like

[22:56] as a city our credibility so that when

[22:59] we're declaring this that we're

[23:01] consistent we have criteria and we're

[23:04] not just say using it as a tool to do

[23:08] thing. I mean we use it as a tool but in

[23:10] the situation where there's high fire

[23:13] danger

[23:15] where we're not we're not in fire danger

[23:17] right now. Thank goodness. Yeah.

[23:19] >> And we're not in fire danger because the

[23:21] » And we're not in fire danger because the

[23:21] live fuel moisture is at such a high

[23:24] level.

[23:25] >> Correct.

[23:26] » Correct.

[23:26] >> Um are there other things behind besides

[23:29] » Um are there other things behind besides

[23:29] the uh f the vegetation

[23:34] having moisture in it that

[23:37] um that there are other things that can

[23:40] occur that can still

[23:42] occur that we're mitigating by having

[23:45] this in place?

[23:48] Not sure. [laughter]

[23:49] >> Yeah, I know that was I did not.

[23:51] » Yeah, I know that was I did not.

[23:51] >> I mean, it is possible that the live

[23:52] » I mean, it is possible that the live

[23:52] fuel moisture could go down because

[23:54] we're having these Santa Ana winds, but

[23:56] because the live fuel moisture is so

[23:58] high, it's highly unlikely that it would

[24:03] bring it down enough to create a danger.

[24:06] >> And the long-term um weather forecast is

[24:09] » And the long-term um weather forecast is

[24:09] one that

[24:10] >> correct

[24:10] » correct

[24:10] >> doesn't anticipate having these red flag

[24:13] » doesn't anticipate having these red flag

[24:13] conditions or anything in it. When was

[24:15] the last time we approved this?

[24:17] >> The last

[24:17] » The last

[24:17] >> year. Uh, last year.

[24:20] » year. Uh, last year.

[24:20] >> No, no, no.

[24:22] » No, no, no.

[24:22] >> I'm sorry. When was the the last date

[24:24] » I'm sorry. When was the the last date

[24:24] that this came before this council that

[24:25] we approved this? Was it just one?

[24:28] >> When did we do it originally? Like the

[24:29] » When did we do it originally? Like the

[24:29] last year in September?

[24:31] >> But didn't we do it again at some point

[24:33] » But didn't we do it again at some point

[24:33] in time?

[24:34] >> The most recent extension of this

[24:36] » The most recent extension of this

[24:36] particular state of emergency was

[24:38] November 24th, 2025.

[24:39] >> Okay. And when would that die a natural

[24:41] » Okay. And when would that die a natural

[24:41] death if we didn't affirmatively

[24:43] terminate it?

[24:44] >> I'm looking at that now and it looks

[24:45] » I'm looking at that now and it looks

[24:45] like it would be January 23rd, 2026.

[24:48] >> Okay. So, I I don't see why we we need

[24:50] » Okay. So, I I don't see why we we need

[24:50] to take any action on this. I would just

[24:52] leave it be and if it's really

[24:55] appropriate to terminate it, let it die

[24:57] on its own.

[25:02] » Has anybody said something to you um

[25:05] with regards to this? Did somebody reach

[25:07] out and say Malibu?

[25:09] >> No. Oh, okay.

[25:10] » No. Oh, okay.

[25:10] >> No, no,

[25:12] » No, no,

[25:12] >> I think it's just the fact that the

[25:14] » I think it's just the fact that the

[25:14] conditions were met back in the fall

[25:16] when we approved it and now with all the

[25:18] rain, the conditions have changed.

[25:21] >> Um, just the conditions change so vastly

[25:25] » Um, just the conditions change so vastly

[25:25] and frequently here.

[25:28] >> I don't want to have to go through

[25:30] » I don't want to have to go through

[25:30] probably won't change until midsummer

[25:34] at the at the soonest. Mhm. And this

[25:37] would expire in next January 2020.

[25:40] >> No, just like in a couple weeks.

[25:42] » No, just like in a couple weeks.

[25:42] >> Yeah.

[25:42] » Yeah.

[25:42] >> So, it's expiring anyway if we don't

[25:45] » So, it's expiring anyway if we don't

[25:45] take action.

[25:45] >> If we don't take action.

[25:47] » If we don't take action.

[25:47] >> So, do we have a motion for something?

[25:51] » So, do we have a motion for something?

[25:51] >> I'll make a motion to let it expire

[25:53] » I'll make a motion to let it expire

[25:53] naturally.

[25:54] >> Deny.

[25:55] » Deny.

[25:55] >> I'll second it.

[25:57] » I'll second it.

[25:57] >> What What's the motion, Trevor? So, the

[25:59] » What What's the motion, Trevor? So, the

[25:59] motion is to take no action on this item

[26:02] with the council's understanding that

[26:04] the state of emergency will lapse on

[26:06] January 23rd.

[26:07] >> Yes. To allow it to lapse,

[26:10] » Yes. To allow it to lapse,

[26:10] >> right? Unless we unless we somehow for

[26:12] » right? Unless we unless we somehow for

[26:12] some reason redo it on the 24th.

[26:15] >> We had new circumstances.

[26:17] » We had new circumstances.

[26:17] >> Yeah, exactly.

[26:19] » Yeah, exactly.

[26:19] Okay. All in favor?

[26:21] >> I I Okay.

[26:21] » I I Okay.

[26:22] >> None opposed.

[26:24] » None opposed.

[26:24] >> All right. So, that concludes the

[26:26] » All right. So, that concludes the

[26:26] consent calendar. Do we have any

[26:29] presentations or anything to take us to

[26:32] 6:30?

[26:33] >> We don't have any presentations and we

[26:36] » We don't have any presentations and we

[26:36] don't have any commissioner updates, but

[26:38] we will have a city manager update for

[26:39] you.

[26:39] >> Okay, let's have our city manager

[26:41] » Okay, let's have our city manager

[26:41] update, please.

[26:42] >> Thank you, Mayor Council. And um I'm not

[26:45] » Thank you, Mayor Council. And um I'm not

[26:45] going to be 45 minutes until 6:30. So um

[26:49] but

[26:50] >> well, Sergeant Sodelin's here, so we

[26:51] » well, Sergeant Sodelin's here, so we

[26:51] never know.

[26:52] >> That is true. That's true.

[26:53] » That is true. That's true.

[26:53] [clears throat]

[26:54] No, but happy happy new year and good to

[26:56] see good to see everybody and um just

[26:59] want to say thank you for this

[27:00] opportunity to kind of fill in and help

[27:03] with the transition to have the new sue

[27:05] manager Joe come in. I'm excited to have

[27:08] him come in. Um it's going to be a big

[27:10] benefit to the city and I see a lot of

[27:13] good things that are come out of that.

[27:15] So um a couple things that I want to

[27:18] bring up is that we had over 10 inches

[27:20] of rain dur during this break and we

[27:22] were quite busy. Uh the good thing was

[27:24] that no major issues to report. Uh but I

[27:28] I do want to thank public works, our

[27:31] maintenance department, our staff. Um

[27:34] they were out here working on Christmas

[27:36] Eve, Christmas Day and New Year's Eve or

[27:40] New Year's Eve. Uh um kind of making

[27:43] sure the roads are are clear and

[27:45] monitoring storms and doing a really

[27:47] good job with that. So, just really want

[27:49] to thank them for actually taking time

[27:51] during during the holiday break to do

[27:53] that. Um, but unfortunately, the rains

[27:56] did have um some impact on the skate

[27:59] park. Um, there was a lot of uh water

[28:02] and um it's it's it's causing some

[28:06] issues with the construction. Uh the

[28:08] contractor is working and trying to make

[28:10] sure that all of the the ground is kind

[28:13] of gets dry and so you can get back to

[28:14] working again. And so we're working with

[28:16] them to come up with a date when he can

[28:18] have have that completed. So, um, thank

[28:21] the rain for this this little delay.

[28:25] Um,

[28:27] there's there's several rebuild meetings

[28:29] that they're that occurring this uh next

[28:31] couple of weeks. We have the geotech

[28:33] workshop this Wednesday from 11 to 1.

[28:36] There's design professional workshops on

[28:39] Thursday from 11 to 12:30 and a FEMA

[28:43] fire rebuild workshop on January 21st

[28:46] from 9 to noon.

[28:48] Um, also want to point out on February

[28:51] 4th at 10:00 a.m. there's a ribbon

[28:54] cutting for the PCH signal

[28:56] synchronization project. We're gonna

[28:58] we're gonna

[29:00] kick that project on or finish that

[29:02] project off and have a nice little

[29:04] ceremony on kind of that completing that

[29:06] project. Um, but I also want to point

[29:08] out and congratulate public works. Um,

[29:11] and I'm a little biased because I'm up

[29:13] here. I can I can do that, right? I can

[29:15] but um congratulate public works on

[29:18] receiving the project of the year award

[29:20] for um for the PC signal sync project.

[29:25] So they applied for a transportation

[29:28] project and from APWA Ventura County

[29:31] chapter and got that. So that's a big

[29:33] accomplishment. Um after that uh they'll

[29:36] be applying for the national um project

[29:40] of the year at APWA conference which is

[29:42] in uh Houston.

[29:44] >> The signal sign

[29:46] » The signal sign

[29:46] is that project now working. It's

[29:49] there's there's a few things that we're

[29:51] trying to get get fixed. As you as you

[29:54] remember, we had that accident at the

[29:55] corner of Civic Center and PCH or I mean

[29:58] web away and PCH that knocked out that

[30:01] that signal controller that needs to be

[30:03] replaced and once that is then it'll be

[30:05] fully fully function. Right now it's

[30:06] it's partially functional. It's kind of

[30:08] working but once that's done once that's

[30:10] replaced then it'll be fully functional.

[30:11] Okay, cool.

[30:11] >> Yeah.

[30:13] » Yeah.

[30:13] Um

[30:15] then uh uh yeah, lastly um Monday,

[30:19] January 19th, city will be closed for

[30:22] Martin Luther King Day. And uh now I'm

[30:26] going to hand it over to Director Bundy

[30:27] so she can give an update on fire bills.

[30:32] >> Ask a couple clarifying questions first.

[30:34] » Ask a couple clarifying questions first.

[30:34] >> Go ahead.

[30:35] » Go ahead.

[30:35] >> Um the FEMA workshop, I believe that's

[30:37] » Um the FEMA workshop, I believe that's

[30:38] virtual, not in person.

[30:41] >> Yes, that is correct. the female wor uh

[30:43] » Yes, that is correct. the female wor uh

[30:43] will be uh virtual.

[30:44] >> Okay. So, um all the coastal properties

[30:49] » Okay. So, um all the coastal properties

[30:49] that are out there in the world and any

[30:51] uh people who are associated with

[30:52] coastal properties, make sure you tune

[30:54] into that. I think it's going to be

[30:55] really important. Thank you.

[30:58] >> Thank you. Good evening, council. Happy

[31:00] » Thank you. Good evening, council. Happy

[31:00] new year. Um giving you a brief update

[31:04] on our fire rebuilds. Uh to date we have

[31:07] received uh 209 planning applications

[31:11] submitted 147 of them have received an

[31:14] approval. We are currently h working

[31:17] with 43 families on their uh building

[31:19] plan check and we have issued 22 permits

[31:23] which are under construction. We have

[31:26] also issued 491 total permits on the

[31:29] affected area. is constitute repairs,

[31:33] removals, new structures. Uh and that is

[31:36] the numbers that we have. Wanted to

[31:39] share very briefly with the council and

[31:41] with the community um what is uh going

[31:44] on on beach properties that are uh

[31:47] gotten approval back in um the beginning

[31:51] of um August. Uh was currently our

[31:55] pouring foundation systems. the seaw

[31:57] walls has been uh on place [snorts]

[32:00] and then um a big rock we have a

[32:04] property that is already framing. So um

[32:07] just wanted to share that with the um

[32:10] council and with the community and also

[32:12] just a brief brief update. Um um we

[32:16] continue working on a streamlining our

[32:19] processes. Uh the next one uh to qualify

[32:22] for the streamline is the commercial

[32:24] tenant improvement projects. Uh this

[32:26] will signifies that um the eligible

[32:29] tenants uh uh projects can be reviewed

[32:33] and over-the-counter with planning and

[32:35] building safety staff. Um the

[32:38] eligibility for this will be an interior

[32:40] alteration only for offices and small

[32:43] retails under 3,000. And so that is

[32:46] currently uh something that we already

[32:48] are doing. Um and that concludes my

[32:51] presentation.

[32:53] >> Thank you so much.

[32:54] » Thank you so much.

[32:54] >> Quick clarifying question. Thank you so

[32:55] » Quick clarifying question. Thank you so

[32:56] much. I'm excited about the Streamland

[32:57] uh commercial tenant improvements. I

[33:00] didn't hear restaurants or cafes. Are

[33:03] they included?

[33:04] >> I heard boutiques and offices.

[33:07] » I heard boutiques and offices.

[33:07] >> Yeah, this uh does not include um a mop

[33:10] » Yeah, this uh does not include um a mop

[33:10] sink,

[33:11] >> restaurants. Well, and that's what we

[33:13] » restaurants. Well, and that's what we

[33:13] kept it very for very small small

[33:15] interior scope of work. Uh yeah, that's

[33:18] something that we can do over the

[33:20] counter. uh if it's a minor alteration

[33:23] in any um B occupancy and M occupancy

[33:27] some restaurants that have less than 50

[33:30] uh occupants are considered B occupancy.

[33:33] So that will also encapsulate uh any

[33:35] restaurants that OKAF that falls under

[33:39] that description.

[33:40] >> Okay. What does B stand for?

[33:42] » Okay. What does B stand for?

[33:42] >> F offices. It's under the building code

[33:45] » F offices. It's under the building code

[33:45] is defined as uh offices and a small uh

[33:49] small businesses. Okay.

[33:51] >> One of the exemptions is that if they

[33:53] » One of the exemptions is that if they

[33:53] had less than 50 occupancies for a

[33:55] restaurant, it can be classified as a B

[33:58] occupancy.

[33:59] >> That's great. I mean, cuz small. So,

[34:02] » That's great. I mean, cuz small. So,

[34:02] let's say somebody needs a sign. This is

[34:04] over the counter.

[34:05] >> Yes.

[34:06] » Yes.

[34:06] >> Oh, great.

[34:07] » Oh, great.

[34:07] >> Yes.

[34:07] » Yes.

[34:07] >> Mop sink type of

[34:08] » Mop sink type of

[34:08] >> Yes. And also um they can also we have a

[34:13] » Yes. And also um they can also we have a

[34:13] uh in our design portal they can submit

[34:17] it electronically also to set up the

[34:19] appointment if they want to do it

[34:20] virtually we can do it virtually or in

[34:23] person.

[34:24] >> Great. Thank you.

[34:26] » Great. Thank you.

[34:26] >> I think the most important thing for no

[34:28] » I think the most important thing for no

[34:28] matter what it is that you're doing have

[34:29] a basic site plan showing um where

[34:33] everything's going to be located and

[34:34] where entrance and exits are. that helps

[34:38] um facilitate approvals because those

[34:40] are the a lot of the um

[34:43] >> interior

[34:45] » interior

[34:45] uh circulation plan is a lot of what the

[34:48] the code is looking for. I'm not

[34:50] >> that is correct. Mayor uh are the means

[34:52] » that is correct. Mayor uh are the means

[34:52] of erases something that uh even when we

[34:55] have an existing uh uh property we are

[34:59] going to be asking on the means of

[35:01] safety remains as required per the fire

[35:05] code and the building and safety code.

[35:09] >> Yeah. Um Yolanda, we we keep hearing in

[35:12] » Yeah. Um Yolanda, we we keep hearing in

[35:12] the um press that the city of Los

[35:14] Angeles has 1,200

[35:17] building permits for homes for

[35:19] structures destroyed in the fire. Um

[35:22] which sounds incredible to me whenever I

[35:24] hear it. And I know you've said that

[35:25] there's some issue of transparency.

[35:27] Could could you talk about that a little

[35:29] bit?

[35:30] >> Yes. Um our understanding is that total

[35:33] » Yes. Um our understanding is that total

[35:33] amount of permits is uh the effect the

[35:36] permits issue on the affected area. We

[35:39] do have the same number um the same um

[35:42] line that we are capturing our numbers

[35:45] for us. It's 491 total uh permits,

[35:48] building permits have been issued on

[35:49] that affected burn area which constitute

[35:53] um damages, repairs, new single family

[35:57] residents that we have issued. So

[35:59] everybody is encapsulating all of the

[36:01] total permits in one number.

[36:04] >> Right. And I'm familiar with the fact

[36:05] » Right. And I'm familiar with the fact

[36:05] that we we disclose both. We we state

[36:07] how many permits have been issued for

[36:09] everything and anything that needs to be

[36:10] done after the fire as well as we are

[36:12] very straightforward about the fact that

[36:14] there are only what's the number for

[36:17] actual permits to build a a house that

[36:19] was burned to the ground?

[36:20] >> That is correct. Uh for us it was

[36:22] » That is correct. Uh for us it was

[36:22] >> 22

[36:23] » 22

[36:23] >> transparency. Yeah, we have 22.

[36:25] » transparency. Yeah, we have 22.

[36:25] >> Okay. Do we have any idea what the city

[36:27] » Okay. Do we have any idea what the city

[36:27] of Los Angeles has issued in terms of

[36:28] that comparable permit that we're

[36:31] talking about?

[36:32] >> I have been I have been asking their

[36:33] » I have been I have been asking their

[36:34] building official. They haven't given me

[36:35] that number. I do not have it. I uh

[36:38] certainly can share with you that the

[36:40] incorporated county area has only issued

[36:43] nine permits.

[36:44] >> Right. And I and I I think that what's

[36:45] » Right. And I and I I think that what's

[36:45] happening is this we the city of Malibu

[36:48] and the unincorporated area are being um

[36:51] disserved by the city of Los Angeles's

[36:54] fabrication of what it's doing. Um, I

[36:56] would actually like the city council to

[36:58] authorize us to by any means necessary,

[37:02] including an Freedom Information Act

[37:03] request or a California Information Act

[37:05] request to find out from the city of Los

[37:06] Angeles what they truly are doing

[37:08] because they're hurting the um the

[37:11] morale of the residents who are working

[37:14] very hard and our staff are working very

[37:16] hard to get people building permits to

[37:19] build their homes by lying basically

[37:21] that they have 1,200 homes being

[37:23] reconstructed, which is just it's just

[37:25] completely untrue.

[37:26] So could could we do what we need to do

[37:30] to find out in including take legal

[37:32] action if necessary to find out exactly

[37:34] what the city of Los Angeles really has

[37:36] issued for people to build a house back.

[37:40] >> We certainly can initiate that if that's

[37:42] » We certainly can initiate that if that's

[37:42] the direction of council.

[37:44] >> I don't know that we can do a formal

[37:46] » I don't know that we can do a formal

[37:46] resolution, but I think a sense of the

[37:48] council is probably there. I I certainly

[37:50] support it and I think you're very much

[37:52] on target. They've got what 10 times the

[37:55] number of uh burns burns in the palisade

[37:58] that we do and we don't know how many uh

[38:01] rebuilds they have. So we'd like to know

[38:03] how we're doing.

[38:05] >> We don't have an item on the agenda to

[38:06] » We don't have an item on the agenda to

[38:06] give a direction on that, but if there

[38:08] is uh interest from the council, I'm

[38:10] sure staff can go out and bring

[38:12] information back to the the city council

[38:14] on an item if necessary to authorize.

[38:16] >> Well, it sounds like Yolanda has been

[38:19] » Well, it sounds like Yolanda has been

[38:19] working behind the scenes trying to get

[38:21] that information. and it hasn't been

[38:23] able to. So I think what mayor promstein

[38:26] is suggesting is that we

[38:28] >> ratchet it up to a formal request and so

[38:31] » ratchet it up to a formal request and so

[38:31] is that something that we can just

[38:33] direct staff that we would like them to

[38:35] put in a

[38:36] >> I I what I'd ask for is consensus. could

[38:38] » I I what I'd ask for is consensus. could

[38:38] we bring this back as an item for next

[38:40] meeting where we can give direction,

[38:43] take a vote and give direction if we all

[38:44] agree to actually do a um California

[38:47] information request if necessary of all

[38:49] the building permits and we can then go

[38:51] through the building permits and find

[38:53] out exactly what they're for so that the

[38:55] public will have a truthful

[38:56] understanding of what's going on.

[38:58] >> Well, I'm in favor of of doing what you

[39:00] » Well, I'm in favor of of doing what you

[39:00] just said, but I think we can probably

[39:01] do the uh public records request even

[39:04] beforehand. I'm assuming that you

[39:07] Everybody just help us get this

[39:09] information. Yeah,

[39:09] >> she's probably trying to do the

[39:10] » she's probably trying to do the

[39:10] [clears throat] same thing.

[39:11] >> Well, you just need to get her from

[39:12] » Well, you just need to get her from

[39:12] they're in the same boat we have. I've

[39:14] spoke with them.

[39:15] >> Yeah. Okay. I

[39:17] » Yeah. Okay. I

[39:17] >> The problem is, you know, look, I I'm

[39:19] » The problem is, you know, look, I I'm

[39:19] I'm never one to be worried about

[39:21] rocking the boat. I understand a lot of

[39:22] politicians don't want to rock the boat

[39:24] and accuse the city of Los Angeles of

[39:26] lying or put them to the trouble of

[39:28] telling the truth, but I don't care

[39:29] about that. I want I want to know what's

[39:31] going on.

[39:31] >> It should be a fairly easy number to

[39:33] » It should be a fairly easy number to

[39:33] attain given Yeah.

[39:35] >> They just won't tell [clears throat] it.

[39:36] » They just won't tell [clears throat] it.

[39:36] So if we have to, we might have to do a

[39:38] uh a legal request. But so that's why if

[39:41] if you if you're unable to learn the

[39:44] answer informally by the time of our

[39:46] next meeting, I'd like to be it on our

[39:47] agenda to take whatever legal action we

[39:49] need to take to find out formally.

[39:51] >> I think you have a report on um the

[39:54] » I think you have a report on um the

[39:54] information we're able to bring and then

[39:56] uh the ability for the council to take

[39:57] further action or give direction to

[39:59] staff.

[39:59] >> Yeah.

[40:00] » Yeah.

[40:00] >> Okay. All right.

[40:02] » Okay. All right.

[40:02] >> Thank you. Um, and you know, I want to

[40:04] » Thank you. Um, and you know, I want to

[40:04] commend you and the staff for everything

[40:05] you are doing and trying to do to

[40:08] increase the numbers in Malibu. Um, I

[40:11] just think, you know, people need to

[40:12] understand it took until about twothirds

[40:16] of the way into the last year before

[40:18] Yolanda was empowered basically to start

[40:20] taking control because we still had the

[40:22] two separate departments and we were

[40:25] lacking um, stewardship at the uh, top.

[40:29] And um I I'm impressed by the way things

[40:31] have been moving since Yolanda has been

[40:33] given that charge and including with the

[40:35] um streamlining of things that are

[40:37] completely outside the rebuild process

[40:38] and which keeps coming back to us month

[40:40] after month with new things. It's great.

[40:42] Thank you.

[40:43] >> Thank you.

[40:44] » Thank you.

[40:44] >> I Anybody Oh, Doug.

[40:47] » I Anybody Oh, Doug.

[40:47] >> Yeah, Doug has

[40:48] » Yeah, Doug has

[40:48] >> Yeah. Um, Yolanda, if you could put your

[40:51] » Yeah. Um, Yolanda, if you could put your

[40:51] chart back up there, I'd like for you to

[40:53] kind of give us a a narrative of what

[40:56] you see as being the the barriers or the

[41:00] stumbling blocks for people to move

[41:02] forward. I mean, I we've got roughly 700

[41:06] homes that are destroyed, right? Roughly

[41:08] that number because I keep seeing that

[41:10] number going all over the place. I've

[41:11] seen low 600s to up to 700, but we've

[41:14] got a oh 200 or so planning review and

[41:18] then we've got 43 and 22. What's what's

[41:21] holding people back in each one of those

[41:24] categories? The planning review and then

[41:26] building plan check. What's keeping them

[41:27] from getting their plan checks? I mean,

[41:29] I'm hearing everything from insurance to

[41:32] um desire. I mean, what's what's your

[41:34] sense of what's going on?

[41:38] >> Thank you for this question.

[41:40] » Thank you for this question.

[41:40] Um it's really hard to pinpoint exactly

[41:43] what's going on, but what I'm hearing a

[41:45] lot from the homeowners is um insurance,

[41:49] right? um insurance and also the number

[41:51] of requirements that the city has. Um,

[41:55] meaning we are we are per the California

[41:59] for the state of California to require a

[42:03] set of plans that that has all the

[42:05] structural calculations, all the title

[42:07] 24, all the green building code

[42:09] requirements or your civil plans or your

[42:12] technical plans, your seaw walls, your

[42:14] on-site wed treatment systems, your um

[42:18] FEMA regulations uh to make sure that

[42:20] also in some instances we have our our

[42:24] coastal reports. So, it's a layer after

[42:28] layer of estate requirements that the

[42:31] homeowners need to put together in order

[42:34] to come in through building and safety.

[42:36] So, acknowledging the number of

[42:39] requirements that were not able to be

[42:42] flexed because these are building and

[42:44] safety requirements that is one of the

[42:47] biggest thing. Uh also being a regional

[42:50] disaster, the number of design

[42:53] professionals that are working with the

[42:56] different the different jurisdictions

[42:58] and the different owners um is limited

[43:02] and sometimes we need to wait for them

[43:05] to respond or for them to complete the

[43:07] information that is required. Uh so I

[43:10] think one of them is is is that right

[43:13] and then the financial portion of it

[43:15] >> and that's in the 4322 4322 on the

[43:19] » and that's in the 4322 4322 on the

[43:19] building in safety.

[43:20] >> Is there since we're on that that

[43:22] » Is there since we're on that that

[43:22] segment, is there anything that you

[43:26] would like to see change that we could

[43:27] do? I I realize the legal side it's got

[43:29] to be the way it is, but is there

[43:32] anything we can be doing?

[43:33] >> Yes. Uh continue meeting one- on-one

[43:36] » Yes. Uh continue meeting one- on-one

[43:36] with the design professionals. That is

[43:39] helping out. Uh, like I mentioned, I've

[43:42] been coming in every Friday to meet with

[43:45] the homeowners or the design

[43:47] professionals, and we're working with

[43:49] right now with five families to get them

[43:51] approvals. Uh, during the holidays, we

[43:55] had a few coming in and meet with us,

[43:58] >> but I felt that a lot of our design

[44:01] » but I felt that a lot of our design

[44:01] professionals also took uh time off. Uh,

[44:04] so I think we are regaining that

[44:07] momentum again.

[44:09] uh also to add through all of this the

[44:12] storms even if we issue two more permits

[44:15] because of the storms they they will not

[44:17] be able to start right so um that is

[44:20] what can we do more I think is the

[44:23] one-on-one with the design professionals

[44:25] and the families uh to get them through

[44:28] a point where the plans are completed

[44:30] and give them an a a permit that is the

[44:33] number one thing that we need to do more

[44:35] and what I want to see more is having

[44:37] those 43 get a permit. Uh so what are

[44:40] we're working right now this week is uh

[44:43] staff is going through all of those uh

[44:46] properties 43 that we that that we are

[44:49] under review and highlighting the ones

[44:52] that we have seen twice so we can set up

[44:54] meetings with those families and those

[44:57] design professionals to move those

[44:59] projects ahead. Uh sometimes people are

[45:02] think of a project has many things that

[45:05] they need to work on. Uh we are um we're

[45:09] meeting okay let's meet with your

[45:10] architect let's get all those items for

[45:12] the architect done okay it's done let's

[45:14] meet with your civil let's meet let's

[45:16] take all of that done okay that is done

[45:18] so we're taking portion by portion so we

[45:21] can move things along um in order to

[45:24] help expedite it

[45:26] as far as theund uh 209 that are under

[45:30] planning submittals

[45:32] uh we still have those almost 300 homes

[45:35] that need to come

[45:37] for uh for uh the planning department to

[45:40] start reviewing it and we have not seen

[45:43] that. Um we're going to continue doing

[45:46] the um like our interim uh city manager

[45:49] Duba mentioned the uh community meetings

[45:53] because those are very critical uh

[45:55] communication and our website and also

[45:58] for us to continue working with the

[46:00] design professionals. One thing that is

[46:02] happening on Wednesday, uh the

[46:04] geotechnical guidelines uh for fire

[46:07] rebuilds are uh they're we're going to

[46:09] have pro uh uh amendments to it to make

[46:12] it uh more clear and simple. So those

[46:15] are being uh presented on Wednesday. On

[46:18] Thursday, we're having another meeting

[46:20] with the design professionals to share

[46:22] that information and also to ask how can

[46:25] we help you move your project moving

[46:27] forward. Um

[46:30] there's a lot to do. I we uh there's a

[46:34] lot a lot to do.

[46:36] >> I know uh in our discussions of quick

[46:38] » I know uh in our discussions of quick

[46:38] conversations I know for you it's that

[46:40] one agenda at a time. Each house each

[46:42] family is one agenda. So and I echo what

[46:45] Bruce said. My gosh, I don't know what

[46:47] we'd be doing without you and I don't

[46:49] know what we'd be doing without your

[46:50] team. And uh I I see them in action. You

[46:53] walk in the door, you see them talking

[46:54] to people. It's a one-on-one

[46:56] conversation. and I'm really proud that

[46:58] you're doing that.

[47:00] >> Thank you. And yeah, it is a whole city

[47:02] » Thank you. And yeah, it is a whole city

[47:02] effort and um we're committed and and I

[47:07] know that there's still a lot of

[47:09] challenges and continue working with the

[47:11] community and every family to feel that

[47:13] we are there for each one of the

[47:15] families. That's the most critical thing

[47:17] for all of us.

[47:18] >> I can't speak for the entire council,

[47:20] » I can't speak for the entire council,

[47:20] but I you know for me, anything you

[47:22] need, anything your team needs, we'll be

[47:24] glad to try and get it for you. Okay.

[47:26] >> Thank you, sir.

[47:28] » Thank you, sir.

[47:28] Can we get the chart back up again?

[47:35] What is going on?

[47:38] Um, okay. So, are those numbers

[47:41] cumulative or they're all separate?

[47:43] You'd have to add them all up to have

[47:45] the total that somebody has filed some

[47:47] kind of an application at this point or

[47:48] is there overlap?

[47:50] >> Uh, for the first line, right, for the

[47:53] » Uh, for the first line, right, for the

[47:53] planning phase,

[47:54] >> Mhm. 62 under planning review. So 62

[47:58] » Mhm. 62 under planning review. So 62

[47:58] homes are going uh through the uh

[48:01] planning entitlement phase which is your

[48:03] are they building like for like do they

[48:05] need a little bit more? Uh so those are

[48:07] the ones uh 147 are separate. So those

[48:12] 147 already obtained the planning

[48:14] approval.

[48:16] >> Okay. So basically you add all of these

[48:18] » Okay. So basically you add all of these

[48:18] up and that's how many have at least

[48:19] started the process

[48:21] >> on the upper portion of it. Yes. So 62

[48:25] » on the upper portion of it. Yes. So 62

[48:25] plus 147, that's the 209 that I was

[48:29] talking to you about.

[48:30] >> Okay.

[48:30] » Okay.

[48:30] >> There's two parts to every rebuild. Your

[48:34] » There's two parts to every rebuild. Your

[48:34] planning phase and your building uh and

[48:36] safety phase, which is your construction

[48:38] plans,

[48:39] >> right? I understand that. But so the 60

[48:41] » right? I understand that. But so the 60

[48:41] um five are part of the 209.

[48:44] >> Yes.

[48:45] » Yes.

[48:45] >> Okay. And

[48:48] » Okay. And

[48:48] look, it's it's it's my understanding

[48:49] and we'll be talking about this later.

[48:50] there. So, my understanding we we've

[48:52] done pretty much what we can legally to

[48:55] um to streamline the planning phase.

[48:59] We've, you know, we we've the governor

[49:01] through through his good grace has

[49:03] adopted the executive orders and then

[49:04] we've amended the municipal code. We've

[49:07] pretty much streamlined as much as we

[49:09] can the planning aspect of it. Um the

[49:12] building aspect of it, I know you're

[49:14] working hard to try to get people

[49:16] through the building part, but it's a

[49:18] state code and we have less flexibility,

[49:20] right? We have no we have next to no

[49:21] flexibility. Um are there more things we

[49:25] have the power to do below the line on

[49:28] the building part of this or are we just

[49:30] constrained by the building code full

[49:32] stop?

[49:33] >> These state regulations are pretty much

[49:35] » These state regulations are pretty much

[49:35] black and white and so there's no

[49:37] flexibility for that. Uh I think one of

[49:40] the things that we need to continue

[49:42] reminding the community is that the

[49:44] governor did ex uh allow every home to

[49:48] be rebuilt under the previous building

[49:52] code. Uh knowing that we are going to

[49:55] have a code change and there's a lot

[49:57] more restrictions on the new code that

[50:00] the governor says okay let's continue

[50:02] building under the 2023 code

[50:04] >> separate from fire.

[50:05] » separate from fire.

[50:05] >> Separate for fire. Yes. So that is one

[50:07] » Separate for fire. Yes. So that is one

[50:07] thing that uh sometimes I feel people

[50:10] still have that question and so uh that

[50:14] is also a benefit um because a lot of

[50:16] design professionals are used to those

[50:19] that code right now right that they have

[50:21] been working with it for three years

[50:23] they know what to expect they know the

[50:25] type of the type of things uh

[50:27] calculations they need to give us uh so

[50:30] that is that is good

[50:32] >> okay next question of the um 65 below

[50:35] » okay next question of the um 65 below

[50:36] the

[50:36] Do we know how many of them are um

[50:38] owners that lost their home versus

[50:40] people who acquired the property?

[50:42] >> All of them are homeowners that Yes.

[50:46] » All of them are homeowners that Yes.

[50:46] Those 22 that you have approval.

[50:49] Absolutely. Those are your homeowners

[50:51] that day one jump in and are really

[50:55] involved on coming in and asking

[50:57] questions. Also those 43.

[50:59] >> Excellent. Okay. Thank you.

[51:01] » Excellent. Okay. Thank you.

[51:01] >> Yes. [snorts]

[51:02] » Yes. [snorts]

[51:02] >> I thank you again for all of this. Um I

[51:05] » I thank you again for all of this. Um I

[51:05] was curious do you guys have like a

[51:07] timeline so

[51:09] for the 43 in building plan check let's

[51:12] say is there a

[51:14] some sort of mechanism in which you're

[51:17] able to track where everything is and

[51:19] then illustrate that so it's like 15

[51:23] days or where a little bit more nuanced

[51:26] I'm looking for

[51:27] >> yeah um the we have a database uh that

[51:31] » yeah um the we have a database uh that

[51:31] it will show the turnaround times

[51:34] >> um I do have to admit that uh through

[51:36] » um I do have to admit that uh through

[51:36] the change of consultants in November

[51:39] and in October uh we did have a big

[51:42] hiccup because we needed to um on board

[51:46] a new geotechnical coastal engineering

[51:50] environmental health uh companies.

[51:53] >> So that took a little bit of hiccup on

[51:55] » So that took a little bit of hiccup on

[51:55] getting everything up up to speed on

[51:58] what we were committed to do the reveals

[52:00] to.

[52:01] >> Yeah. our first review uh we were

[52:03] » Yeah. our first review uh we were

[52:03] committed to do a 10 uh working days and

[52:07] I can honestly tell you in front of uh

[52:09] in this uh that due to those changes in

[52:14] companies we were not able to stay with

[52:17] the 10day turnaround time

[52:19] >> and that's why it was so important for

[52:21] » and that's why it was so important for

[52:21] us to uh meet with the archite

[52:25] architects and the families and start

[52:27] working on the items that have been

[52:30] completed to facilitate a faster

[52:33] turnaround time.

[52:34] >> Great.

[52:35] » Great.

[52:35] >> The second submitts is a five day

[52:37] » The second submitts is a five day

[52:37] turnaround time uh reviews.

[52:40] >> Five day. So second submitted

[52:45] » Five day. So second submitted

[52:45] this review in five days.

[52:46] >> That's amazing.

[52:48] » That's amazing.

[52:48] >> Yeah. And so but also think about it. We

[52:51] » Yeah. And so but also think about it. We

[52:52] we we

[52:53] receive a project, we review it, and

[52:56] then we give it corrections with 10

[52:58] days. Then those corrections go back to

[53:01] the design team. Sometimes this takes

[53:04] two weeks, three weeks, it depends,

[53:06] >> right? The city has a commitment and

[53:08] » right? The city has a commitment and

[53:08] then once it's out of the city's hands,

[53:10] if it goes to the designer, it's out of

[53:12] your hands and it's in [clears throat]

[53:13] their hands and then the owner has to

[53:14] deal with their design team, which could

[53:16] take three months, but at least the city

[53:18] is not being scapegoed for taking too

[53:21] much time is what I'm trying to avoid.

[53:23] >> Yeah. and and we still have a lot of

[53:25] » Yeah. and and we still have a lot of

[53:25] work to do on staying with those 10 days

[53:28] turnaround time. I need to acknowledge

[53:30] that and and with you because it has

[53:33] been difficult to stay with those 10 10

[53:35] turnaround times but that is the efforts

[53:38] to continue uh working on that.

[53:40] >> Great. So there is a goal for that now

[53:42] » Great. So there is a goal for that now

[53:42] that the hiccups have kind of been

[53:43] sorted hopefully you know with the

[53:46] change of consultants a 10day goal is

[53:49] where we're working.

[53:50] >> Yes. Yes.

[53:51] » Yes. Yes.

[53:51] >> That's terrific. And then I have a

[53:53] » That's terrific. And then I have a

[53:53] second question. Um over the holiday

[53:55] unfort you know I got a bunch of emails

[53:57] from um a gentleman about an update with

[54:01] rebuild rights. I really need clarity on

[54:04] I think and I don't even know how to

[54:07] explain this but the original owner

[54:12] go ahead

[54:16] um being the authorized it's Abe Oman.

[54:20] Does anybody know what I'm talking

[54:22] about?

[54:22] >> Yeah, I think the question I think was

[54:24] » Yeah, I think the question I think was

[54:24] um does the right for like forlike

[54:26] rebuilds flow with the property? Is that

[54:29] the question?

[54:30] >> It it's more complex. I have this

[54:32] » It it's more complex. I have this

[54:32] something to talk about during council

[54:34] member comments and actually ask for a

[54:35] consensus for something on that.

[54:37] >> Okay.

[54:37] » Okay.

[54:37] >> Because I I think it's premature to do

[54:39] » Because I I think it's premature to do

[54:39] that at this point in time. We can if

[54:40] you

[54:41] >> Oh, I don't know what the proper time

[54:42] » Oh, I don't know what the proper time

[54:42] is. I just want to make sure I don't

[54:43] forget because I end up forgetting and

[54:45] then I'm like

[54:46] >> you'll be around later

[54:47] » you'll be around later

[54:47] >> the meeting first to talk about it.

[54:48] » the meeting first to talk about it.

[54:48] >> I'll be here.

[54:49] » I'll be here.

[54:49] >> Yeah.

[54:49] » Yeah.

[54:49] >> Okay. Great. We'll wait. I'm cool with

[54:51] » Okay. Great. We'll wait. I'm cool with

[54:51] that

[54:52] >> because I think that's more substantive

[54:53] » because I think that's more substantive

[54:53] than just asking questions at this

[54:55] point.

[54:55] >> Perfect.

[54:58] » Any more questions for Yolanda?

[55:01] >> And just um I just want to clarify. So

[55:04] » And just um I just want to clarify. So

[55:04] that that 10day turnaround is not a

[55:06] guarantee of an approval. That's a 10

[55:07] days to identify things that don't

[55:10] comply with the minimum code standards

[55:12] for the building code.

[55:13] >> That is correct. This is what we call

[55:15] » That is correct. This is what we call

[55:15] the first uh review in which uh usually

[55:18] we issue corrections

[55:20] >> and then on the second round that five

[55:22] » and then on the second round that five

[55:22] days you're hoping that it's you're able

[55:25] to do it so much faster because the

[55:27] design professional has addressed those

[55:30] deficiencies

[55:32] um to meet the minimum code standards

[55:34] and you're you're doing a quality check

[55:36] uh to confirm that.

[55:38] >> Yes, that is correct. Okay, Doug.

[55:40] » Yes, that is correct. Okay, Doug.

[55:40] >> Um yeah, probably more of a

[55:41] » Um yeah, probably more of a

[55:42] clarification. I know early on when we

[55:44] were talking about uh turnaround times

[55:46] and so forth, there was a concern that

[55:49] additional um identified items would

[55:52] would appear every time they came

[55:53] through the cycle. Um I know it's

[55:56] happened to me when I was building my

[55:58] house 25 years ago. How are we handling

[56:01] that? How are we handling that?

[56:02] >> We're trying to handle that with the

[56:04] » We're trying to handle that with the

[56:04] consultants um u having consistency on

[56:09] what they're reviewing. We're also

[56:11] trying to handle it when we when they're

[56:14] resubmitting

[56:15] um when we're meeting in person with

[56:18] that with those design professionals.

[56:20] We're able to capture why do they give

[56:23] you the that correction that shouldn't

[56:24] be a corrections. So those are being

[56:26] addressed as quality control when staff

[56:29] is meeting also with with the homeowners

[56:32] and the design professionals. And also

[56:34] that's why we have set up uh monthly

[56:36] meetings with the design professionals.

[56:38] this started since September uh to start

[56:42] addressing all of those items, right?

[56:44] What is that we need to do better as a

[56:46] city? How can we help them uh get a

[56:49] better understanding or or what is that

[56:52] is being done that we should not be

[56:54] doing? So, that is helping out also with

[56:57] the design professional.

[56:58] >> I guess I I I want to make sure that

[57:00] » I guess I I I want to make sure that

[57:00] we're on the record with this. I'm not

[57:02] trying to hold you to 100%. But we're

[57:04] not identifying new items in these uh

[57:07] cycles of reviews. Is that correct? So

[57:09] you get the first round and unless it's

[57:11] a correction on something that you

[57:13] corrected, we're we're coning it down.

[57:16] >> That is what what it should be.

[57:18] » That is what what it should be.

[57:18] >> Right.

[57:19] » Right.

[57:19] >> Uh sometimes occurs that on the first

[57:21] » Uh sometimes occurs that on the first

[57:22] metal information was not given

[57:24] completely. Let's said um and I have

[57:26] seen this and I'm just can give you an

[57:28] example. a homeowners came in uh they

[57:31] wanted to put a pool uh they but they

[57:34] wanted the pool to be in a separate

[57:35] submetto. So on the first review with

[57:39] the structural calculations for the pool

[57:42] was not submitted. Then through a

[57:44] conversation with the homeowner

[57:46] um we figure out well it's best to have

[57:50] the whole permit moving forward instead

[57:52] of separating it. Uh so they submitted

[57:55] the calculation the structural

[57:57] calculations for the pool and the second

[57:59] sumeto. So those are new corrections

[58:02] because we never got to see it at the

[58:04] beginning.

[58:08] » I have one more set of questions.

[58:10] >> So um I'm still I'm still interested in

[58:14] » So um I'm still I'm still interested in

[58:14] these apples to oranges comparisons that

[58:16] we're getting. So, um, there was also a

[58:18] press release this week by Cal Matters

[58:20] that was, um,

[58:23] it's puff as far as I'm concerned, but

[58:25] it says that more than 2600 residential

[58:28] permits have been issued between the

[58:30] Palisades and Aladena. Um, which is

[58:33] roughly one in every five of nearly

[58:35] 13,000

[58:37] homes lost. That's that's a direct

[58:39] quote. Um, two questions if you know the

[58:42] answer. The first is, are they including

[58:43] Malibu when they say Aladena and

[58:46] Palisades? Are they just are they

[58:47] talking about the fires? Are they

[58:48] talking about the areas Aladena and

[58:50] Palisades?

[58:51] >> I'm not sure what uh source you are

[58:54] » I'm not sure what uh source you are

[58:54] mentioning that. Um usually yes. When

[58:58] they um the press does do a uh um a

[59:03] report on numbers, they try to include

[59:07] Malibu under the Palis incident. Uh but

[59:10] I'm not sure specifically on this.

[59:12] >> Yeah, I'm not sure because it's it's an

[59:13] » Yeah, I'm not sure because it's it's an

[59:13] odd formulation. They don't say eaten

[59:15] and al eaten and palisades fires. They

[59:17] say aladina and palisades. Um, which

[59:20] leads me to another question. They say

[59:22] they they say residential permits. Do we

[59:24] know what that means? Because I could be

[59:27] looking at this and think that well

[59:28] we've issued 147 permits, planning

[59:31] permits. We haven't issued building

[59:33] permits yet. Are do we know what they

[59:36] mean by permit residential permits?

[59:38] Um, not knowing the source is hard for

[59:41] me to tell you, but when somebody says

[59:43] residential permits, it's usually

[59:45] residential building permits. Um, but I

[59:49] again, I don't know the source of what

[59:50] you're looking at.

[59:51] >> Okay.

[59:52] » Okay.

[59:52] >> But that could go to just like we're

[59:54] » But that could go to just like we're

[59:54] reporting that we have issued 491

[59:56] permits that include repairs and other

[1:00:00] things, which is separate from 22 homes.

[1:00:04] So, it kind of it sounds like depends on

[1:00:07] the bucket that you're trying to fill.

[1:00:09] You know, do you want to just say you've

[1:00:11] issued

[1:00:12] >> almost 500 permits, which we have, but

[1:00:15] » almost 500 permits, which we have, but

[1:00:15] that doesn't get to the heart of what

[1:00:16] people really want, which are the

[1:00:18] houses.

[1:00:18] >> Every time I try to figure out what's

[1:00:20] » Every time I try to figure out what's

[1:00:20] going on elsewhere, it's just it's

[1:00:22] opaque.

[1:00:22] >> Yes.

[1:00:26] Anything else, Steve? You have you've

[1:00:28] been quiet.

[1:00:29] >> Yolanda, thank you very much [laughter]

[1:00:30] » Yolanda, thank you very much [laughter]

[1:00:30] for what you've been doing. You're doing

[1:00:31] a heck of a job.

[1:00:32] >> Thank you, sir. Uh the only thing I

[1:00:34] » Thank you, sir. Uh the only thing I

[1:00:34] would just re you know this the process

[1:00:36] of the design professionals taking some

[1:00:39] time before they get back back to you in

[1:00:41] terms of once you give them the the

[1:00:42] material. My experience over the years

[1:00:45] I've been doing this stuff. I mean I get

[1:00:46] a call from a customer or resident who

[1:00:49] says I'm being held up and we chase it

[1:00:51] down. It's their design professional

[1:00:53] who's holding up and are getting stuff

[1:00:54] back to us. So the more you can make

[1:00:56] that visible for the people who are

[1:00:58] building their homes. I think it's

[1:00:59] [laughter] gonna help us because they

[1:01:01] don't know who to blame, right? I mean,

[1:01:04] uh,

[1:01:04] >> and my hope is that we don't blame each

[1:01:06] » and my hope is that we don't blame each

[1:01:06] other. My hope is that we work together

[1:01:09] and that really is critical on my design

[1:01:12] professions and even the contractors

[1:01:14] that we are on that same page. There's

[1:01:16] so much work for us to do ahead. And

[1:01:19] some of the home the architects that got

[1:01:22] an approval, uh, I'm asking them, you

[1:01:25] know, we already have a template. use

[1:01:27] this template for the next permit that

[1:01:29] you're coming in. That way you don't get

[1:01:30] a lot of corrections. But it does we

[1:01:34] cannot do this by ourselves and

[1:01:37] the families really need us. So I

[1:01:41] Yes, it's it's a big task ahead of us.

[1:01:44] >> Okay. All right. We're we're eating up

[1:01:46] » Okay. All right. We're we're eating up

[1:01:46] all that time. Um do you have any more?

[1:01:49] Okay. Um I'm guessing Sergeant Sodelin,

[1:01:53] >> when is the point in the meeting when we

[1:01:55] » when is the point in the meeting when we

[1:01:55] do council consensus to move an agenda

[1:01:57] item forward? Um to request ADA to go in

[1:02:03] the beginning of the

[1:02:04] >> Oh. Um well, we adopted the we can when

[1:02:07] » Oh. Um well, we adopted the we can when

[1:02:08] we finish up this and

[1:02:09] >> perfect.

[1:02:10] » perfect.

[1:02:10] >> Let's get this done. See where we how

[1:02:13] » Let's get this done. See where we how

[1:02:13] close we are to 6:30 and then we can

[1:02:14] talk about reordering an item.

[1:02:17] >> Thanks.

[1:02:19] » Thanks.

[1:02:19] Hi.

[1:02:20] >> Hi.

[1:02:20] » Hi.

[1:02:20] >> What's been going on the last few weeks?

[1:02:23] » What's been going on the last few weeks?

[1:02:23] >> Not a lot, which is good. Just a lot of

[1:02:25] » Not a lot, which is good. Just a lot of

[1:02:25] rain. Happy New Year, city council. We

[1:02:27] are in 2026, which means I have

[1:02:30] December's crime statistics, which will

[1:02:33] give us the uh year end uh total and we

[1:02:37] can compare that to the previous years.

[1:02:39] So in December there was a total of 16

[1:02:46] reported part one crimes and if we

[1:02:49] remember part one crimes are uh

[1:02:52] homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults,

[1:02:54] robbery, burglary, lararseny, grand

[1:02:56] theft auto and arson. So some of the ser

[1:02:58] most serious crimes. So there was only

[1:02:59] 16 reported and that brings the total

[1:03:02] for 2025 to 261

[1:03:06] for the entire year. This compares with

[1:03:08] 440 for the previous year 2024. So

[1:03:12] that's a 40.7%

[1:03:14] decrease. Now you could say that uh the

[1:03:16] Palisades fire had something to do with

[1:03:18] that and that's certainly yes. But the

[1:03:21] 5-year change the 5-year uh change from

[1:03:24] 2020 the average is a 35% decrease. So

[1:03:27] it's in the same ballpark. So uh we are

[1:03:30] certainly moving in the right direction.

[1:03:32] So I'm very happy to see that. Um we

[1:03:35] [clears throat] also have the uh traffic

[1:03:38] uh collision information for the entire

[1:03:40] year and so that follows the same trend.

[1:03:43] So there was year to date uh for 2025

[1:03:47] there was 176 total collisions in the

[1:03:50] city. Um but the year prior there was

[1:03:53] 327 and so that's a 46% decrease which

[1:03:57] is great to see. Um more significantly

[1:04:00] injury collisions dropped 41%. So there

[1:04:03] was 59 for 2025 compared with 100 for

[1:04:06] the year prior. Um

[1:04:10] DUI collisions were also down. There was

[1:04:13] a total of three last year. This

[1:04:15] compares with 11 from the year prior. So

[1:04:19] all in all people are seem to be slowing

[1:04:21] down. Obviously the construction zone

[1:04:23] has something to do with that. But uh it

[1:04:27] shows that slower speeds mean fewer

[1:04:29] collisions and fewer people being

[1:04:30] injured. So

[1:04:32] >> shocking shocking to to think that but

[1:04:34] » shocking shocking to to think that but

[1:04:34] that is the case. So uh moving forward

[1:04:38] for 2026. So the sheriff's department uh

[1:04:41] has a couple different goals. Um the

[1:04:46] first one we're going to keep up with

[1:04:48] PCH safety. Um in terms of fatal

[1:04:52] collisions, there was only one fatal

[1:04:53] collision last year and that was not on

[1:04:55] PCH. That was on Decker Canyon. So,

[1:04:57] there was zero fatal collisions on PCH

[1:05:00] last year, which is what we are hoping

[1:05:03] for every year. So, we're going to keep

[1:05:04] on uh pressing on PCH safety. So, with

[1:05:08] that, speed cameras uh are hopefully

[1:05:11] going to be installed this year. Uh

[1:05:14] there's a roundabout project that the

[1:05:15] city and the Cal Transit Sheriff's

[1:05:18] Department are collaborating on. Um we

[1:05:21] are also planning a to do a GUI

[1:05:23] checkpoint uh in the near future. Uh,

[1:05:26] and we're going to continue with uh

[1:05:28] enforcement on PCH uh our motors and the

[1:05:31] city is um graciously providing extra

[1:05:35] funding for additional traffic

[1:05:37] enforcement. So, we are going to

[1:05:39] continue that and continue uh to enforce

[1:05:42] the traffic laws and keep everybody safe

[1:05:44] on PCH.

[1:05:46] Um, another

[1:05:48] point that we are going to focus on in

[1:05:50] 2026 is public safety during the

[1:05:53] recovery. And by that I mean uh

[1:05:55] homeowners properties. Uh we want people

[1:05:58] to rebuild and be secure in their

[1:06:01] property leaving construction equipment

[1:06:02] which is very very expensive

[1:06:05] construction construction material. Um

[1:06:08] we want that to be secure and we want

[1:06:10] people to not have to worry about

[1:06:13] another tragedy on top of what they

[1:06:15] already went through. Uh with that our

[1:06:18] camera registry we want to push that out

[1:06:20] again because that will be very

[1:06:22] beneficial.

[1:06:23] uh to synchron synchronize with our

[1:06:26] real-time watch center. People can

[1:06:28] integrate their cameras and that way we

[1:06:30] can have real-time access if they so

[1:06:32] choose or we'll be able to do follow-up

[1:06:34] investigation. So, uh our camera

[1:06:37] registry is vital for that. Um

[1:06:42] we're also going to focus on the

[1:06:44] homeless population that Malibu has and

[1:06:47] continue collaborating with our host

[1:06:48] team and our the outreach teams for

[1:06:50] housing for the homeless population. and

[1:06:53] we're going to uh continue enforcement

[1:06:55] of all applicable laws uh as it relates

[1:06:58] to the homeless. So, we are still on a

[1:07:00] downtrend on the homeless population and

[1:07:02] we want that to continue and hopefully

[1:07:06] 2026 will be much better in 2025.

[1:07:09] So, I am available if anyone has

[1:07:11] questions.

[1:07:12] >> Anyone have any questions for the

[1:07:13] » Anyone have any questions for the

[1:07:13] sergeant?

[1:07:15] >> I do.

[1:07:15] » I do.

[1:07:15] >> Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

[1:07:17] » Thank you. Okay, go ahead.

[1:07:17] >> Thank you. Um do you have a substation

[1:07:19] » Thank you. Um do you have a substation

[1:07:19] update?

[1:07:21] So the latest update is the city council

[1:07:25] approved the radio tower which is one of

[1:07:28] the major hurdles to the substation. Uh

[1:07:31] the county can now start the certificate

[1:07:35] of occupancy and accepting ownership of

[1:07:38] that. uh the lead time that I had heard

[1:07:41] from our uh internal services division

[1:07:44] on getting that tower uh installed with

[1:07:47] all the proper equipment is uh 10 to 12

[1:07:50] months lead time. So that's timeline

[1:07:54] we're looking at and hopefully uh this

[1:07:56] time next year we'll have better clarity

[1:07:58] on when we can start moving in.

[1:08:00] >> Thank you. Um, I was also wondering if

[1:08:04] » Thank you. Um, I was also wondering if

[1:08:04] um you had an update on the machete man

[1:08:07] that I think I heard about over the

[1:08:09] weekend.

[1:08:09] >> Machete man.

[1:08:10] » Machete man.

[1:08:10] >> There was a man we with a machete at

[1:08:13] » There was a man we with a machete at

[1:08:13] Ralphs or Malibu Road. You didn't hear

[1:08:16] about that? It was on my citizen app

[1:08:18] that you're there.

[1:08:20] >> So, I've been on bereavement leave so I

[1:08:21] » So, I've been on bereavement leave so I

[1:08:22] don't have Yeah, I don't have the latest

[1:08:24] information,

[1:08:25] >> but

[1:08:26] » but

[1:08:26] >> I will look into that for you.

[1:08:27] » I will look into that for you.

[1:08:28] >> Thank you. Yeah, it seems like that's

[1:08:29] » Thank you. Yeah, it seems like that's

[1:08:29] the weapon of choice that I keep hearing

[1:08:31] about here. I hope he's brush clearing

[1:08:34] with his machete, but um do you also al

[1:08:37] have any like in uh information on

[1:08:39] parking citations around the East

[1:08:41] Winding Way area for the last two weeks?

[1:08:43] I know that the city has their own

[1:08:44] parking. I wasn't sure if the sheriff's

[1:08:47] also have like some data on that.

[1:08:49] >> We do. Um,

[1:08:52] » We do. Um,

[1:08:52] so I don't have specifically for that

[1:08:54] area, but um, parking violations and

[1:08:59] citations in general, uh, we issued

[1:09:02] 44,000

[1:09:04] and change last year.

[1:09:06] >> Mhm.

[1:09:07] » Mhm.

[1:09:07] 44,000

[1:09:08] >> just the deputies or accumulated between

[1:09:11] » just the deputies or accumulated between

[1:09:11] all

[1:09:13] >> that is a good question. I I don't know

[1:09:15] » that is a good question. I I don't know

[1:09:15] if this includes the city

[1:09:17] >> parking enforcement, but the total on

[1:09:19] » parking enforcement, but the total on

[1:09:19] here is 44,439

[1:09:22] >> in the city limits avail.

[1:09:27] » That's a lot. Um

[1:09:29] >> that's why we hired parking enforcement

[1:09:31] » that's why we hired parking enforcement

[1:09:31] to help.

[1:09:31] >> Yeah. Do we get like a report from the

[1:09:33] » Yeah. Do we get like a report from the

[1:09:33] parking enforcement like Dian?

[1:09:35] >> I don't do Do you want Susan to

[1:09:37] » I don't do Do you want Susan to

[1:09:37] >> Oh, maybe I'll ask I'll put it in my

[1:09:39] » Oh, maybe I'll ask I'll put it in my

[1:09:39] council comments. I'll ask you about

[1:09:41] that after. Um, so 44,000 tickets in the

[1:09:46] city of Malibu for 2025.

[1:09:49] >> It seems like a lot, but when you put in

[1:09:50] » It seems like a lot, but when you put in

[1:09:50] perspective, I mean, Malibu sees

[1:09:52] millions of people

[1:09:53] >> totally

[1:09:54] » totally

[1:09:54] >> in the summertime.

[1:09:55] » in the summertime.

[1:09:55] >> Yeah.

[1:09:55] » Yeah.

[1:09:56] >> So, it's a tip of the iceberg of the

[1:09:59] » So, it's a tip of the iceberg of the

[1:09:59] actual amount of vehicles that come

[1:10:00] through the city. So,

[1:10:01] >> right. Um, I was also curious why do we

[1:10:05] » right. Um, I was also curious why do we

[1:10:05] get how many DUI checkpoints a year? Is

[1:10:07] it one, two, four, and then? I believe

[1:10:10] uh through the OTS grant there's two

[1:10:13] that are funded.

[1:10:15] >> Okay.

[1:10:16] » Okay.

[1:10:16] Okay.

[1:10:18] Oh, and you've been doing work with your

[1:10:21] right of entries, your ROE's,

[1:10:24] >> right? Let of agency.

[1:10:26] » right? Let of agency.

[1:10:26] >> Well, yeah, the letter of agency.

[1:10:28] » Well, yeah, the letter of agency.

[1:10:28] Exactly. Correct.

[1:10:28] >> Because I know that if you're trying to

[1:10:30] » Because I know that if you're trying to

[1:10:30] help with crime on people's properties,

[1:10:33] they also have to have that letter. Is

[1:10:35] that correct?

[1:10:36] >> It would be very beneficial. Yes. We we

[1:10:38] » It would be very beneficial. Yes. We we

[1:10:38] saw a massive influx of them submitted

[1:10:41] to us when we originally did the uh

[1:10:44] >> I signed mine.

[1:10:45] » I signed mine.

[1:10:45] >> Yeah, the public outreach on it.

[1:10:47] » Yeah, the public outreach on it.

[1:10:47] >> Okay, that's it. Thank you.

[1:10:49] » Okay, that's it. Thank you.

[1:10:49] >> Mhm.

[1:10:51] » Mhm.

[1:10:51] >> Uh by the way, on those letter of

[1:10:53] » Uh by the way, on those letter of

[1:10:53] agencies, they do expire. Is that

[1:10:54] correct?

[1:10:55] >> So, you got to do it every year.

[1:10:56] » So, you got to do it every year.

[1:10:56] >> I believe they're every two years.

[1:10:58] » I believe they're every two years.

[1:10:58] >> Every two years. Yes. Okay. Just a

[1:10:59] » Every two years. Yes. Okay. Just a

[1:10:59] reminder for that.

[1:11:01] >> You left out what I thought was the most

[1:11:03] » You left out what I thought was the most

[1:11:03] significant thing. your two deputies

[1:11:06] that decide to go swimming on December

[1:11:08] 19th. Uh, Deputy Matkin and Gregorian.

[1:11:12] >> Gregorian, correct?

[1:11:13] » Gregorian, correct?

[1:11:13] >> Two heroes. If there ever was two

[1:11:16] » Two heroes. If there ever was two

[1:11:16] heroes, um, the video of that was

[1:11:19] astounding. I hope there's recognition

[1:11:21] in the future for them.

[1:11:22] >> There will be.

[1:11:23] » There will be.

[1:11:23] >> Can we tell hear the story of what

[1:11:25] » Can we tell hear the story of what

[1:11:25] occurred?

[1:11:26] >> Why don't you tell it?

[1:11:27] » Why don't you tell it?

[1:11:27] >> Sure. So, um, I don't have the exact

[1:11:30] » Sure. So, um, I don't have the exact

[1:11:30] date, but I know it was, uh, several

[1:11:32] weeks ago. Um, paragliders were

[1:11:36] disoriented in the fog and crashed in

[1:11:38] the ocean uh several hundred feet off

[1:11:41] the shore. And the deputies responded

[1:11:43] immediately saw them in peril stuck in

[1:11:47] their their cords from the paragliders

[1:11:50] or from the apparatus. and they without

[1:11:52] hesitation took off all their gear, took

[1:11:54] their boots off and went in in full

[1:11:56] uniform and swam out and cut the

[1:11:59] paracords off from around them. And

[1:12:03] according to the deputies that they were

[1:12:04] uh in shock and they were trying to pull

[1:12:07] the deputies under to try and get out of

[1:12:09] the water and deputies did a great job

[1:12:11] and rescued them and they are real

[1:12:14] heroes.

[1:12:16] So, and uh we told the sheriff about it

[1:12:19] when he was here last week and he was

[1:12:21] very very happy to meet them in in

[1:12:24] person. So, I'm sure there will be some

[1:12:26] recognition coming their way.

[1:12:28] >> One of the guys was here last week.

[1:12:29] » One of the guys was here last week.

[1:12:29] >> He [clears throat] was guy with the big

[1:12:31] » He [clears throat] was guy with the big

[1:12:31] mustache. Y

[1:12:32] >> Oh, that was him.

[1:12:33] » Oh, that was him.

[1:12:33] >> And he's actually one of the special

[1:12:34] » And he's actually one of the special

[1:12:34] assignment deputies for Malibu.

[1:12:36] >> Oh, awesome.

[1:12:37] » Oh, awesome.

[1:12:37] >> And that water was about 60 low 60

[1:12:40] » And that water was about 60 low 60

[1:12:40] degrees temperature

[1:12:42] >> and they were in their duty uniforms.

[1:12:44] » and they were in their duty uniforms.

[1:12:44] >> Yep. Um, as a somebody that took

[1:12:46] » Yep. Um, as a somebody that took

[1:12:46] lifeguard training, I can only imagine

[1:12:48] how those people struggled to try and

[1:12:51] push the deputies down so I could get

[1:12:53] up. It's it's an amazing story and they

[1:12:56] truly are heroes.

[1:12:57] >> So,

[1:12:58] » So,

[1:12:58] >> what area amounted?

[1:13:00] » what area amounted?

[1:13:00] >> I'm not sure actually. I don't

[1:13:02] » I'm not sure actually. I don't

[1:13:02] >> thought it was up by you. I mean by a

[1:13:04] » thought it was up by you. I mean by a

[1:13:04] point June headlin

[1:13:07] I heard

[1:13:08] >> Steve

[1:13:10] » Steve

[1:13:10] >> you're good.

[1:13:10] » you're good.

[1:13:10] >> Anybody else?

[1:13:12] » Anybody else?

[1:13:12] >> Thank you and thank you to all the first

[1:13:14] » Thank you and thank you to all the first

[1:13:14] responders out there. I appreciate all

[1:13:16] the hard work and let's hear to a

[1:13:18] >> happy new year.

[1:13:19] » happy new year.

[1:13:19] >> A good new year.

[1:13:20] » A good new year.

[1:13:20] >> Thank you.

[1:13:22] » Thank you.

[1:13:22] >> Okay.

[1:13:22] » Okay.

[1:13:22] >> Hi. Just wanted to really quickly follow

[1:13:24] » Hi. Just wanted to really quickly follow

[1:13:24] up on Halen's question about the parking

[1:13:26] force. I just want to let you know that

[1:13:28] we are right now planning to bring back

[1:13:31] a a comprehensive report on how the

[1:13:33] whole parking enforcement program has

[1:13:35] gone for the last year and a half

[1:13:37] because we'll be looking at renewing the

[1:13:39] contract. So, I think if you can wait a

[1:13:42] little bit, we'll be ready to give you a

[1:13:43] full report and give you all the details

[1:13:45] you want at that time.

[1:13:47] >> That would be super. Are there like

[1:13:49] » That would be super. Are there like

[1:13:49] specific location specific like

[1:13:50] hotspots? Do you think that'll be

[1:13:52] >> We can have that information. Yes.

[1:13:54] » We can have that information. Yes.

[1:13:54] >> Fantastic. Thank you so much.

[1:14:01] Okay. So, we filled up all the way to

[1:14:03] 6:30.

[1:14:05] Um, before we begin our agenda, does

[1:14:08] anybody want a restroom break?

[1:14:10] >> Okay.

[1:14:11] » Okay.

[1:14:11] >> I would like to ask to move item 8A to

[1:14:14] » I would like to ask to move item 8A to

[1:14:14] the beginning of our meeting.

[1:14:16] >> Uh, so do you want to do public comment

[1:14:17] » Uh, so do you want to do public comment

[1:14:18] first or do you want to do that and then

[1:14:21] come back to 4 A? I think public comment

[1:14:24] but then as far as we go into our

[1:14:26] program for the evening 8A is the

[1:14:29] beginning.

[1:14:29] >> So do 4A and then move 8A before 5A.

[1:14:34] » So do 4A and then move 8A before 5A.

[1:14:34] >> What's 5A

[1:14:35] » What's 5A

[1:14:35] >> there? So we have public comment is item

[1:14:38] » there? So we have public comment is item

[1:14:38] 4 A. We have council member comments is

[1:14:40] item 4B. And then on the agenda, the

[1:14:43] first item for discussion is item 5A,

[1:14:45] the building standards code. So, would

[1:14:47] you like to hear 8A after public

[1:14:50] comment, after council comments, or

[1:14:52] after the building code?

[1:14:55] >> After council comment?

[1:14:56] » After council comment?

[1:14:56] >> After council comments.

[1:14:57] » After council comments.

[1:14:57] >> Okay. So, do 4 A and 4 B, then 8A, then

[1:15:00] » Okay. So, do 4 A and 4 B, then 8A, then

[1:15:00] the remainder of the agenda.

[1:15:01] >> Yeah. Okay. Anybody want to second that?

[1:15:03] » Yeah. Okay. Anybody want to second that?

[1:15:03] >> I'll second that.

[1:15:04] » I'll second that.

[1:15:04] >> All in favor?

[1:15:05] » All in favor?

[1:15:05] >> I I

[1:15:06] » I I

[1:15:06] >> I.

[1:15:07] » I.

[1:15:07] >> Okay. So, 4 A. Um, do we have any raised

[1:15:10] » Okay. So, 4 A. Um, do we have any raised

[1:15:10] hands for general public comment?

[1:15:16] There are four raised hands.

[1:15:18] >> Okay. So, let's give them 30 seconds and

[1:15:21] » Okay. So, let's give them 30 seconds and

[1:15:21] then hold it at um and I have all my 4A

[1:15:24] comments in. So, no more additional 4A

[1:15:27] comments. Ann, you're starting us off.

[1:15:31] Followed by Michelle Shane, followed by

[1:15:34] Mrs. Marissa Coughlin.

[1:15:44] Hello, this is Ann Kamarasque. There's a

[1:15:46] lot of floors in my world.

[1:15:49] 44,000 tickets, 444 estate news. Here we

[1:15:53] are. And so, uh, this is a picture of a

[1:15:58] radio at the Tower of Power of Santa

[1:16:00] Monica. That's a handheld radio putting

[1:16:03] out approximately four to five watts,

[1:16:05] probably four watts. And I was able to

[1:16:09] transmit all the way from Pasar Robless

[1:16:12] down to the Mexican border and to Las

[1:16:15] Vegas with that radio. Both sides of the

[1:16:18] hill. And I did copy uh Mr. Stewart,

[1:16:22] Councilman Stewart. And Halen, you know

[1:16:24] all about it. So I don't understand why

[1:16:28] we don't make this a priority over these

[1:16:30] other well ill thought out projects.

[1:16:34] This one works. and we've been working

[1:16:37] very hard. Uh can I please have a next

[1:16:39] slide?

[1:16:40] This is a license and if you look

[1:16:43] closely it says for the prevention of

[1:16:46] it's for the firewatch for high fire

[1:16:49] danger areas issued by the federal

[1:16:51] communications commission. This license

[1:16:54] is a gift to the city of Malibu, not the

[1:16:58] government of Malibu, a nonprofit within

[1:17:00] Malibu. Next, please.

[1:17:03] This is where you can listen to any

[1:17:06] radio transmission around the globe and

[1:17:09] the universe from Malibu. It's Malibu

[1:17:13] public safety on the scanner. And this

[1:17:16] is available 24/7. So any communication

[1:17:19] you make on this radio can be heard here

[1:17:23] unencrypted in the clear. Next, please.

[1:17:26] This is a list of frequencies used by

[1:17:29] another community 50 miles away from

[1:17:32] here.

[1:17:33] This is their firewatch. They have never

[1:17:35] burned unlike Malibu and the Palisades.

[1:17:39] Why? Because they care.

[1:17:42] So, next, please.

[1:17:45] That's the last one. Oh, back to me,

[1:17:47] please. So, uh me.

[1:17:52] No,

[1:17:55] » we can see you're there.

[1:17:57] >> Hello, Ber. This is a radio. This is it.

[1:18:01] » Hello, Ber. This is a radio. This is it.

[1:18:01] I just communicated this morning on a

[1:18:04] similar radio from my bedroom, which is

[1:18:06] what where do I live anyway? Uh,

[1:18:09] Paradise Cove area, whatever. I don't

[1:18:11] know what it is, but up there, I

[1:18:13] transmitted on my other radio 50 miles

[1:18:16] from here to the community 50 miles from

[1:18:19] here on a handheld radio. So, it's kind

[1:18:23] of why we're advocating to put something

[1:18:24] up on Catalina. And uh, with all due

[1:18:27] respect to the sheriff,

[1:18:29] A handheld radio works just fine at the

[1:18:32] Santa Monica College. To wait a year for

[1:18:34] that is absurd. To have your tower

[1:18:37] installed, you know, I support the

[1:18:39] tower, but not where it's at, and it

[1:18:42] kind of doesn't look too safe to me.

[1:18:44] [snorts] 10 bolts holding it down.

[1:18:47] Perhaps it should be revisited. But

[1:18:49] thank you very much.

[1:18:51] >> Thank you.

[1:18:51] » Thank you.

[1:18:51] >> Appreciate it. I'd like Michelle needs

[1:18:53] » Appreciate it. I'd like Michelle needs

[1:18:53] to be changed.

[1:18:54] >> Followed by Marissa, followed by Brian

[1:18:57] » Followed by Marissa, followed by Brian

[1:18:57] Merrick.

[1:19:05] Happy new year.

[1:19:07] >> Happy new year.

[1:19:08] » Happy new year.

[1:19:08] >> Good evening, city council.

[1:19:11] » Good evening, city council.

[1:19:11] This city council has mandated a state

[1:19:14] of emergency on PCH for over a year.

[1:19:17] Tonight, I want to discuss how we can

[1:19:19] actually end it.

[1:19:22] The solution is straightforward. If you

[1:19:24] speed on PCH, you lose your license. And

[1:19:28] that's how we stop speeding.

[1:19:31] On our PCH, law enforcement has issued

[1:19:34] 5,100

[1:19:35] citations so far in 2025,

[1:19:39] a 59% increase from 2023.

[1:19:43] Across California in 2024,

[1:19:46] 18,000 drivers exceeded 100 miles an

[1:19:50] hour.

[1:19:52] They're choosing their thrills over our

[1:19:55] lives.

[1:19:57] Fines don't deter them only losing their

[1:19:59] license do.

[1:20:01] You're rolling your eyes and say this is

[1:20:04] obvious. Come on, Michelle. We all know

[1:20:08] this. How is this different?

[1:20:11] We now have a blueprint.

[1:20:13] The state's new fast pilot project uses

[1:20:16] administrative action to send high-speed

[1:20:19] tickets straight to the DMV for

[1:20:22] immediate license review. Bypassing the

[1:20:25] courts entirely. That's the key.

[1:20:28] Administrative action.

[1:20:31] No waiting for court dates, no delays,

[1:20:34] swift certain consequences.

[1:20:37] Here's my call.

[1:20:40] Here's my call to action. Let's use our

[1:20:42] influence in Sacramento to expand fast

[1:20:45] for Malibu through administrative

[1:20:48] action. If you go 25 miles per hour over

[1:20:51] the speed limit on PCH or double the

[1:20:54] speed limit, you'll be sub subject to

[1:20:57] immediate DMV review. And if you speed

[1:21:00] on PCH, you lose your license.

[1:21:03] In 1955,

[1:21:05] Connecticut did exactly this with

[1:21:08] outcomes with automatic suspension.

[1:21:12] Speeding dropped 53%

[1:21:15] in one year.

[1:21:18] We have the lobbyists. We have Senator

[1:21:21] Ben Allen. We have the global spotlight.

[1:21:25] Let's stop just renewing an emergency

[1:21:29] and lead the state out of one. If you

[1:21:33] speed on PCH, you lose your license. And

[1:21:37] that's the law we need to fight for.

[1:21:42] >> Thank you, Marissa. Followed by Brian,

[1:21:47] » Thank you, Marissa. Followed by Brian,

[1:21:47] followed by Kevin Keegan.

[1:21:54] » Happy New Year, members of the council.

[1:21:56] Some good news. I'm going to add two

[1:21:58] planning verifications approved today

[1:22:00] for the fire array bills. and I was

[1:22:03] successful in that. Um, something that

[1:22:05] did occur to me after all the years of

[1:22:07] community members here um, fighting for

[1:22:10] the separation of the school district,

[1:22:12] if there's anything that the council

[1:22:14] could consider um,

[1:22:17] implementing and expediting the rebuilds

[1:22:19] only because that funds our school

[1:22:21] district and we're going to have without

[1:22:23] the tax base, we're going to have some

[1:22:25] issues with that and some funding for

[1:22:27] the council as well. Uh I'd like to uh

[1:22:32] one of the issues that I'm dealing with

[1:22:33] with some of the fiber mills. I was

[1:22:35] fortunate I was invited to a meeting

[1:22:37] with about 20 of the homeowners who live

[1:22:39] in the like Oxnard and moved around and

[1:22:42] they do have concerns and they have

[1:22:44] concerns about some of the FEMA

[1:22:46] regulations because they're either going

[1:22:48] to have to have a breakaway garage or an

[1:22:51] elevator to get to their front door.

[1:22:53] Some of these people are in their 80s

[1:22:54] and 90s and they just won't rebuild if

[1:22:58] they have to do that. Uh the Palisades

[1:23:00] fire did not Palisades did not lose any

[1:23:03] houses on the beach. They were all on

[1:23:06] inland. So that's the big difference

[1:23:07] between our process and theirs. Um the u

[1:23:14] oh the yeah the two BBs I told you about

[1:23:16] the sports signs. And this is totally

[1:23:18] off base. There was a sports sign for

[1:23:20] two of our championships and it used to

[1:23:22] be on by the bluff park and when they

[1:23:25] built those homes on the south uh west

[1:23:28] east corner, they took the sign down and

[1:23:31] those of us that put those original the

[1:23:32] original sign up would like to either

[1:23:34] put it so it can be seen on PCH and

[1:23:37] Malibu Canyon either on the park side or

[1:23:39] in the uh easement setback the city

[1:23:42] easement for the utilities there. So

[1:23:44] I'll bring that to the planning

[1:23:45] department such but I just want the

[1:23:47] council to know about that. Um there

[1:23:49] there is a lot of still misinformation

[1:23:52] going around about what to do with the

[1:23:54] fire rebuilds, how to do it, and um I'm

[1:23:58] going to talk to uh Director Bundy about

[1:24:01] some of the things that were shared with

[1:24:02] me in the meeting. And I think it's

[1:24:04] things both she and Tyler Eaton can

[1:24:07] handle, but I wanted to bring that to

[1:24:09] the council's attention. And I'll

[1:24:11] continue when I get more things. Thank

[1:24:12] you.

[1:24:14] >> Okay, Brian, followed by Kevin Keegan,

[1:24:16] » Okay, Brian, followed by Kevin Keegan,

[1:24:16] followed by Darren Graves.

[1:24:23] Hello everybody. Um, appreciate the

[1:24:25] opportunity. I'm going to try and fit in

[1:24:27] three minutes what our experience has

[1:24:29] been so far working through the process

[1:24:31] to get the permit. And we are one of the

[1:24:34] first on the beach to get the permit.

[1:24:35] So, we're kind of like a guinea pig and

[1:24:37] I'm going to tell you what went right

[1:24:38] and what went wrong. So, um, or at least

[1:24:41] perceived. Now, some of these things

[1:24:42] have changed because of what Bun Yolanda

[1:24:46] had said um about the uh changing of the

[1:24:49] guard, but the PV process for the most

[1:24:50] part, it worked really smoothly. Um we

[1:24:53] had a 1930s house with zero plans, zero

[1:24:57] anything. So, we were starting from

[1:24:59] scratch. We literally started on January

[1:25:01] 8th, hired our architect, and moved

[1:25:02] forward. So, um, if things are presented

[1:25:05] in a clear manner in a thorough

[1:25:06] demonstration, they're they're able to

[1:25:08] make their thing, you know, they're able

[1:25:10] to make their determinations as to what

[1:25:12] was there and what what's good for us.

[1:25:13] So, it worked real well. It bogged down

[1:25:15] in coastal engineering with someone

[1:25:17] named Miss Doyle who was very

[1:25:19] problematic. Um, at and we ended up

[1:25:22] being for uh 38 business days in coastal

[1:25:25] plan before we ever got a response from

[1:25:27] any submitt. And this was during PV. So

[1:25:30] um and she to our face told us that she

[1:25:32] would have an answer by the afternoon

[1:25:34] only to go days without answering.

[1:25:35] Finally I sought help from some council

[1:25:37] and Yolanda and it it changed. Um so

[1:25:41] then we move into the R RDP where once

[1:25:43] again it was fairly quick you know as

[1:25:45] long as you have your information

[1:25:46] together and you get it out to them. I

[1:25:48] mean I think we had very few corrections

[1:25:50] but again this time it was environmental

[1:25:52] health and coastal engineering which I

[1:25:54] think is the same person miss Doyle that

[1:25:56] was 30 business days and again had to

[1:25:59] seek help from Yolanda and the council

[1:26:01] to get to get them to respond to us. So

[1:26:04] I don't know which number I am on that

[1:26:06] thing because we don't we have a

[1:26:08] building permit but we don't have a

[1:26:11] permit for the septic or the seaw wall.

[1:26:13] So I don't think we're fully permitted.

[1:26:14] So we're maybe one of those other

[1:26:16] numbers. Um, we do have a bill for the

[1:26:20] septic, a permit bill. So, maybe we're

[1:26:22] done with septic now. Um, but we don't

[1:26:24] know. Um, the seaw wall, the seaw wall

[1:26:26] is crazy because we started out working

[1:26:29] with our neighbor and they were all for

[1:26:31] it and then they sold to the New Zealand

[1:26:32] toy makers. So, we're out of luck and

[1:26:35] we're also an end property where we're

[1:26:37] the last house that burns. So, we

[1:26:38] literally have to build a box. We're

[1:26:40] being told that uh by our coastal um

[1:26:44] design guy it's 8,000 to 10,000 a foot

[1:26:47] for a seaw wall and we got 360 ft

[1:26:50] because we have to build a box. So now

[1:26:52] we're we're sitting and from what I

[1:26:54] understand maybe Rob can answer this but

[1:26:56] we're in where um uh the municipal code

[1:26:59] calls for a variance for a seaw wall

[1:27:03] that's up against PCH and CALR is

[1:27:06] seeking that. So, we're hung up in

[1:27:08] public works and we've been there since

[1:27:09] December 4th when we submitted. Um, we

[1:27:12] resisted these toy guys, but um, you

[1:27:15] know, unfortunately insurance isn't

[1:27:17] going to come close to covering what

[1:27:18] it's going to cost us to rebuild. Lloyds

[1:27:20] of London given us 11,000 for a seaw

[1:27:23] wall, not foot, 11,000. So, um, you

[1:27:27] know, our seaw wall is going to be 3.2

[1:27:29] million. Thank you, Brian.

[1:27:30] >> So, yeah. But, I mean, it kind of fits

[1:27:33] » So, yeah. But, I mean, it kind of fits

[1:27:33] in, but it's definitely going to change

[1:27:34] the demographics.

[1:27:40] Kevin, uh, followed by Darren, followed

[1:27:42] by Scott Jer.

[1:27:44] [clears throat]

[1:27:47] I'm Kevin Keegan. Technology

[1:27:50] advancement, individual rights, and

[1:27:51] public health are important issues for

[1:27:53] the Malibu community that I believe need

[1:27:56] thoughtful attention in 2026. For

[1:27:59] example, a front page headline in the

[1:28:01] Malibu Times on Christmas Day shared,

[1:28:03] quote, "Study finds lasting health

[1:28:06] impacts from Palisades fire." Close

[1:28:08] quote. With a sub headline that

[1:28:09] explained, quote, "New research reveals

[1:28:12] prolonged health u heart, lung, and

[1:28:15] systemic health effects for Malibu

[1:28:17] residents." Close quote. Back on

[1:28:20] November 10th, I pointed out that the

[1:28:21] city missed an opportunity to emphasize

[1:28:23] public health in the city's current

[1:28:25] strategic plan. In the wake of a

[1:28:27] pandemic and in historic wildfires, it

[1:28:30] is a potential mistake to overlook

[1:28:31] public health as that Christmas Day

[1:28:34] headline suggests. Furthermore,

[1:28:37] a shortcoming in the city's strategic

[1:28:39] plan is the lack of a serious technology

[1:28:41] investment or point of view being

[1:28:43] offered by the council. As I've said

[1:28:45] here on December 8th, the future has

[1:28:48] arrived. AI, robots, autonomous

[1:28:50] vehicles, and more are all advancing

[1:28:52] rapidly. With some for foresight and

[1:28:56] initiative, Malibu can preserve its

[1:28:57] rural character and rehabilitate our

[1:28:59] local economy by embracing emerging

[1:29:02] technologies of our future. Just as

[1:29:04] important, by taking action in 2026, the

[1:29:07] city of Malibu can help strengthen its

[1:29:09] cyber defenses and our individual

[1:29:11] rights, such as the right to privacy,

[1:29:13] which I believe is a founding value of

[1:29:15] Malibu's community and culture. A place

[1:29:18] to begin is to have a serious public

[1:29:20] discussion about what is reasonable. For

[1:29:22] example, what is reasonable regarding

[1:29:25] what decision an algorithm gets to make

[1:29:27] versus what decisions our council, city

[1:29:29] staff, businesses, and community members

[1:29:32] get to make? What is reasonable

[1:29:33] regarding collection and protection of a

[1:29:36] citizen's personal data? What is

[1:29:38] reasonable regarding the number of

[1:29:39] cameras recording a city citizen's daily

[1:29:42] whereabouts? Surveillance, tracking,

[1:29:44] monitoring, and profiling are

[1:29:46] infiltrating society and communities

[1:29:48] without serious public debate. To put a

[1:29:51] fine point on it, cameras are

[1:29:53] proliferating at breakneck pace in cars,

[1:29:56] kitchens, front doors, phones, drones,

[1:29:59] and more. More more Moreover, in my

[1:30:01] opinion, AI and surveillance

[1:30:03] capabilities are better and more

[1:30:05] powerful than anyone in this room fully

[1:30:08] understands. Simultaneously, new law

[1:30:11] enforcement techniques like geo fencing

[1:30:14] take advantage of legal gray areas that

[1:30:16] erode individual citizens human rights,

[1:30:19] including our fourth amendment

[1:30:20] protections. We need serious advocates

[1:30:23] who understand what is happening and are

[1:30:25] willing to lead with courage. The future

[1:30:27] has arrived and if we do not do not

[1:30:30] answer those questions ourselves then

[1:30:32] others will answer the questions for us.

[1:30:35] 2026 offers a critical window of

[1:30:37] opportunity in Malibu for debate and

[1:30:39] action. Thank you.

[1:30:42] >> Thank you.

[1:30:43] » Thank you.

[1:30:43] >> Thank [clears throat] you Darren

[1:30:44] » Thank [clears throat] you Darren

[1:30:44] followed by Scott followed by Marilame.

[1:30:56] Uh good evening and happy new year uh

[1:30:59] honorable mayor, city council members,

[1:31:01] interim city manager. Uh

[1:31:02] congratulations.

[1:31:04] Um so I wanted to start off by thanking

[1:31:07] you once again for all the strides you

[1:31:09] made last year um helping the rebuilding

[1:31:11] community. I have a slide that I want to

[1:31:13] share with you and it is in regards to

[1:31:15] what um Brian, I think his name is, was

[1:31:18] talking about. So this is uh from the

[1:31:21] approved planning verification for my

[1:31:23] family's property. It is a drawing that

[1:31:25] describes three things. Uh the upper

[1:31:29] left drawing is the existing septic

[1:31:31] system. The two drawings in the middle

[1:31:33] on the upper line are affordable septic

[1:31:36] replacement systems and the drawing on

[1:31:39] the far right on the upper side is the

[1:31:41] OW or the AOTS and shoreline protective

[1:31:44] device which was recommended by Mrs.

[1:31:47] Doyle of Cotton Shireers starting in

[1:31:49] February of last year. So per the seven

[1:31:52] or the $10,000 linear foot cost uh to

[1:31:56] build that shoreline protective device,

[1:31:58] it would have cost my family upwards of

[1:32:00] $800,000 just for the shoreline

[1:32:03] protective device. So I wanted to extend

[1:32:04] a very big thank you to everybody who

[1:32:07] made the effort to allow us to follow

[1:32:09] the provisions of the lamp and release

[1:32:12] the December 8th memo. Um, this has a

[1:32:14] huge effect on the beachfront homeowners

[1:32:16] who are rebuilding and everybody should

[1:32:19] have the ability if they don't add

[1:32:21] plumbing fixtures to save 800 grand or

[1:32:25] more. This is one of the smallest

[1:32:26] properties, so everybody else would have

[1:32:28] to pay a lot more. Um, so thank you.

[1:32:31] Also, in regards to I guess making

[1:32:35] things easier for the city staff, um I

[1:32:38] would suggest moving back towards the

[1:32:40] electronic plan review uh process

[1:32:44] because such a process would eliminate

[1:32:46] the communication hiccups which are

[1:32:48] still present. I say that because in my

[1:32:50] planning verification which I submitted

[1:32:52] on December 1st, I got one comment from

[1:32:54] Bureau Veritoss. It took them 10 days to

[1:32:58] issue the comment. I addressed it within

[1:33:00] one business day. Then it took them four

[1:33:02] days to have one question about the

[1:33:04] comment. They didn't ask me anything,

[1:33:06] but they emailed darrend

[1:33:08] doiciledesigns.com

[1:33:10] the email, which was a question. Well, I

[1:33:12] don't work there, so I didn't get the

[1:33:14] email until 3 days later and then I

[1:33:17] addressed it and I got an approval the

[1:33:19] next day. Um, so hiccups like that would

[1:33:22] be eliminated by electronic plan review.

[1:33:24] That's why I would suggest moving back

[1:33:25] towards that model if you could. Thank

[1:33:27] you,

[1:33:30] >> Derek. I'm gonna want a clarification on

[1:33:32] » Derek. I'm gonna want a clarification on

[1:33:32] the comment you made. So, just make sure

[1:33:34] we talk. Okay. [laughter]

[1:33:37] >> Uh Scott

[1:33:39] » Uh Scott

[1:33:39] and our final in person is Mel May.

[1:33:52] » Thank you. I was just checking because

[1:33:54] uh really this would come from Sawa but

[1:33:57] uh she's in Dubai. Um and happy new

[1:34:03] year. Congratulations Rob. Um,

[1:34:06] [clears throat]

[1:34:07] so Saul was in contact with our assessor

[1:34:12] LA County Dennis Pring

[1:34:14] who has been trying to revise

[1:34:18] how much these rebuild disasters the

[1:34:22] victims get taxed very much favorable to

[1:34:26] us. He tried to get uh legislation

[1:34:30] that didn't go through. So, he's made an

[1:34:33] executive decision to try to cut how

[1:34:39] much we're going to assess these burned

[1:34:42] out lots. And that's going to be very

[1:34:44] favorable to us as residents, those who

[1:34:49] can't live back in. I mean, there's

[1:34:51] nothing worse. You're paying this huge

[1:34:53] tax on a place that's a disaster that

[1:34:57] you can't live in. And then you start

[1:35:00] adding in all the cost of, oh, I've got

[1:35:04] to pay the mortgage and I've got to pay

[1:35:08] this astronomical tax that doesn't make

[1:35:11] sense anymore. So, you know, that's kind

[1:35:14] of a good note in a very difficult

[1:35:16] situation. and we wanted, you know, the

[1:35:20] city and you guys to know about that.

[1:35:23] Thank you.

[1:35:24] >> Thank you, Merryill.

[1:35:30] » Hello and good evening. Thank you for

[1:35:32] your time. Um, I wanted to bring up a

[1:35:34] few safety things which you probably all

[1:35:36] are aware of because you get my emails,

[1:35:38] but I wanted to publicly come here. The

[1:35:41] situation at Corral Canyon is

[1:35:44] disastrous.

[1:35:46] the center dividers, channelizers. Uh I

[1:35:50] think there's one up about four from the

[1:35:52] end, 15 to 20 down. That is a very bad

[1:35:56] percentage. The last time I was

[1:35:57] successful getting those channelizers

[1:35:59] replaced was about on the 29th when I

[1:36:01] had to appeal suggesting that maybe

[1:36:03] Santa Claus and the elves come and help.

[1:36:06] When I made that email, it was fixed in

[1:36:09] three days. Again, it is the worst

[1:36:11] condition it has ever been at right now.

[1:36:18] Mr. Silverstein, you have a creative

[1:36:20] mind with legal perspective. I don't

[1:36:23] know if there's any way to hold CALR or

[1:36:26] the contractor accountable for a

[1:36:29] horrendous safety condition which exists

[1:36:31] down there right now.

[1:36:34] Maybe there's a penalty. Maybe if they

[1:36:36] don't fix it within a certain amount of

[1:36:37] time, we can take it and do it. But

[1:36:41] everybody that travels through there

[1:36:42] right now, I I I'm amazed that we

[1:36:44] haven't had a head-on collision in a

[1:36:46] fatality. I mean, everybody speeds the

[1:36:48] rough maybe the road is so rough. It

[1:36:50] might be a strategy to have a rough road

[1:36:53] to get people to go slower. I mean,

[1:36:55] there were some holes that were gigantic

[1:36:57] the other day. I had several people

[1:36:59] complain to me about it. Okay, crosswalk

[1:37:01] awareness. So, that's one. Crosswalk

[1:37:03] awareness. I almost got hit twice

[1:37:05] crossing at Zumearez in the crosswalk

[1:37:06] when the light was on. people turning

[1:37:08] out of Zoomerz, not seeing me. I'm

[1:37:11] standing in the crosswalk raising my

[1:37:13] hands. My neighbor got hit three weeks

[1:37:15] before that in the hospital for a while

[1:37:17] now going through rehab. We've made some

[1:37:19] headway with our crosswalks in towns.

[1:37:21] I've also submitted some emails about

[1:37:22] some enhancements for that with

[1:37:24] pictures. The Zuma underpass, when

[1:37:27] that's closed, it makes PCH more

[1:37:30] dangerous. People back up to Paradise

[1:37:33] Cove in the summertime when we can't use

[1:37:34] that underpass. I don't know how many

[1:37:37] geographical acres there are above that

[1:37:39] Zoomer underpass where water comes

[1:37:42] through there. Little sand and debris

[1:37:44] goes onto the concrete and then we can't

[1:37:45] clear it, putting everybody at risk on

[1:37:48] PCH. There is some progress on that, I

[1:37:50] understand, but I think there needs to

[1:37:53] be better um water storage tanks,

[1:37:55] allowing people to use water storage

[1:37:57] tanks so that we have more water

[1:37:58] storage. I know that we were working on

[1:38:00] that. I don't know if the supervisors

[1:38:02] have signed off on it yet. potholes,

[1:38:04] patches, cracks, please. That has to be

[1:38:07] better. Um, I appeal to everybody

[1:38:11] residents that come here or that live

[1:38:13] here, when you see a problem on PCH,

[1:38:15] safety-wise, potholes, traffic hazards,

[1:38:18] reported to public works. I'm sorry,

[1:38:20] public works, but they'll report it to

[1:38:22] CALR.

[1:38:23] You can also report it to CALR.

[1:38:26] um home hardening things. Please do

[1:38:29] brush clearance and incorporate home

[1:38:30] hardening into your so that we don't

[1:38:33] have to rebuild homes in the future.

[1:38:35] >> Thank you.

[1:38:35] » Thank you.

[1:38:35] >> Thank you.

[1:38:37] » Thank you.

[1:38:37] >> Do we still have four raised hands?

[1:38:39] » Do we still have four raised hands?

[1:38:39] >> Yes. First is Nick Corey.

[1:38:43] » Yes. First is Nick Corey.

[1:38:43] >> Nick, are you there?

[1:38:46] » Nick, are you there?

[1:38:46] >> Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Okay.

[1:38:47] » Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Okay.

[1:38:47] >> Yes, please go ahead.

[1:38:49] » Yes, please go ahead.

[1:38:49] >> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh so, good

[1:38:51] » Wonderful. Thank you. Uh so, good

[1:38:51] evening everyone. Um, you I'd really

[1:38:54] like to take this opportunity to address

[1:38:57] my good buddy Steve Yuring.

[1:39:00] Stevie, it has been 543 days since your

[1:39:04] property was cited for building without

[1:39:07] a permit.

[1:39:09] 543.

[1:39:12] That's almost 78 weeks, my man.

[1:39:15] For most people in Malibu, a violation

[1:39:18] like that triggers threatening letters

[1:39:19] from the city attorney, mounting legal

[1:39:22] fees, repeated inspections, and a long

[1:39:25] chilling effect on their lives and

[1:39:27] homes.

[1:39:29] This message is usually loud and clear.

[1:39:32] Comply immediately or else. But not for

[1:39:35] you, my friend, because it must be nice

[1:39:38] being a city council member. Must be

[1:39:41] nice being a former NTC presidente and

[1:39:45] it must be nice living under a different

[1:39:47] set of rules. You can build without

[1:39:49] permits. You can put up illegal fencing.

[1:39:54] You can place storage sheds right on the

[1:39:56] property line with whatever you want

[1:39:58] inside of them. And somehow enforcement

[1:40:02] never seems to arrive.

[1:40:04] Meanwhile, you spend your time making

[1:40:06] sure the rest of Malibu doesn't get what

[1:40:08] it wants or needs. You delay projects.

[1:40:12] You obstruct solutions.

[1:40:14] You scrutinize everyone else while your

[1:40:18] own violations sit untouched for nearly

[1:40:20] a year and a half. Let me let me go back

[1:40:23] and remind you. 543

[1:40:25] days.

[1:40:28] That doesn't happen by accident, Steve.

[1:40:30] It happens because the system is being

[1:40:32] bent to protect insiders.

[1:40:35] It happens because connections matter

[1:40:37] more than compliance. And it happens

[1:40:40] because accountability in this city

[1:40:42] appears to depend on who you are, not

[1:40:45] what you've done. The result is two very

[1:40:49] different Malibus.

[1:40:51] One where ordinary residents face

[1:40:53] immediate threats, legal costs, and

[1:40:56] fear.

[1:40:58] And another where powerful people can

[1:41:00] ignore the rules indefinitely, confident

[1:41:03] that nothing will happen.

[1:41:06] 543

[1:41:08] days without resolution.

[1:41:11] 78 weeks without consequences.

[1:41:18] This makes a mockery of fair

[1:41:21] enforcement. So yes, Steve, it really is

[1:41:24] good to be you. Thanks.

[1:41:30] » Next speaker,

[1:41:32] [clears throat]

[1:41:33] >> Gary Harkness.

[1:41:35] » Gary Harkness.

[1:41:36] Gary, are you there?

[1:41:38] >> Yeah, I'm here. Thank you. Um, I just

[1:41:41] » Yeah, I'm here. Thank you. Um, I just

[1:41:41] want to make a comment about um what I

[1:41:44] believe the uh MTC would do if uh

[1:41:49] Michelle Shane's idea were uh taken up

[1:41:51] and they would probably fight it just

[1:41:53] like they did the PCH safety

[1:41:55] improvements.

[1:41:56] But um

[1:41:58] just generally I want to talk about the

[1:42:00] fact that this isn't an attack on

[1:42:02] Malibu's history or on residents who

[1:42:04] have volunteered their time out of real

[1:42:06] concern for this community. The question

[1:42:09] that I have is much more simpler than

[1:42:11] that and that is whether the Malibu

[1:42:13] Township Council is a legitimate public

[1:42:16] civic organization today. And I would

[1:42:19] argue it isn't. The MTC was created in

[1:42:22] 1947,

[1:42:24] uh, long before Malibu was a city. At

[1:42:26] that time, it served a real purpose.

[1:42:28] There was no local government, no

[1:42:30] elected council, and no local voice.

[1:42:33] Township council helped fill that gap,

[1:42:34] and in doing so played an important role

[1:42:36] in Malibu's early history. But that role

[1:42:40] ended in 1991 when Malibu incorporated.

[1:42:42] We now have an elected city council,

[1:42:45] public commissions, open meeting laws,

[1:42:47] financial disclosures, and

[1:42:49] accountability to every voter in the

[1:42:50] city. Those are the institutions meant

[1:42:53] to govern Malibu. The MTC, however, did

[1:42:56] not step aside. It continued on as a

[1:42:58] private organization, one that is not

[1:43:01] elected, not representative of full

[1:43:03] community, not subject to public

[1:43:05] transparency laws, and not accountable

[1:43:07] to voters. Membership is selective and

[1:43:10] participation depends on paying dues. By

[1:43:13] definition, that is not a public civic

[1:43:15] body. Yet, the MTC regularly portrays

[1:43:18] itself as speaking for Malibu as a whole

[1:43:21] while filing appeals, initiating

[1:43:24] lawsuits, and forcing costly delays to

[1:43:26] projects approved through public

[1:43:28] process. Those costs are paid by the

[1:43:30] city and its residents, not by the

[1:43:32] organization imposing them. That creates

[1:43:35] a serious imbalance. A small private

[1:43:38] group is able to stall or block public

[1:43:40] decisions without having to answer to

[1:43:41] the public without having to run for

[1:43:44] office or operate in the open. That

[1:43:46] isn't how democratic decision-making is

[1:43:48] supposed to work. Advocacy is not the

[1:43:50] issue. Any group has the right to

[1:43:52] organize, lobby, and even litigate. But

[1:43:56] advocacy groups need to be honest about

[1:43:58] what and who they are. The MTC is not a

[1:44:00] governing body, and it does not

[1:44:02] represent Malibu as a whole. If we care

[1:44:04] about Mal Malibu's future, which I think

[1:44:06] we all do, we should be strengthening

[1:44:08] our elected institutions, not allowing

[1:44:11] private organizations to operate as a

[1:44:13] second layer of authority without public

[1:44:15] accountability. Thank you so much. I

[1:44:18] also want to say, Mayor, thank you.

[1:44:19] You've been doing a really great job

[1:44:21] running this meeting since you've taken

[1:44:22] the gavl and I appreciate it.

[1:44:26] Okay, our next speaker,

[1:44:31] » CC Lee.

[1:44:33] >> CeCe, are you there?

[1:44:42] » Hey everybody.

[1:44:44] Hi everybody. Can you hear me?

[1:44:46] >> Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.

[1:44:49] » Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.

[1:44:49] >> Okay.

[1:44:51] » Okay.

[1:44:51] I want to I want to begin by

[1:44:53] acknowledging that the city of Malibu

[1:44:55] conducted a thor a thorough and

[1:44:56] professional evaluation of the two

[1:44:58] Norfolk Island pine trees at Cross Creek

[1:45:01] uh road. The city engaged in certified

[1:45:03] experts documenting its findings held

[1:45:05] public meeting. I do not dispute the

[1:45:07] significant time, effort, and resources

[1:45:09] were dedicated to assessing these trees.

[1:45:11] Nor do I deny the safety considerations

[1:45:13] were raised. However, my concern is not

[1:45:14] with the thoughtfulness of the process.

[1:45:16] It's the direction, balance, and timing.

[1:45:18] You crackies. At every stage, the city's

[1:45:21] effort appeared to have been focused on

[1:45:22] building a case for why the tree should

[1:45:25] be removed rather than devoting equal

[1:45:27] effort to exploring how the tree, the

[1:45:30] longestablished habitat that supported

[1:45:32] could be preserved. There was no

[1:45:34] meaningful discussion of treatment

[1:45:35] options, structural mitigation,

[1:45:38] selective pruning, or long-term

[1:45:39] management strategies that could have

[1:45:40] reduced the risk while keeping these

[1:45:42] trees standing. Instead, the trees

[1:45:44] themselves were broadly labeled as

[1:45:45] unsafe. First of all, if anyone see a

[1:45:47] Norfolk pine tree branch, they're really

[1:45:49] lightweight. They're like a feather. I

[1:45:51] have a house in Texas where I have golf

[1:45:52] balls swinging harder than the the

[1:45:54] branches would ever fall. First of all,

[1:45:56] they're not an oak tree. This is

[1:45:58] troubling because by logic, virtually

[1:46:00] every mature tree in Malibu could be

[1:46:02] deemed as liable. When are we liable for

[1:46:05] people's luck? It's more you're more

[1:46:08] likely to die of lightning striking than

[1:46:09] a tree branch falling you. And I, you

[1:46:10] know, I apologize. I have hearts for

[1:46:12] those people. But an oak tree is very

[1:46:13] much different than a norol pine which

[1:46:16] touches the gates of heaven. All trees

[1:46:18] have been all trees have dead branches.

[1:46:20] All trees require maintenance. The

[1:46:21] standard response in the urban forestry

[1:46:23] is not wholesale removal but risk

[1:46:25] management, pruning, monitoring and

[1:46:27] targeting mitigations in cases rather

[1:46:29] than removing specific hazards. The city

[1:46:31] treated the trees as a legal exposure to

[1:46:34] eliminate it altogether. Equally

[1:46:36] concerning is a lack of effort to

[1:46:38] preserve or transition the wildlife

[1:46:39] habitat that existed in these trees for

[1:46:41] nearly for years. No planning was

[1:46:44] presented to relocate or phase the

[1:46:46] existence nesting activity. No treatment

[1:46:48] stabilization or any of this proposed.

[1:46:51] What I'm saying is let's get this tree

[1:46:53] back. There's plenty off the 405 in the

[1:46:56] 101. It's a nor pine. It's the trees the

[1:46:58] birds like. If you've ever tent camped,

[1:47:01] you don't want the trees to move. We

[1:47:02] want these trees back there because it

[1:47:04] gives these kids a 20 second break from

[1:47:06] their cell phone. We've already taken

[1:47:08] all the joys and pleasures out of every

[1:47:10] other existence of their lives and

[1:47:12] forced them on technology that they

[1:47:14] can't even eat. But we're over here

[1:47:17] saying that it's okay to put a bay leaf

[1:47:19] back into a native society. None of that

[1:47:21] place is native. Okay? You're not going

[1:47:23] to win with this one. We would like the

[1:47:25] birds back in underneath the underneath

[1:47:27] the same North Folk pine trees. Let's

[1:47:29] add a waterfall because I have the exact

[1:47:31] same structure at my place with the

[1:47:33] waterfall. It would have cleaned the

[1:47:35] poo. And let's put the trees back for

[1:47:37] those amazing birds that are immigrants

[1:47:39] to our city. And we want those back. We

[1:47:42] do not want to become the land of the

[1:47:43] pigeons and rats and mosquitoes. And

[1:47:45] please ask everybody to turn off their

[1:47:47] lights. It's basic common knowledge and

[1:47:49] how a mosquito thing works. Please,

[1:47:52] please, let's enforce these dark sky

[1:47:54] ordinances.

[1:47:54] >> Thank you very much. And our final

[1:47:57] » Thank you very much. And our final

[1:47:57] online speaker,

[1:47:59] >> Joe Drummond.

[1:48:01] » Joe Drummond.

[1:48:01] >> Joe, are you there?

[1:48:05] » Hi. Can you hear me?

[1:48:06] >> Yes, we can.

[1:48:08] » Yes, we can.

[1:48:08] >> Mayor and council members and interim

[1:48:10] » Mayor and council members and interim

[1:48:10] city manager Dau. I'm speaking this

[1:48:12] morning from India following the painful

[1:48:14] anniversary of the Palisades fire, a

[1:48:17] fire that destroyed my home and the

[1:48:18] homes of 170 of my Big Rock neighbors

[1:48:21] along with nearly 600 members of our

[1:48:23] broader Malibu community. We hope this

[1:48:25] year brings healing and progress for us

[1:48:26] all. In our neighborhood, we also lost

[1:48:29] two lives, Hack Wong and Betty Omira.

[1:48:31] Their deaths are a solemn reminder that

[1:48:33] this is not just about buildings. It's

[1:48:35] about people, safety, and the cost of a

[1:48:37] failure. One year later, recovery has

[1:48:39] not kept pace with loss. I appreciate

[1:48:41] Yolanda's update on rebuilding. So far,

[1:48:43] only 22 rebuild permits have been

[1:48:45] issued. One of those is ours, and we are

[1:48:47] grateful, but we cannot start until the

[1:48:49] rain cease. Hundreds of families remain

[1:48:51] displaced, placing paying mortgages,

[1:48:53] taxes, insurance, and rent while living

[1:48:55] in limbo. 3.2 million for a seaw wall is

[1:48:58] also ridiculous. That is not recovery

[1:49:00] speed, and it must change. I'm glad item

[1:49:02] A is finally before you tonight and

[1:49:04] prioritize finally. Thank you. Because

[1:49:06] rebuilding must and can move faster. The

[1:49:08] city has both the legal authority and

[1:49:10] the legal obligation to ensure

[1:49:12] [clears throat] fire survivors can

[1:49:13] return to their homes in a timely

[1:49:14] manner. The governor's emergency orders

[1:49:16] make this clear. Wildfire rebuilding

[1:49:18] must be fast-tracked and streamlined,

[1:49:20] not slowed by unnecessary barriers. That

[1:49:23] obligation also extends to new property

[1:49:25] owners. New owners must be authorized

[1:49:27] agents in mapped hazard areas to access

[1:49:29] the same postfire rebuild pathway except

[1:49:32] for fee wavers. It is critical for fire

[1:49:34] victims in their 70s and 80s who cannot

[1:49:36] endure the rebuild process to be able to

[1:49:38] sell their lots. If new owners cannot

[1:49:40] use the same rebuild pathway, those

[1:49:42] families may be unable to sell at all,

[1:49:44] effectively creating a taking and a

[1:49:46] significant financial burden for the

[1:49:48] city. Concerns about corporate takeovers

[1:49:50] or short-term rentals should not be used

[1:49:52] to block recovery. The president has

[1:49:54] recently directed Congress to curb

[1:49:55] corporate acquisition of single family

[1:49:57] homes, which should dissuade these

[1:49:59] theaters. The state should have done

[1:50:00] this. Many of us watched the lay let it

[1:50:03] burn they let us burn rally in Pacific

[1:50:05] Palisades this week. The message was

[1:50:07] unmistakable. This is not just a fire.

[1:50:09] It was a systems failure. And unless we

[1:50:11] fix those systems, we will repeat it.

[1:50:13] That means updating water infrastructure

[1:50:15] so hyd hydrants don't run dry during

[1:50:18] firestorms. Undergrounding utilities and

[1:50:19] telecoms withce so hazardous poles and

[1:50:22] exposed wires are removed and

[1:50:24] neighborhoods aren't constantly torn up

[1:50:25] or roads blocked during rebuilding.

[1:50:27] Ensuring county fire keeps fire

[1:50:29] motorways clear. And requiring the MRCA

[1:50:31] to manage brush adjacent to communities

[1:50:33] instead of allowing it to fuel fires

[1:50:35] that destroy homes and native habitat.

[1:50:37] perhaps enlisting the homeless to use

[1:50:39] their machetes up there as as Halen

[1:50:41] suggested. That made me smile for the

[1:50:43] first time this year. Honestly, thank

[1:50:44] you. Please let tonight mark a real

[1:50:47] commitment to recovery speed, public

[1:50:48] safety, and getting families home in

[1:50:50] honor of those we lost and those are who

[1:50:52] are still waiting. Thank you so much.

[1:50:57] » And then that concludes our Zoom. And I

[1:51:02] do have one speaker slip that got

[1:51:05] paper clipped to something else. So,

[1:51:06] Norm, you can round us out.

[1:51:13] » Good evening, honorable city council

[1:51:16] members. Uh, I'll be short. Um,

[1:51:21] the issues associated with the reigns

[1:51:25] um

[1:51:27] have not gone away yet. Uh, have not

[1:51:30] passed. Um, I was happy to see the

[1:51:33] emergency extended because what happens

[1:51:37] when it rains from a geotechnical point

[1:51:39] of view is the water percolates down and

[1:51:44] sooner or later it hits a potential

[1:51:46] slide plane. When it hits that slide

[1:51:49] plane, then you've increased the driving

[1:51:53] force with the water and you have

[1:51:56] decreased the resistance to to the slide

[1:52:01] occurring.

[1:52:03] There are many large slides that occur

[1:52:06] three, four, five months after heavy

[1:52:09] rains.

[1:52:11] That's the first thing. The second thing

[1:52:13] is I've often seen confusion between

[1:52:17] building permits and construction

[1:52:20] permits. People consider it the same.

[1:52:23] But in fact, other people think when

[1:52:27] they get all the approvals from the

[1:52:29] planning department and from the geology

[1:52:32] department and from all the other

[1:52:33] departments, they think they've got

[1:52:34] building permits. But they don't because

[1:52:37] building permits are basically

[1:52:39] construction permits and all they have

[1:52:42] in their hands is an approval from all

[1:52:45] the various departments in the city.

[1:52:48] That's it. Thank you very much for

[1:52:50] listening.

[1:52:51] >> Thank you, Dorm. So that'll close public

[1:52:53] » Thank you, Dorm. So that'll close public

[1:52:53] comment. We're back up. We're going to

[1:52:55] do council member comments very early in

[1:52:57] the evening. Who wants to start?

[1:53:01] Don't all jump.

[1:53:03] I have more I guess questions and com.

[1:53:05] Yeah, please start. Okay, thank you. I

[1:53:07] will. All right. Well, um

[1:53:14] so many um

[1:53:17] so I was curious if the city has um

[1:53:20] well, thanks for the public. I'll start

[1:53:21] with the public's um I do wonder about

[1:53:24] an K's radios.

[1:53:27] Have we explored this model of radio?

[1:53:30] Those radios are everywhere. In fact, uh

[1:53:33] the CR team has a a radio that does

[1:53:36] basically the same thing.

[1:53:37] >> Okay.

[1:53:37] » Okay.

[1:53:37] >> That there's nothing unusual about those

[1:53:39] » That there's nothing unusual about those

[1:53:40] radios. And I looked at the license that

[1:53:43] it is designed for La Habra is where I

[1:53:46] think it was really meant to be.

[1:53:47] >> Yeah.

[1:53:47] » Yeah.

[1:53:47] >> And I assume that she has a license

[1:53:49] » And I assume that she has a license

[1:53:49] ownership of the license, but they're

[1:53:51] very common.

[1:53:52] >> Got it. I might get one. Just have one

[1:53:55] » Got it. I might get one. Just have one

[1:53:55] at my house.

[1:53:56] >> It's not that easy.

[1:53:58] » It's not that easy.

[1:53:58] >> It's not?

[1:53:59] » It's not?

[1:53:59] >> No. Oh, darn. Nothing is easy. Um,

[1:54:02] » No. Oh, darn. Nothing is easy. Um,

[1:54:02] Darren, did we So, did we move away from

[1:54:06] electronic plan review?

[1:54:08] I'm just curious because in his con in

[1:54:10] his comment, he asked to go back to

[1:54:12] electronic plan review, but I wasn't

[1:54:14] sure if we moved away from electronic

[1:54:17] plan review. Say it again.

[1:54:22] Sorry.

[1:54:31] Good evening city council. Uh we have

[1:54:33] not moved away from uh electronic

[1:54:36] review. Um most of it uh the submettos

[1:54:39] are through an electronic portal. Um I

[1:54:43] think the difficulties comes when we uh

[1:54:46] do not have an automated system and

[1:54:49] things are being done manually. I see.

[1:54:51] Uh we also have the ability to do plant

[1:54:54] check through a software that is called

[1:54:56] blue beam. Um so we are also working on

[1:55:00] uh utilizing that software to a greater

[1:55:03] um

[1:55:05] >> area so when a plan is submitted

[1:55:08] » area so when a plan is submitted

[1:55:08] everybody can see that set of plans and

[1:55:10] that's what we have. We we don't have

[1:55:12] that.

[1:55:12] >> I see. So, so Blue Beam, was that what

[1:55:15] » I see. So, so Blue Beam, was that what

[1:55:15] was in the U Baker Tilly report as far

[1:55:18] as the suggested technology that the

[1:55:20] city because I wonder if we're putting

[1:55:22] our energy into Blue Beam, which is

[1:55:24] inadequate or

[1:55:26] less than if we were to put that energy

[1:55:28] into a new type of system, that would be

[1:55:32] more

[1:55:32] >> Blue Beam is a uh plan check uh software

[1:55:36] » Blue Beam is a uh plan check uh software

[1:55:36] system uh that most of the jurisdictions

[1:55:38] are using. Um, additional to Blue Beam,

[1:55:42] there's a permitting automated software

[1:55:45] system that the city does not have.

[1:55:48] >> Oh, should we have that? Should we get

[1:55:50] » Oh, should we have that? Should we get

[1:55:50] that? I'd be interested in looking into

[1:55:53] whatever that is,

[1:55:55] >> council member. Yeah, we're looking into

[1:55:57] » council member. Yeah, we're looking into

[1:55:57] that. And one of the things about Blue

[1:55:58] Beam for most of these programs that do

[1:56:01] the permitting software is they work

[1:56:03] hand in hand with each other. So that's

[1:56:05] something that uh yeah we're looking

[1:56:07] into and kind of we'll provide

[1:56:10] >> what is that name of the program that

[1:56:12] » what is that name of the program that

[1:56:12] you're looking into.

[1:56:14] >> It's there's there's a number of

[1:56:16] » It's there's there's a number of

[1:56:16] programs uh and vendors that that have

[1:56:19] permitting software that have there and

[1:56:21] so we're um I think it was before all

[1:56:25] the fires and everything else too. we

[1:56:27] were kind of moving towards kind of

[1:56:29] implementing some type of permitting

[1:56:32] software and then we've had a

[1:56:34] >> so we're it's it's still something that

[1:56:36] » so we're it's it's still something that

[1:56:36] we're kind of looking to and I see

[1:56:38] Christopher can say some more yes

[1:56:42] >> Chris maybe you could give us enlighten

[1:56:44] » Chris maybe you could give us enlighten

[1:56:44] us um as our resident expert on

[1:56:47] >> yes

[1:56:48] » yes

[1:56:48] >> sure good good evening

[1:56:49] » sure good good evening

[1:56:49] >> adoption of new software

[1:56:51] » adoption of new software

[1:56:51] >> so uh um we I'm in the process as you

[1:56:55] » so uh um we I'm in the process as you

[1:56:55] know I've only been here about eight

[1:56:57] weeks now. So, I'm in the process of

[1:56:59] evaluating where our technology projects

[1:57:01] are at. Um, the city did undertake an

[1:57:03] RFP process, I believe, two to three

[1:57:06] about two years between two and three

[1:57:08] years ago that um identified Tyler

[1:57:11] Technologies as the preferred solution.

[1:57:14] >> Yeah,

[1:57:14] » Yeah,

[1:57:14] >> that proposal remains valid for another

[1:57:17] » that proposal remains valid for another

[1:57:17] few months from the the company. And so

[1:57:20] I have re um engaged a project team that

[1:57:23] includes our IT team um as well as

[1:57:27] Yolanda's team to begin evaluating um

[1:57:32] validating that Tyler is still the right

[1:57:33] fit for us to be able to move forward.

[1:57:35] And hopefully in the next uh before that

[1:57:38] that um proposal expires, if it if it's

[1:57:43] fits for us, we will initiate a project

[1:57:45] with them. So we will be coming to

[1:57:47] council with a contract proposal um

[1:57:50] provided that is the you know we still

[1:57:53] believe that is the best path forward

[1:57:54] for us.

[1:57:55] >> So that's going to that's the phase for

[1:57:57] » So that's going to that's the phase for

[1:57:57] the next few weeks.

[1:57:58] >> Great. Thank you. I look forward to that

[1:57:59] » Great. Thank you. I look forward to that

[1:57:59] update. Um and then I was yeah I so I

[1:58:06] helped with the Jeff praying the

[1:58:07] assessor. I think it would be important

[1:58:09] to Scott and Sala's point for us to like

[1:58:12] look into how we can help support the

[1:58:14] assessor's office with that tax. I don't

[1:58:17] know. Do we get council consensus to

[1:58:19] look into that for the next meeting?

[1:58:22] >> So, are you talking legislatively help

[1:58:24] » So, are you talking legislatively help

[1:58:24] him out or

[1:58:25] >> the lobby? Yeah, we lobby. We help

[1:58:27] » the lobby? Yeah, we lobby. We help

[1:58:27] strategically legislative

[1:58:31] put pressure on where we can. Well,

[1:58:34] let's go back to the Woolseie fire when

[1:58:37] um what we did there. We made sure that

[1:58:40] everyone's uh tax basis transferred to

[1:58:45] their new home. Um that took legislative

[1:58:48] action. I believe that's what uh the

[1:58:50] assessor is doing. It's not a problem to

[1:58:53] immediately reassess the property right

[1:58:55] now um for the the damage done in the

[1:59:00] fire. And that's one of the reasons why

[1:59:01] the city only had a 1% increase in

[1:59:04] property tax this year.

[1:59:06] >> He normally would have had a 2% increase

[1:59:07] » He normally would have had a 2% increase

[1:59:07] just if nobody had done anything.

[1:59:09] >> But the um as I understand it from and I

[1:59:12] » But the um as I understand it from and I

[1:59:12] had a conversation with him about this.

[1:59:14] If you look at a typical uh tax bill,

[1:59:17] it's got two components. It's got the

[1:59:18] land and the improvements. And if the

[1:59:20] house burned, they immediately took the

[1:59:22] improvements off and backdated that to

[1:59:23] the fire.

[1:59:24] >> So that's already been done. So only the

[1:59:27] » So that's already been done. So only the

[1:59:27] land value is still there. And if you

[1:59:29] look at Proposition 13 values, those are

[1:59:31] very reduced as well. The real question

[1:59:32] is about the going forward, how long

[1:59:35] does the uh uh Proposition 13 values

[1:59:38] stay with the new home or the

[1:59:40] replacement home. And that's uh got more

[1:59:43] to do with the 10% extra and so forth if

[1:59:46] we like. I think they'd be glad to come

[1:59:47] in from the county and give us a update

[1:59:49] on that. Yeah.

[1:59:50] >> But I think it's well underway for

[1:59:52] » But I think it's well underway for

[1:59:52] everybody. It's aladina palis eaten and

[1:59:55] it's very common process now for the

[1:59:57] fires unfortunately.

[1:59:59] >> Okay, thank you for that. Um Mel's

[2:00:02] » Okay, thank you for that. Um Mel's

[2:00:02] comments about Carl Canyon which I had

[2:00:05] questions on um an update. I think it

[2:00:08] would be great if we could get updates

[2:00:09] on I guess big projects that affect

[2:00:12] everybody like the Corral Canyon corner

[2:00:15] of PCH because it is a mess. I see that

[2:00:18] work there has been halted. I don't I

[2:00:20] would like to know why when they're

[2:00:22] going to restart it and what the

[2:00:23] timeline is if you have that information

[2:00:25] in Trim City Manager

[2:00:27] >> Dub

[2:00:30] when they're going to restart.

[2:00:32] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll get that

[2:00:34] » Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll get that

[2:00:34] information.

[2:00:34] >> Okay, cool.

[2:00:35] » Okay, cool.

[2:00:35] >> There was a stop work order on that uh

[2:00:38] » There was a stop work order on that uh

[2:00:38] that work uh due to some archeological

[2:00:42] findings.

[2:00:44] Yeah, I would like to know when the

[2:00:45] start work order is going to be in

[2:00:48] effect after it's been about three

[2:00:51] months, I think.

[2:00:52] >> Uh I think uh when we were there was a

[2:00:56] » Uh I think uh when we were there was a

[2:00:56] >> I've forgotten where I heard it, but it

[2:00:57] » I've forgotten where I heard it, but it

[2:00:57] was Lee Haber.

[2:00:58] >> Yeah.

[2:00:59] » Yeah.

[2:00:59] >> Said that uh should be starting very

[2:01:01] » Said that uh should be starting very

[2:01:01] soon on that again.

[2:01:02] >> And then is there like an overall

[2:01:04] » And then is there like an overall

[2:01:04] timeline like we have to live with this

[2:01:06] for the next two years, nine months?

[2:01:09] >> Two years ago it was supposed to be

[2:01:11] » Two years ago it was supposed to be

[2:01:11] finished or something.

[2:01:11] >> Two years.

[2:01:13] » Two years.

[2:01:13] >> Yeah. Once again, we'll provide kind of

[2:01:15] » Yeah. Once again, we'll provide kind of

[2:01:15] kind of an over overall update on all

[2:01:17] those

[2:01:18] >> Yeah.

[2:01:18] » Yeah.

[2:01:18] >> projects. Yeah.

[2:01:19] » projects. Yeah.

[2:01:19] >> Thank you. And the per are there such

[2:01:21] » Thank you. And the per are there such

[2:01:21] things as permanent channelizers or is

[2:01:23] that not something that we want because

[2:01:25] we want them to be removable like as far

[2:01:27] as a safety mechanism because it seems

[2:01:29] like these channelizers that we live

[2:01:30] with and the medians are constantly

[2:01:34] coming off and then they're in the road

[2:01:36] and it becomes this update uh

[2:01:38] maintenance issue. there any other

[2:01:40] solution to that

[2:01:41] >> for for those uh uh temporary

[2:01:44] » for for those uh uh temporary

[2:01:44] construction ones? There's that's what's

[2:01:46] kind of needed if or but there they do

[2:01:49] make different ones that would probably

[2:01:52] be more u can last a little longer.

[2:01:56] Those ones that are out there are

[2:01:57] typically you put them out there that

[2:01:59] they're not meant to be for an extended

[2:02:02] period of time what we're seeing now.

[2:02:03] So, I think they need to look at revisit

[2:02:06] that for any type of long-term solution

[2:02:08] for that type of channelizers.

[2:02:10] >> Okay. I like the idea of looking into

[2:02:12] » Okay. I like the idea of looking into

[2:02:12] somehow where the city can have um

[2:02:16] oversight.

[2:02:17] I think Merryill asked Bruce if um there

[2:02:21] was some legal

[2:02:23] something in which the city could take

[2:02:25] over if there's negligence or and we can

[2:02:28] kind of assert

[2:02:30] our power.

[2:02:33] >> You know, funny you should ask that

[2:02:34] » You know, funny you should ask that

[2:02:34] because you asked earlier about what

[2:02:36] benefit do we get from the declaration

[2:02:38] of local emergency highway.

[2:02:41] >> Bruce, I'm weaving. I've advocated for

[2:02:43] » Bruce, I'm weaving. I've advocated for

[2:02:43] the past year or more that we actually

[2:02:46] do have the ability under that

[2:02:47] declaration to take matters into our own

[2:02:50] hands, but we've been advised otherwise.

[2:02:54] >> Are we is there no nothing that we can

[2:02:57] » Are we is there no nothing that we can

[2:02:57] do as far as taking matters into our

[2:03:00] hands? Calrans has jurisdiction over PCH

[2:03:04] and

[2:03:05] we can work with them is the better

[2:03:08] practice to improve things on PCH. If we

[2:03:10] want to try to make changes on PCH, uh

[2:03:13] we would likely run into issues with

[2:03:15] them. There is power under our

[2:03:18] declaration to take some actions to

[2:03:20] address emergency situations, but um you

[2:03:24] will be taking on a lot of risk if

[2:03:25] you're trying to make improvements or do

[2:03:27] work on CALR directly. this risk.

[2:03:31] >> Just said this goes back to I think

[2:03:34] » Just said this goes back to I think

[2:03:34] before you were elected and you know we

[2:03:36] had debate up here multiple times about

[2:03:39] the fact that we could just take matters

[2:03:40] in broad hands and if it turns out we're

[2:03:43] wrong you know let let Calrans go to the

[2:03:46] courts and and deal with the public

[2:03:48] relations of trying to stop us from

[2:03:50] doing things that make our city safe but

[2:03:53] was never able to get a majority of city

[2:03:55] council to agree to take any action. Oh,

[2:03:58] interesting. It came down to that to the

[2:04:01] majority. So, um the Zoomer's crosswalk

[2:04:05] is dangerous as we know. Somebody got

[2:04:08] hit there a few weeks ago. Um but I

[2:04:10] don't know the solution. So, we see that

[2:04:13] there's these kind of dangerous

[2:04:16] situations in Malibu over and over and

[2:04:18] over again and this isn't going away.

[2:04:21] So, what is the solution? Do we have a

[2:04:23] solution to something that we know is I

[2:04:25] mean, when does it become negligent on

[2:04:26] our part? because we know that it's

[2:04:28] dangerous. So if like the city of Malibu

[2:04:31] is basically up here on tape saying that

[2:04:33] this is a dangerous situation, at what

[2:04:35] point are we taking on that risk just

[2:04:37] inadvertently?

[2:04:40] >> The so what I would suggest is if if

[2:04:44] » The so what I would suggest is if if

[2:04:44] anybody sees any dangerous situation on

[2:04:47] PCH a crosswalk, let let myself know or

[2:04:51] let public works uh staff know. Uh we

[2:04:57] have weekly meetings with Calrans on

[2:04:59] this and this and and uh that can be

[2:05:01] documented on what could be done in

[2:05:03] those situations. So it's a it's a it's

[2:05:06] Cal Transit and the city have have been

[2:05:08] real kind of meeting like I said weekly

[2:05:11] and it's been very good collaborative

[2:05:12] kind of work and so the more information

[2:05:15] we have and the more kind of insights we

[2:05:18] we hear from the public and and council

[2:05:20] we can kind of reate that information to

[2:05:22] them and once it's put on their

[2:05:24] attention it does put pressure on them

[2:05:25] to go resolve those situations

[2:05:28] for them

[2:05:29] >> and then it gives it gives us the

[2:05:30] » and then it gives it gives us the

[2:05:30] ability to kind of follow up and request

[2:05:34] more information and see if there's

[2:05:36] action taken from them.

[2:05:38] >> Well, I mean, are there other mechanisms

[2:05:41] » Well, I mean, are there other mechanisms

[2:05:41] or warning lights or signs or something

[2:05:43] we can put in crosswalks? Um, you know,

[2:05:47] what do other cities do when they've got

[2:05:49] highways [clears throat] going through

[2:05:50] their city and they're noticing, you

[2:05:53] know, I know like down in Palisades,

[2:05:56] they added the extra even we've added

[2:05:58] some places where we have more flashing

[2:06:00] lights and things like that. Are there

[2:06:02] other uh technologies that we can add to

[2:06:04] our intersections to make crosswalks

[2:06:07] more apparent to drivers?

[2:06:09] >> Remember the roundabouts. That's one of

[2:06:10] » Remember the roundabouts. That's one of

[2:06:10] the things Cal Transit's going to do to

[2:06:12] bunker walkways to the roundabouts.

[2:06:14] They're going to have we hit the button,

[2:06:15] the lights end up go across. So, it's

[2:06:18] there. It's there. It can be done. It's

[2:06:20] got to find somebody to do it.

[2:06:22] >> It it's just it's Yeah, there's there's

[2:06:24] » It it's just it's Yeah, there's there's

[2:06:24] a lot of different options in in the

[2:06:27] tool belt for those situations. And it's

[2:06:29] just uh looking at those and getting

[2:06:33] with Calransit to do something that can

[2:06:35] be done there. There's there's a number

[2:06:37] of things you can do. There's there's um

[2:06:39] just just like council member mentioned,

[2:06:42] there's flashing flashing lights and if

[2:06:44] people cross, there's flashing can can

[2:06:47] go across and there's there's

[2:06:49] >> there's a there's a several different

[2:06:51] » there's a there's a several different

[2:06:51] options they can they can do that.

[2:06:53] >> It's a signalized intersection anyway.

[2:06:55] » It's a signalized intersection anyway.

[2:06:55] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like being in Hawaii

[2:06:59] » Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like being in Hawaii

[2:06:59] and they have flags on each side of the

[2:07:02] street and the pedestrians pick up a

[2:07:04] flag and walk across the street with the

[2:07:06] flag. I mean, do we have to go that

[2:07:08] simple just to get attention? Is

[2:07:11] >> I saw some place on YouTube they put

[2:07:13] » I saw some place on YouTube they put

[2:07:13] bricks on the side of the road and it

[2:07:16] seemed to have an impact. So, I don't

[2:07:18] know.

[2:07:19] I would be very much interested in

[2:07:20] looking into some of those options.

[2:07:24] Lighting, flag, anything that kind of

[2:07:27] helps. This seems to be have gone on

[2:07:30] longer than I've been here. I mean,

[2:07:32] maybe it's time to look into different

[2:07:34] options for crosswalks, especially the

[2:07:37] one at Zumeres.

[2:07:39] Um, since there was two accidents there,

[2:07:40] I guess.

[2:07:42] >> Yeah. So, we'll bring it up with Calrans

[2:07:44] » Yeah. So, we'll bring it up with Calrans

[2:07:44] with that.

[2:07:45] >> Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Moving on. So

[2:07:48] » Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Moving on. So

[2:07:48] Brian Eric um Doyle problem sorry that

[2:07:51] sounds terrible congratulate him

[2:07:53] congratulations. Um so when he talks

[2:07:57] about septic and seaw walls and PCH

[2:07:59] shoring up right does is there an answer

[2:08:02] to that or is that like do we know if he

[2:08:05] has to pay for septic which he's doing?

[2:08:08] What I'm hearing is then he has to pay

[2:08:10] for a seaw wall which it sounds like now

[2:08:12] it's going into the Pacific Coast

[2:08:14] Highway shoring up. So, is there like a

[2:08:16] clear roadmap for beachfronts with

[2:08:20] regards to who's shoring up the highway

[2:08:23] or if they're because the last I heard

[2:08:25] it was kind of vague and I would love an

[2:08:27] update on if CALR says we'll shore up

[2:08:30] the highway and the residents don't have

[2:08:32] to.

[2:08:34] >> Yeah. Um uh at this time uh septic

[2:08:38] » Yeah. Um uh at this time uh septic

[2:08:38] systems and seaw walls are are the

[2:08:42] responsibility of the homeowner.

[2:08:44] Got it. Um the existing walls that are

[2:08:49] right next to PCH, uh CLR has been

[2:08:52] working with their engineers to assess

[2:08:54] each one of them.

[2:08:56] >> Um we have information that there is uh

[2:08:59] » Um we have information that there is uh

[2:08:59] about three three properties that they

[2:09:02] own that [clears throat] that that

[2:09:04] portion that wall. Um and they are going

[2:09:07] to be uh shoring uh and and specifically

[2:09:12] there's three properties

[2:09:14] >> um as far as

[2:09:17] » um as far as

[2:09:17] CR paying for the retaining wall that is

[2:09:21] on the um

[2:09:24] property owners property.

[2:09:26] >> Uh CR is stating is hasn't stayed that

[2:09:29] » Uh CR is stating is hasn't stayed that

[2:09:29] they're going to be paying for it.

[2:09:31] >> Got it. Thank you. Um,

[2:09:35] » Got it. Thank you. Um,

[2:09:35] okay.

[2:09:37] Oh, Michelle Shane, that sounds like a

[2:09:39] great idea. I Maryanne and I will be in

[2:09:42] Sacramento. We can work on that if we

[2:09:45] have direction, too. Um, I was wondering

[2:09:48] if the city of Malibu has a coastal

[2:09:51] commission meeting representative. So,

[2:09:53] is there somebody whose responsibility

[2:09:55] to keep their eye on the coastal

[2:09:57] commission agenda as far as things that

[2:10:00] come before them like the uh parking

[2:10:02] that's now coming to Leo Coreo from

[2:10:05] their last meeting?

[2:10:07] Yes, the community development

[2:10:09] department uh is in charge of keeping an

[2:10:11] eye on that. We also have recurrent

[2:10:14] meetings with the staff from the uh

[2:10:16] coastal commission. Um the last meeting

[2:10:19] we had, it was in December. We're

[2:10:21] setting up another meeting uh at the

[2:10:23] beginning of March to introduce our new

[2:10:25] city manager.

[2:10:26] >> Oh, fantastic. Did you guys hear about

[2:10:28] » Oh, fantastic. Did you guys hear about

[2:10:28] the Leo Creo parking? Because Leo Creo

[2:10:30] is in the city of Malibu. It's not. So,

[2:10:32] you wouldn't even have heard about it.

[2:10:35] >> Doesn't matter.

[2:10:35] » Doesn't matter.

[2:10:36] >> That's county.

[2:10:36] » That's county.

[2:10:36] >> County. Okay, perfect. I'm glad to hear

[2:10:39] » County. Okay, perfect. I'm glad to hear

[2:10:39] that you guys are on that. Um I wanted

[2:10:43] to thank you all for um the extra hour

[2:10:46] for the seniors in the multi-purpose

[2:10:48] room. They're very happy and I really am

[2:10:51] grateful and appreciative. They're like,

[2:10:53] "Wow, two hours. I don't know if we

[2:10:55] could stay here that long." I know it's

[2:10:57] three. Well, you could cut it down. It's

[2:10:59] an experiment. It's kind of like if

[2:11:01] nobody stays then, you know. And chair

[2:11:03] yoga was a su success next door

[2:11:05] simultaneously. I was wondering, are you

[2:11:08] guys um removing and replacing the

[2:11:10] carpets? Did I hear a rumor?

[2:11:15] Well, I think from some of the water

[2:11:16] damage, wasn't there a requirement to

[2:11:18] replace

[2:11:20] the water damaged?

[2:11:21] >> I'm sure it's under a certain amount, so

[2:11:23] » I'm sure it's under a certain amount, so

[2:11:23] we don't really need to know about it.

[2:11:25] >> Uh, yes. Uh, thank you, council member,

[2:11:28] » Uh, yes. Uh, thank you, council member,

[2:11:28] for the question. Um, there is what we

[2:11:31] did as a patch job is we had some extra

[2:11:34] carpet tile that we replaced. So, um,

[2:11:38] that's working out pretty well until the

[2:11:40] the whole project will come forward and

[2:11:43] we'll we will replace that carpet in in

[2:11:45] the multi-purpose room and senior

[2:11:47] center.

[2:11:48] >> And will they will everybody go back to

[2:11:49] » And will they will everybody go back to

[2:11:49] the bluffs for that period of time or it

[2:11:52] will be like an overnight thing and

[2:11:53] we'll never know what happened.

[2:11:54] >> We will try our best to do it on the

[2:11:57] » We will try our best to do it on the

[2:11:57] weekend so it doesn't disrupt

[2:11:59] programming.

[2:12:00] >> Great. Um, thank you. I was wondering,

[2:12:03] » Great. Um, thank you. I was wondering,

[2:12:03] it came up today about the green waddles

[2:12:05] that are everywhere. Are those just for

[2:12:08] So they're um I could be calling them

[2:12:11] not waddle. They might not be waddles,

[2:12:12] but they're neon green and they're on

[2:12:13] PCH and they're on hillsides and they're

[2:12:15] also in the medians. So I was wondering

[2:12:18] if that's for temporary purposes for the

[2:12:20] rain or are we planting something and

[2:12:23] those are

[2:12:24] more long term?

[2:12:26] >> Yeah. Yeah. Those are those are um

[2:12:28] » Yeah. Yeah. Those are those are um

[2:12:28] protective devices that CALR place

[2:12:31] within the median to prevent erosion.

[2:12:33] And if they did some cleanup work along

[2:12:36] the slope over there and and the curb

[2:12:38] and the shoulder area and so to prevent

[2:12:40] any more erosion, that's what they they

[2:12:42] place in there to to help that erosion.

[2:12:45] >> Got it.

[2:12:47] » Got it.

[2:12:47] >> What's the difference between the green

[2:12:48] » What's the difference between the green

[2:12:48] ones and the used to be brown ones?

[2:12:50] >> Yeah.

[2:12:51] » Yeah.

[2:12:51] >> The color.

[2:12:52] » The color.

[2:12:52] >> That's it.

[2:12:55] » That's it.

[2:12:55] >> No, I mean they're they're basically the

[2:12:57] » No, I mean they're they're basically the

[2:12:57] same kind of thing. It's just it's just

[2:12:58] a different color. H

[2:13:02] >> that's it. I mean, you go on.

[2:13:05] » that's it. I mean, you go on.

[2:13:05] >> Well, I was just gonna ask about plastic

[2:13:07] » Well, I was just gonna ask about plastic

[2:13:07] sandbags. Go

[2:13:08] >> because I know there was an issue with

[2:13:10] » because I know there was an issue with

[2:13:10] um I believe there was

[2:13:12] >> for the emergency rains and everything

[2:13:15] » for the emergency rains and everything

[2:13:15] um questions about some plastic sandbags

[2:13:18] that were at a giveaway spot. I'm

[2:13:20] assuming it was the county since it was

[2:13:22] on their land that the giveaway was. So,

[2:13:24] are we just making sure that all partner

[2:13:27] agencies know that plastic sandbags are

[2:13:30] not allowed and even in emergency

[2:13:33] situations, we should do our best to

[2:13:36] have burlap or other available?

[2:13:39] >> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That was

[2:13:41] » Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That was

[2:13:41] something that just kind of came up and

[2:13:43] we got with our county and they we're

[2:13:46] going to correct that.

[2:13:47] >> Yeah. When I heard about I called the

[2:13:48] » Yeah. When I heard about I called the

[2:13:48] county that same day and they recognized

[2:13:51] that they were not supposed to give us

[2:13:52] plastic bags. So hopefully we won't see

[2:13:54] those again.

[2:13:55] >> Yeah.

[2:13:57] » Yeah.

[2:13:58] >> Um do we have an actual timeline for the

[2:13:59] » Um do we have an actual timeline for the

[2:13:59] skate park?

[2:14:04] » Not yet. We're we're still kind of

[2:14:06] looking at all of the lock all the the

[2:14:10] uh the ponding and the mud and debris in

[2:14:13] there to kind of see when when they can

[2:14:14] really get back in there and and finish

[2:14:17] up all that area.

[2:14:19] Can I offer to rent some drying

[2:14:21] equipment and some other things to so we

[2:14:23] can get that board as quickly as

[2:14:25] possible?

[2:14:27] >> Stand out there with a band.

[2:14:29] » Stand out there with a band.

[2:14:29] >> Hair blowers.

[2:14:30] » Hair blowers.

[2:14:30] >> I I mean, the good thing is um with with

[2:14:33] » I I mean, the good thing is um with with

[2:14:33] this wind and and the weather this week,

[2:14:35] too, it's supposed to be warmer, so it's

[2:14:36] going to it's going to help that process

[2:14:38] quicker. So, we'll see how this goes and

[2:14:41] get the contractor to start going quick.

[2:14:44] >> Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Kristen. I have

[2:14:46] » Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Kristen. I have

[2:14:46] another question for you. Um, there's

[2:14:48] two or three burnt trees on the Bluffs

[2:14:50] Park. They've been there on and off. I

[2:14:52] mean, they've just kind of creepy

[2:14:53] looking. You know which ones I'm talking

[2:14:55] about?

[2:14:56] >> I believe so. Yes.

[2:14:57] » I believe so. Yes.

[2:14:58] >> Are they our property or MRCA?

[2:14:59] » Are they our property or MRCA?

[2:14:59] >> They are MRCA property.

[2:15:01] » They are MRCA property.

[2:15:01] >> So, I believe that we're able to brush

[2:15:04] » So, I believe that we're able to brush

[2:15:04] clear that because it's 200 feet from a

[2:15:07] structure. We're I think that we are

[2:15:10] allowed to take those out with

[2:15:13] permission maybe. But we should probably

[2:15:15] think about doing that. We can work with

[2:15:17] MRCA to figure out a solution. Um, are

[2:15:21] you referring to the trees on PCH?

[2:15:23] >> They're like on PCH right off I don't

[2:15:26] » They're like on PCH right off I don't

[2:15:26] know behind the community building.

[2:15:28] They're like creepy looking. Um, burnt

[2:15:31] just a reminder of the three fires that

[2:15:33] we had. Um, it's like right behind the

[2:15:36] community centers, so I believe we're

[2:15:38] within the footage of a structure.

[2:15:41] >> Okay.

[2:15:41] » Okay.

[2:15:41] >> Um, that would be super. And I wanted to

[2:15:44] » Um, that would be super. And I wanted to

[2:15:44] thank the the beach cleanup crew for the

[2:15:47] community community brigade who cleaned

[2:15:49] the beach yesterday and um I would like

[2:15:51] to join that in the future and bring my

[2:15:54] kids. It was very sad to see how much

[2:15:56] debris is still out there. The mangled

[2:15:59] rusty metal bed frames. Um it's very

[2:16:02] sad. And that is all my questions really

[2:16:06] and comments.

[2:16:09] Next

[2:16:11] >> gentlemen.

[2:16:13] » gentlemen.

[2:16:13] >> All too.

[2:16:15] » All too.

[2:16:15] >> I'll do it. Um, [clears throat] first

[2:16:17] » I'll do it. Um, [clears throat] first

[2:16:17] off, I want to thank Candace Bond for

[2:16:19] her service. Um, you know, she's not

[2:16:22] here tonight to say thank you in person.

[2:16:23] Hopefully, she's watching it or she'll

[2:16:25] get it uh indirectly, but uh she was a

[2:16:28] real gift from the from the community

[2:16:31] for the community and we'll always be

[2:16:33] grateful to her for that. And um you

[2:16:36] know, Rob, thank you for filling in

[2:16:38] until we get the next city manager uh on

[2:16:41] board and looking forward to having him

[2:16:43] March 2nd. Um in terms of things that it

[2:16:46] did, uh we've had a very eventful week

[2:16:48] this last week. We had the remembrance

[2:16:51] program on Wednesday, uh here at city

[2:16:53] hall, and city staff, I think, did an

[2:16:55] excellent job with that. It was tough to

[2:16:57] remember, um where we all were. It was

[2:17:00] difficult to remember where we were the

[2:17:02] same time a year ago. And uh it was deja

[2:17:06] vu for some of us as we walked into the

[2:17:07] multi-purpose room for um snacks and

[2:17:10] treats and realized that was where the

[2:17:12] EOC was and it was it was uh going full

[2:17:15] steam at the same time uh a year ago. Um

[2:17:20] I'll make a comment I made before. We

[2:17:23] can rebuild, but we can never forget our

[2:17:25] race of damage done to so many lives.

[2:17:27] And um unfortunately Malibu's had a

[2:17:30] string of uh bad luck on fires. If you

[2:17:33] go back to the Woosey fire, basically

[2:17:35] the entire city has been subject to some

[2:17:38] kind of a flame issue in the last seven

[2:17:41] or eight years. And um we got to do what

[2:17:44] we can to keep the fires out of Malibu.

[2:17:46] And when they are here, and I go back to

[2:17:48] Chief Moron's comment, your house has to

[2:17:50] be able to defend itself. And there's no

[2:17:53] way to have a fire truck in front of

[2:17:55] every house or one on every street. So,

[2:17:57] we got to do what we can to make sure

[2:17:58] that they're safe. Uh, I already

[2:18:00] mentioned about the two deputies uh that

[2:18:02] were heroes. Um, couple quick things.

[2:18:06] Speed cameras. Rob, do we have a update

[2:18:08] on when we're going to get those uh RFPs

[2:18:10] out?

[2:18:13] >> So, yeah, we So, thanks for thanks for

[2:18:16] » So, yeah, we So, thanks for thanks for

[2:18:16] reminding me. Yeah, we uh this last week

[2:18:19] that we did do interviews with I believe

[2:18:23] it was four or five different vendors

[2:18:26] and um uh staff is kind of compiling all

[2:18:29] that that information and um we are uh

[2:18:34] going to be making a selection here and

[2:18:35] and bringing out to city council soon on

[2:18:37] a vendor. So that should be coming here

[2:18:40] I I want to say within February or so.

[2:18:44] >> Okay. And what's the timeline to put

[2:18:46] » Okay. And what's the timeline to put

[2:18:46] them in once we select that?

[2:18:47] >> So once that's done too, right now we're

[2:18:49] » So once that's done too, right now we're

[2:18:49] we we are looking to trying to get um

[2:18:53] the the big critical item is actual

[2:18:57] polls for the for the cameras and for

[2:19:00] the speed feedback signs and and we're

[2:19:02] trying to get a date on when those going

[2:19:05] to come in. We're we're hoping this this

[2:19:07] spring. Um and and we're checking with

[2:19:09] Calrans to see if they have any within

[2:19:12] their stock so they can just trade us

[2:19:15] and and get them even sooner. So I'm so

[2:19:17] I'm pushing that this next couple of

[2:19:18] weeks and trying to get an answer on the

[2:19:21] poll situation because that's that's the

[2:19:23] really the the critical path.

[2:19:25] >> Okay. I know uh in a report from CHP

[2:19:28] » Okay. I know uh in a report from CHP

[2:19:28] that we get, they pull maybe one over

[2:19:32] 100 mph speeder every two or three

[2:19:34] months, but when we get the speed

[2:19:36] cameras in, we'll know who's speeding

[2:19:37] and where. We'll know who's been naughty

[2:19:39] or nice, so to speak, and uh that'll

[2:19:42] that'll help us uh I think tell the

[2:19:44] story on the fast system as well. I'm

[2:19:46] looking at Michelle and u I think that

[2:19:49] that data will be beneficial. So looking

[2:19:51] forward to getting those cameras in to

[2:19:53] see what we can do. uh on the radio. I

[2:19:55] didn't mean to be dismissive of u uh

[2:19:58] ENK, but

[2:20:00] radios are peripherally peripheral and

[2:20:05] prolific all over uh Southern

[2:20:07] California. In fact, that's one of the

[2:20:08] issues. The frequencies are jam-packed.

[2:20:11] There aren't any spare frequencies. And

[2:20:14] uh the one that she's talking about is

[2:20:16] dedicated to the La Ham La Habra um I

[2:20:20] think arson watch equivalent. And uh the

[2:20:24] fact that she's got one of the radios,

[2:20:25] that's great. I know she used to be in

[2:20:28] Ahabra, but um we've got plenty of

[2:20:31] radios here. The issue is not uh radios.

[2:20:34] It's about the ability to have strong

[2:20:35] signals on the tower for the sheriff's

[2:20:38] department. Um the search team has got

[2:20:40] its own radio system. Uh the Rick's

[2:20:42] radio system is what the county uses for

[2:20:45] the entire county with interchange with

[2:20:47] other uh like the fire department and

[2:20:49] the sheriff's department. Um the state

[2:20:53] parks and so forth. Everybody's got an

[2:20:54] interconnected system. You just need to

[2:20:56] have the strong towers where they can

[2:20:58] all work. So it's it's not a case of uh

[2:21:02] trying to find another radio system. And

[2:21:05] um if you're a ham radio operator, you

[2:21:07] can use those radios all you want to,

[2:21:09] but you got to get a license. in

[2:21:11] technician classes. Take you one day to

[2:21:13] get it. And by the way, most of the

[2:21:15] search team has ham radio licenses in

[2:21:18] addition to the uh city radio. Okay,

[2:21:20] that's all I got.

[2:21:23] >> Steve.

[2:21:24] » Steve.

[2:21:24] >> Yeah. Okay. First, let me wish everybody

[2:21:26] » Yeah. Okay. First, let me wish everybody

[2:21:26] happy new year. Uh I guess I didn't see

[2:21:29] anybody getting arrested, so I guess

[2:21:30] everybody was fairly calm during that

[2:21:33] time frame. Uh, I want to thank public

[2:21:36] works and I know it was Robert Tatiana

[2:21:39] who led the charge to keep the roads

[2:21:40] open and deal with all the rain. That

[2:21:42] was a heck of a job and we do appreciate

[2:21:44] it. I mean, made life a heck of a lot

[2:21:46] better. Um,

[2:21:49] there have been a number of articles

[2:21:51] regarding people doing soil testing. Uh,

[2:21:54] and in some cases they found out that

[2:21:55] there were some debris in the soil that

[2:21:57] they

[2:21:59] didn't want to have there. Uh, and I

[2:22:01] just I got two notes over the course of

[2:22:03] the last couple weeks. There are two

[2:22:04] programs that are free. If anybody wants

[2:22:06] to do soil testing, you can get that

[2:22:08] done for free either through USC.

[2:22:11] They've got a program called clean uh

[2:22:14] just Google that and they give you

[2:22:16] details on that one. And then LA public

[2:22:18] work, LA public health also has a soil

[2:22:21] testing program uh that's free. I mean,

[2:22:24] so you put your soil in a little plastic

[2:22:26] bag and you send it to them and I think

[2:22:28] it's like seven days they'll get back to

[2:22:29] you and tell you what's there. So, if

[2:22:30] you're interested, there's some places

[2:22:32] you can go to get that done.

[2:22:34] Uh,

[2:22:38] I want to just note I I attended this

[2:22:39] this uh

[2:22:42] palisades remembers event we had here in

[2:22:44] city hall. Uh, and I'll tell you one of

[2:22:47] the at least from my perspective. Uh, I

[2:22:49] mean, I talked to a number of the

[2:22:50] residents who were here and it was I was

[2:22:53] just glad to see that their spirits were

[2:22:57] still up. I mean, you know, they're

[2:22:58] still planning to rebuild. They're

[2:23:00] they're keeping their spirits about

[2:23:01] them. They're working hard at it. So, at

[2:23:03] least I mean, I went home that night and

[2:23:05] felt better than I I felt reading all

[2:23:07] these articles about stuff that wasn't

[2:23:09] happening. So, uh, it was just good to

[2:23:11] hear. And then finally,

[2:23:16] I was going to comment on our two

[2:23:17] anonymous callers that we get every, you

[2:23:20] know, this has been going on for a year

[2:23:21] and a half now. Uh, ever since we voted

[2:23:23] down the, uh,

[2:23:26] motel, they were trying to, you know,

[2:23:28] that brothers and, uh, Doug Bur are

[2:23:31] trying to build over on PCH. Uh, and I

[2:23:34] don't I don't apologize for voting

[2:23:35] against that hotel. That was a bad idea.

[2:23:38] Uh, and I'm not going to, you know,

[2:23:42] just for your information,

[2:23:45] the city has been in contact with my

[2:23:47] property

[2:23:49] and I don't have a problem. So, and I'm

[2:23:52] not, you know, I'm not going to go

[2:23:53] through the details. It's none of their

[2:23:54] business, but we we have done that. Uh,

[2:23:58] with that, back to you, mayor

[2:24:01] >> Chris.

[2:24:03] » Chris.

[2:24:03] >> Okay. So, you know, the sergeant said

[2:24:05] » Okay. So, you know, the sergeant said

[2:24:05] earlier [clears throat]

[2:24:06] with hope 2026 be better than 2025.

[2:24:09] If that's not the case, we're all in

[2:24:10] trouble. So, here's for a good year. Um,

[2:24:14] so have a couple couple minor comments

[2:24:16] and I'll get to um the more significant

[2:24:18] one. Um, there have been a lot of

[2:24:19] questions, Rob, about these various

[2:24:21] items Mel raised. Um, Zuma underpass. It

[2:24:24] seems like it was open and fixed for a

[2:24:27] while and now it's not again. What

[2:24:29] What's the prognosis? What's going to go

[2:24:31] on there? I I I think it's an issue

[2:24:33] about the sand removal and and I think

[2:24:35] the the county and beaches and beaches

[2:24:38] and harbor and Calrans are kind of

[2:24:39] working through through all those kind

[2:24:41] of issues about removing.

[2:24:42] >> Is it going to be another year again

[2:24:43] » Is it going to be another year again

[2:24:43] before it gets done? And

[2:24:45] >> no, I think it it's something that we're

[2:24:46] » no, I think it it's something that we're

[2:24:46] going to be pushing I'm going to be

[2:24:47] pushing hard on them to try to try to

[2:24:49] get that resolved. I think the issue

[2:24:51] previously was that it they removed it

[2:24:54] once a and they needed a a continuing

[2:24:58] permit to actually do it from previous

[2:25:00] years because it it's it's going to

[2:25:01] happen over and over again and they got

[2:25:03] to make sure that's kind of they have

[2:25:05] the correct permit to to do that

[2:25:07] correctly over the years.

[2:25:08] >> All right. Thanks. Um you know and um

[2:25:11] » All right. Thanks. Um you know and um

[2:25:12] there's been some comments about an K's

[2:25:14] comment about the radios. I it's one

[2:25:16] thing I was to say cuz I I I think it

[2:25:18] was unfair the statement that the Habra

[2:25:21] Heights has not burned and I think she

[2:25:23] said apparently they care. Uh I looked

[2:25:26] at their very their fire hazard severity

[2:25:29] map after she made that statement and

[2:25:31] with the exception of a few blocks of a

[2:25:33] multi- you know many many mile area um

[2:25:37] that that that town does is not only not

[2:25:40] a well first of all we're we're entirely

[2:25:42] a very high fire hazard severity zone.

[2:25:44] every inch of Malibu. Um, not one inch

[2:25:47] of that area is a very high fire hazard

[2:25:49] severity zone. With the exception of

[2:25:51] those few blocks, none of that area is a

[2:25:54] high fire hazard severity zone, a

[2:25:58] moderate fire severity zone. No, no

[2:26:02] severity zone of any sort. It's it's

[2:26:03] just a clean slate. You know, it's like

[2:26:06] areas of the valley here where they're

[2:26:08] just concrete jungles. I'm not saying

[2:26:10] that's a concrete jungle, but it's it's

[2:26:11] not a higher it's not a fire zone. So,

[2:26:14] it was just very unfair for someone to

[2:26:16] suggest that um some other jurisdiction

[2:26:18] cares and that the proof of that is that

[2:26:20] they have radios and that's why they

[2:26:21] don't burn. That's that's nonsense. Um

[2:26:25] so for the past couple months there's

[2:26:28] been this issue of this was alluded to

[2:26:30] earlier by Halen the whether the U

[2:26:32] rebuild rights travel with the land and

[2:26:35] we all know that with respect to

[2:26:37] planning they do that under our

[2:26:39] municipal code and and and even under

[2:26:41] the um coastal act when it applies when

[2:26:44] you have a um catastrophe and you're

[2:26:46] rebuilding it doesn't matter whether

[2:26:48] it's the person who owned the property

[2:26:49] at the time um it could it can be a

[2:26:52] buyer um what has come to our attention

[2:26:55] is that um the building code does

[2:26:58] provide that in a lands an active

[2:27:00] landslide area um unless it's the um

[2:27:04] owner at the time of the casualty or

[2:27:06] their quote was it authorized

[2:27:08] representative whatever that means um

[2:27:12] there is not the ability to rebuild

[2:27:14] other than to go through some very

[2:27:16] difficult process maybe even not at all.

[2:27:18] So, um Trevor or um Yolanda or anyone

[2:27:22] else that has knowledge about this um

[2:27:25] what is the answer? And if and if the

[2:27:27] answer is we just don't have an answer

[2:27:28] yet, that's fine. But I we need to get

[2:27:30] this clarified

[2:27:33] >> clarification. Is that just for

[2:27:35] » clarification. Is that just for

[2:27:35] landslides or is it okay just for

[2:27:37] >> landslides? Is it having to do with like

[2:27:39] » landslides? Is it having to do with like

[2:27:39] for like fire rebuilds?

[2:27:40] >> It it applies to any rebuild for even

[2:27:43] » It it applies to any rebuild for even

[2:27:43] for catastrophe in a land active

[2:27:46] landslide area. So, it overrides all the

[2:27:49] stuff in our municipal code and the

[2:27:51] coastal act and it it cuts off a buyer

[2:27:55] of property from taking advantage of the

[2:27:57] rebuild ability.

[2:27:58] >> So, it's not the active

[2:27:59] » So, it's not the active

[2:28:00] >> it's not a landslide on that particular

[2:28:01] » it's not a landslide on that particular

[2:28:01] property, it's a landslide area.

[2:28:04] >> Okay. Maybe Yolanda can shed some light

[2:28:06] » Okay. Maybe Yolanda can shed some light

[2:28:06] on that. [snorts]

[2:28:09] >> Yes. Good evening. Uh this comes as a

[2:28:11] » Yes. Good evening. Uh this comes as a

[2:28:11] section of the uh county building code

[2:28:14] uh 110

[2:28:16] 4.2.6. six. Um, and it states that um

[2:28:22] properties that are lost on the uh an in

[2:28:25] an active landslide are able to rebuild

[2:28:28] [applause]

[2:28:28] with uh several conditions. Uh the first

[2:28:32] condition is that it needs to be a like

[2:28:35] for like same area, no additional

[2:28:37] fixtures, no additional bedrooms. And

[2:28:40] then uh another statement states and I

[2:28:43] don't have that quote in front of me um

[2:28:46] that the permits the building permits

[2:28:48] can be issued to the property owner

[2:28:52] their heirs or a authorized agent.

[2:28:56] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:28:57] » Yeah. Okay.

[2:28:58] >> And so that is how it's written. Um, and

[2:29:05] » And so that is how it's written. Um, and

[2:29:05] after the fires, we went back to the

[2:29:07] county trying to get an understanding of

[2:29:10] where this came from. Um, when this was

[2:29:15] added to the county code, uh, it was

[2:29:18] added, uh, I understand on the n in the

[2:29:21] '90s after, um, an incident that

[2:29:25] happened.

[2:29:27] Besides that, I haven't been able to get

[2:29:30] a lot of information on why it was

[2:29:32] written this way.

[2:29:34] So, the question from the community is

[2:29:38] since it's written that only the

[2:29:40] homeowner uh their heirs or the

[2:29:43] authorized agent uh can we can issue the

[2:29:46] building permits, can they sell the

[2:29:48] land? And so that is the question.

[2:29:53] um talking it over with uh Trevor,

[2:29:57] we started looking at

[2:30:00] first it was a concentration on helping

[2:30:02] rebuild everybody that had lost the

[2:30:05] property there. And so we concentrated

[2:30:07] on those homeowners that wanted to do

[2:30:10] like for like. Now the question comes uh

[2:30:13] what if how can I sell my property if

[2:30:16] I'm not able to rebuild? Um we're trying

[2:30:20] to find a definition on what an

[2:30:22] authorized agent um can signify for this

[2:30:27] property owners. But moreover, we are

[2:30:30] also seeking

[2:30:32] um the assistant of the county since

[2:30:34] this is a section of the county code

[2:30:37] trying to have an understanding of why

[2:30:39] that was written and also if there is a

[2:30:41] way to change it and allow the property

[2:30:45] owners to sell the property. Um, so

[2:30:48] that's where we are right now.

[2:30:50] >> Thank you for that, Yolanda. That and

[2:30:52] » Thank you for that, Yolanda. That and

[2:30:52] that's consistent with my understanding.

[2:30:53] Um, so

[2:30:56] I I had thought I had heard that we were

[2:30:58] a little further in into it than that,

[2:31:00] but that's that's actually makes sense

[2:31:01] to me. So, what I'd like to do is I'd

[2:31:03] like to ask for a consensus to bring

[2:31:05] back an item for the council to take

[2:31:07] some affirmative action that would give

[2:31:10] you greater ammunition in dealing with

[2:31:12] the county, whoever, because I came to

[2:31:15] the conclusion myself after studying the

[2:31:17] problem that um it does require some

[2:31:19] kind of a legislative fix. I don't know

[2:31:21] whether the governor can fix it through

[2:31:22] an executive order. I doubt it actually.

[2:31:25] I think it does require some kind of a

[2:31:26] legislative fix. I'll be surprised if a

[2:31:29] proper interpretation of the way it's

[2:31:31] written now would permit a subsequent

[2:31:33] owner to um take advantage of the

[2:31:36] provision. So I I think it needs to be

[2:31:38] addressed. I think I understand the

[2:31:41] concept was I mean if you think about it

[2:31:44] in an active landslide people probably

[2:31:46] shouldn't build full stop. um even if

[2:31:50] the house has been um destroyed, nobody

[2:31:53] though had in mind that there'd be a

[2:31:55] catastrophe of this nature where entire

[2:31:57] neighborhoods were wiped out. And um it

[2:32:01] may be that an extraordinary situation

[2:32:02] of like this requires an extraordinary

[2:32:04] exception to the statute that they have

[2:32:06] in place. So, um, I'd like to bring this

[2:32:09] back as an item where we can maybe

[2:32:11] fashion a letter of support or or do

[2:32:13] something or maybe authorize us to

[2:32:15] affirmatively work for our lobbyists,

[2:32:17] but we need to do something not to

[2:32:20] define a an authorized agent as as

[2:32:22] someone who buys it because I think

[2:32:23] that's a silly way to address it. It's

[2:32:26] kind of like the only way you can do it

[2:32:27] under the existing statute, but actually

[2:32:28] get the county to agree to engraft an

[2:32:31] exception for the Palisades fire and

[2:32:34] possibly for other wildfires. Um, so can

[2:32:37] we get a

[2:32:38] >> Mayor the staff would support that we

[2:32:40] » Mayor the staff would support that we

[2:32:40] would to bring back an item to discuss

[2:32:42] it. You know, I think we could bring

[2:32:43] more information and options here for

[2:32:45] the council.

[2:32:46] >> Yeah, and I I fully support this. Um,

[2:32:48] » Yeah, and I I fully support this. Um,

[2:32:48] and you know, I've reached out to the

[2:32:51] county supervisor already to initiate

[2:32:53] conversations about this because I do

[2:32:56] think it's something at the county level

[2:32:57] that we need to work, you know, one

[2:33:00] looking back through all the um the

[2:33:03] original reason why they put it into

[2:33:05] their code and then also they've amended

[2:33:08] it several times. So, what is the intent

[2:33:10] of what it is it's supposed to be? So, I

[2:33:13] fully support that. I'm actively, you

[2:33:15] know, reaching out to the um

[2:33:16] supervisor's office to also have those

[2:33:18] conversations because I think it is

[2:33:20] something that it's time that we get a

[2:33:22] better definition and why it's there and

[2:33:24] and to um put the places in so that

[2:33:28] properties can be subsequently sold um

[2:33:32] regardless of whether the house is

[2:33:34] rebuilt or not.

[2:33:35] >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. And just to uh

[2:33:37] » Yes. Thank you, mayor. And just to uh

[2:33:37] give credit to the mayor, uh she put us

[2:33:39] in contact with Dylan Sin. uh he is the

[2:33:43] regional planning deputy uh with Lindsey

[2:33:46] Horvat. Uh he is trying to set up a

[2:33:48] meeting with the building official from

[2:33:50] the county so we can have this

[2:33:52] conversation um and see how we can

[2:33:54] handle this for our property owners.

[2:33:58] >> If I could ask a quick question, I

[2:34:00] » If I could ask a quick question, I

[2:34:00] understand the point that's been posed

[2:34:04] so far about uh in an active landslide,

[2:34:06] but what constitutes an active

[2:34:08] landslide? What what is this saying that

[2:34:11] everything in Malibu is in this or is it

[2:34:14] just big rock or what? It's big rock.

[2:34:16] >> No. And so we're not talking about all

[2:34:19] » No. And so we're not talking about all

[2:34:19] those 597 properties. They don't fall

[2:34:22] under this. They only uh the only

[2:34:24] properties are possibly the ones that

[2:34:27] are on big rock and not all of them. Uh

[2:34:30] what constitute an active landslide. the

[2:34:33] state of California they have the

[2:34:35] mapping um assigned and and and and

[2:34:39] designated what is an active landslide

[2:34:41] and this is where this information come

[2:34:44] from. So uh we're talking about big rock

[2:34:48] 170 uh 70 some properties we lost on

[2:34:51] that area

[2:34:53] not everybody is selling the property.

[2:34:55] Uh so it's for those that are would like

[2:34:57] to sell the property giving them an uh

[2:35:00] the ability to sell the property.

[2:35:02] >> I would think in the palisades there are

[2:35:04] » I would think in the palisades there are

[2:35:04] some areas that are in that active

[2:35:06] lands. I know the map now that you

[2:35:07] mentioned which one it is. I've seen

[2:35:08] that map. Um but I would think it also

[2:35:11] affects palisades.

[2:35:13] >> Yes, that is correct.

[2:35:14] » Yes, that is correct.

[2:35:14] >> Yes. There's several areas I I I mean I

[2:35:17] » Yes. There's several areas I I I mean I

[2:35:17] can I can provide next time that we come

[2:35:20] to that to council with what um with our

[2:35:23] conversations with the county uh we can

[2:35:26] provide a list of what areas within our

[2:35:30] burn area are the ones affected uh by

[2:35:33] this section of the code.

[2:35:34] >> Yeah. This the simple solution actually

[2:35:36] » Yeah. This the simple solution actually

[2:35:36] it may be too broad for the county but

[2:35:38] the simple solution would just be say

[2:35:39] heirs successors and assigns and and

[2:35:42] that would fix it completely. Harris is

[2:35:46] >> I'm definitely in favor of bringing it

[2:35:47] » I'm definitely in favor of bringing it

[2:35:47] back.

[2:35:48] >> The other issue is, as I understand it

[2:35:50] » The other issue is, as I understand it

[2:35:50] though, even that that provision also

[2:35:52] unlike the like for like plus 10%,

[2:35:55] there's no plus 10%. Is that accurate?

[2:35:59] >> At the beginning of the rebuild back in

[2:36:02] » At the beginning of the rebuild back in

[2:36:02] uh February of this year, that was the

[2:36:04] first question from uh a lot of our uh

[2:36:07] property owners on that on the uh

[2:36:09] landslide areas. Um

[2:36:12] the building code as you know chapter

[2:36:14] one stays as is that is as the

[2:36:17] interpretation of the building official.

[2:36:19] Back in February um I was able to write

[2:36:22] a interpretation for that like for like

[2:36:25] to be consistent with our planning um or

[2:36:29] zoning ordinance. So we did authorize

[2:36:32] that no more area also constitute that

[2:36:35] like for life plus 10 to be

[2:36:38] >> aligned. No more means no more than

[2:36:40] » aligned. No more means no more than

[2:36:40] 110%.

[2:36:41] >> Yes. Yes.

[2:36:42] » Yes. Yes.

[2:36:42] >> Good for you. Thank you.

[2:36:44] » Good for you. Thank you.

[2:36:44] >> All right. Those are my comments.

[2:36:47] » All right. Those are my comments.

[2:36:47] >> Do we have this coming back officially?

[2:36:49] » Do we have this coming back officially?

[2:36:49] >> Sounds like it.

[2:36:50] » Sounds like it.

[2:36:50] >> Okay. It sounds like consensus on that.

[2:36:55] » Okay. It sounds like consensus on that.

[2:36:55] >> Thank you.

[2:36:55] » Thank you.

[2:36:55] >> I guess I'm up. Um Rob,

[2:36:59] » I guess I'm up. Um Rob,

[2:36:59] sewer update for those PCH properties.

[2:37:02] Um what is the latest and when's it

[2:37:06] going to be before council? when are we

[2:37:08] going to make a decision on that?

[2:37:11] [laughter]

[2:37:12] >> So, um, yeah, we're planning on bringing

[2:37:15] » So, um, yeah, we're planning on bringing

[2:37:15] it back on the first meeting in

[2:37:17] February. I'm crossing my fingers that

[2:37:20] there's a couple things that we're kind

[2:37:21] of working on, but I that's kind of

[2:37:23] where we're kind of landing. I I think

[2:37:25] we're in good shape to kind of at least

[2:37:28] have a discussion, let you know where we

[2:37:29] are with that, but um, so that's that's

[2:37:33] that's where we are with the PCA sewer.

[2:37:36] >> Great. Yeah, that definitely just to let

[2:37:38] » Great. Yeah, that definitely just to let

[2:37:38] everybody know we're keeping their foot

[2:37:40] on the gas on that one so that people

[2:37:42] can know whether or not that's a a real

[2:37:44] possibility or if repair andor uh reuse

[2:37:48] of their existing septic and and all

[2:37:50] that's [clears throat] going to be their

[2:37:51] option. Um so every time we have

[2:37:55] Sergeant Sodeland is here. Is it

[2:37:57] possible to ask CHP? I know they um give

[2:38:03] an update to the public safety

[2:38:05] commission on their work. Um would it be

[2:38:08] possible to maybe ask if they could

[2:38:10] attend

[2:38:11] um one of our council meetings and give

[2:38:14] us an an update of the work that they're

[2:38:16] doing um on a you know even just once a

[2:38:21] month basis so we can hear from them on

[2:38:23] the the work that they're doing since

[2:38:26] they've been here now what two years.

[2:38:30] [laughter]

[2:38:31] >> Okay great thank you very much. Um, and

[2:38:34] » Okay great thank you very much. Um, and

[2:38:34] then the other thing that's come up

[2:38:36] that, you know, kind of going off on

[2:38:38] some of the stuff that Bruce was asking

[2:38:39] for, um,

[2:38:42] it seems like historically we we've just

[2:38:45] been kind of living with the, uh,

[2:38:48] geological information in Big Rock and

[2:38:51] it's been, I think, quite some time

[2:38:53] since we've had a comprehensive

[2:38:56] um, report done on the activity of the

[2:39:00] landslide. the

[2:39:03] um [sighs] dewatering wells. Um

[2:39:07] could we initiate a a report of you know

[2:39:13] what is the status of that landslide

[2:39:15] now? Is it active? Is it dormant? Have

[2:39:18] the dewatering wells worked? um just get

[2:39:21] a so we just have an updated

[2:39:25] comprehensive overview and not just

[2:39:27] going on 30 or 40 years worth of

[2:39:29] information.

[2:39:31] >> So uh so we have our our landsite

[2:39:35] » So uh so we have our our landsite

[2:39:35] assessment consultant that actually does

[2:39:38] all the monitoring and um and operations

[2:39:42] of of Big Rock. They can go over the

[2:39:45] data. they can go over kind of what

[2:39:47] they've done and we can kind of go over

[2:39:49] really kind of all the work um our staff

[2:39:54] has been done to replace

[2:39:56] probably majority of the equipment

[2:39:58] that's out there from the from the from

[2:40:00] the Palisades fire. So we can provide an

[2:40:03] update if if that works with that or you

[2:40:05] looking for

[2:40:06] >> I think I'm looking for a little bit

[2:40:08] » I think I'm looking for a little bit

[2:40:08] more comprehensive. I think that's a

[2:40:09] portion of it. Um, but and I don't

[2:40:13] expect this to be done in a quick I mean

[2:40:15] I think this is something that we're

[2:40:16] going to have to do an RFP for and you

[2:40:19] know do a comprehensive thing but I

[2:40:21] think that there's a lot of questions

[2:40:22] out there as to just how active that

[2:40:25] landslide is. Is it you know is it still

[2:40:28] mapped with the state of California and

[2:40:31] should it still be mapped? Are there

[2:40:33] things that should be so we just get

[2:40:35] more information about

[2:40:37] >> Yeah. So I I will get with director

[2:40:40] » Yeah. So I I will get with director

[2:40:40] Bundy and I will kind of look to

[2:40:41] strategize on how we can provide that

[2:40:43] information and see how steps we can do

[2:40:45] for that too. But the easiest thing is

[2:40:48] to get an update from our uh consultant

[2:40:51] that's actually doing the monitoring and

[2:40:54] operating of the big rock deatering and

[2:40:56] we can we can provide that.

[2:40:58] >> Is that y and associates? Ye no ye

[2:41:02] » Is that y and associates? Ye no ye

[2:41:02] >> it's like

[2:41:03] » it's like

[2:41:03] >> what's yay

[2:41:03] » what's yay

[2:41:04] >> yay yay and associates because I went to

[2:41:05] » yay yay and associates because I went to

[2:41:05] a meeting recently. Well, not recently,

[2:41:07] but it might have been like a few months

[2:41:09] ago where they did a presentation and

[2:41:10] talked about the dewatering and the

[2:41:12] successes and I think it was public

[2:41:14] works. Um, but it might be good to have

[2:41:17] that here cuz

[2:41:18] >> I would also like

[2:41:20] » I would also like

[2:41:20] >> But how does that work within the whole

[2:41:22] » But how does that work within the whole

[2:41:22] comprehensive? So, when the geologists

[2:41:24] are looking at a house that's being

[2:41:25] built or in this case the rebuild of

[2:41:28] over a hundred homes,

[2:41:29] >> it it's it's a little bit more

[2:41:31] » it it's it's a little bit more

[2:41:31] complicated than that. That's something

[2:41:32] that Yolanda and I will have to look

[2:41:33] into and kind of strategize on how it

[2:41:36] how we can present that information and

[2:41:38] have a path forward on get you that what

[2:41:40] you're looking for.

[2:41:41] >> So, do we do do the other council

[2:41:43] » So, do we do do the other council

[2:41:43] members agree that that's something I

[2:41:44] think that the city should initiate so

[2:41:46] that we just have a more upto-date

[2:41:48] >> I'd like that picture of what especially

[2:41:50] » I'd like that picture of what especially

[2:41:50] if we're going to be discussing this

[2:41:52] council um authorized in a landslide

[2:41:55] area. I need to understand what is an

[2:41:57] active landslide. I've heard over and

[2:41:58] over that it's not an active landslide.

[2:42:00] What I heard from Yolanda though, and

[2:42:02] maybe I misunderstood, was it this isn't

[2:42:04] really a factbased question. There's a

[2:42:06] map. It's the legal definition of the

[2:42:09] landslide area for purposes of the code

[2:42:11] is what the state tells us. So unless

[2:42:13] the state is convinced to change its

[2:42:14] maps, we're stuck with that designation

[2:42:17] just like the very high fire hazard

[2:42:18] severity zone.

[2:42:19] >> Is that accurate?

[2:42:20] » Is that accurate?

[2:42:20] >> Yeah, that is correct. the uh the state

[2:42:22] » Yeah, that is correct. the uh the state

[2:42:22] of California has their own geologists

[2:42:24] that do all the mapping for the state of

[2:42:26] California on the all the geohazardous

[2:42:29] uh areas and that's how it functions. I

[2:42:32] will have to go back and and and see how

[2:42:35] can the map be changed if it what is the

[2:42:41] possibilities or

[2:42:43] >> well you you shouldn't need to do that.

[2:42:44] » well you you shouldn't need to do that.

[2:42:44] That's probably something our council

[2:42:45] can do. That's a legal question of can

[2:42:47] the map be changed and if so under what

[2:42:49] circumstances? I just think I've heard

[2:42:51] for the past year that it's not a

[2:42:54] >> it's not a landslide area and the

[2:42:57] » it's not a landslide area and the

[2:42:57] residents seem to be very passionate

[2:42:59] about that and so I've been going with

[2:43:01] it because I just assume that we all did

[2:43:02] our due diligence. But if I'm hearing

[2:43:04] now that we are questioning it, maybe

[2:43:07] it's good to have those answers.

[2:43:08] >> I said it's, you know, this is not an

[2:43:10] » I said it's, you know, this is not an

[2:43:10] unusual situation in the law. We it

[2:43:13] really isn't whether factually we agree

[2:43:15] or disagree with it. It's whether it's

[2:43:17] mapped as such. So, we [clears throat]

[2:43:18] need to deal with the state and get them

[2:43:20] to not map it as such if it's really not

[2:43:23] properly mapped.

[2:43:24] >> Okay.

[2:43:25] » Okay.

[2:43:25] >> But to your point, I think if you go

[2:43:27] » But to your point, I think if you go

[2:43:27] back, this is where we have conflict

[2:43:28] about what constitutes a slide area

[2:43:30] because you go back two years ago and

[2:43:32] the same homeowners in Big Rock were

[2:43:34] saying it was an active slide area.

[2:43:35] >> Right.

[2:43:36] » Right.

[2:43:36] >> Now, they say it's not, but yet the

[2:43:37] » Now, they say it's not, but yet the

[2:43:38] state maps say something else. So, we've

[2:43:39] got to we've got we got to see what

[2:43:41] we're dealing with here.

[2:43:42] >> They were making the argument for

[2:43:43] » They were making the argument for

[2:43:43] purposes of local zoning decisions,

[2:43:45] which we have discretion over. this is a

[2:43:47] state law issue. We need to get we need

[2:43:49] to have the state map examined.

[2:43:52] So, I mean at the very least maybe we

[2:43:55] need to have a little bit more education

[2:43:56] of how this is determined, what the

[2:43:59] steps are and um

[2:44:02] >> yeah um we can um if council agrees with

[2:44:05] » yeah um we can um if council agrees with

[2:44:05] this, we can have our new geotechnical

[2:44:09] firm uh do a presentation for council on

[2:44:11] how the maps are uh established uh and

[2:44:16] show you

[2:44:18] um how those how those came about and

[2:44:23] try to get information on how if those

[2:44:26] maps can be changed

[2:44:28] >> and then along with the other local

[2:44:30] » and then along with the other local

[2:44:30] information from the dewatering.

[2:44:31] >> Yeah. Let's just Yeah. Let Yolana and I

[2:44:34] » Yeah. Let's just Yeah. Let Yolana and I

[2:44:34] kind of get together and we'll

[2:44:35] strategize on how we can do.

[2:44:36] >> Yeah. So, so even it's just an

[2:44:38] » Yeah. So, so even it's just an

[2:44:38] educational workshop so that ourselves

[2:44:40] and the community can better understand

[2:44:43] >> how this is designated and what goes

[2:44:46] » how this is designated and what goes

[2:44:46] into this decision and if it's still

[2:44:49] applicable or you know if a slide could

[2:44:51] be mitigated into no longer being a

[2:44:54] hazard I guess is kind of I don't know.

[2:44:58] Okay, I've said enough. All right,

[2:45:02] that concludes.

[2:45:04] >> I have two more points if Do you have

[2:45:06] » I have two more points if Do you have

[2:45:06] Sorry. Um I'd like to propose a council

[2:45:09] item for who can attend the zone captain

[2:45:11] meetings so that we can put this to rest

[2:45:13] for the future. Um because I believe

[2:45:16] that there's a Brown Act issue if more

[2:45:18] than two attend. So how should we go

[2:45:23] about that?

[2:45:27] » Consult our city attorney. You can just

[2:45:29] set an item and then we can have a

[2:45:30] discussion at the at the

[2:45:34] with the whole council and you guys can

[2:45:35] decide who's going to attend.

[2:45:38] >> Great. Well, I think that you know is

[2:45:41] » Great. Well, I think that you know is

[2:45:41] there a question? Is it a Brown Act?

[2:45:43] >> Yes, it's a those are city meetings.

[2:45:45] » Yes, it's a those are city meetings.

[2:45:45] They they cannot have more than two

[2:45:46] council members present.

[2:45:47] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[2:45:50] » Okay.

[2:45:51] >> Just for what it's worth, I mean, I was

[2:45:52] » Just for what it's worth, I mean, I was

[2:45:52] going

[2:45:53] >> I was going and and

[2:45:55] » I was going and and

[2:45:55] then H jumped in. So, I'm going to let

[2:45:57] her go. You got them. I I'll pass. I go

[2:46:00] to the

[2:46:00] >> We could also do a rotation.

[2:46:01] » We could also do a rotation.

[2:46:01] >> I got other things I can do.

[2:46:03] » I got other things I can do.

[2:46:03] >> I think consistency is really important

[2:46:04] » I think consistency is really important

[2:46:04] on those things.

[2:46:05] >> Okay. Well, thanks then.

[2:46:07] » Okay. Well, thanks then.

[2:46:07] >> I will.

[2:46:08] » I will.

[2:46:08] >> Do we have to memorialize that or put

[2:46:10] » Do we have to memorialize that or put

[2:46:10] that in writing or

[2:46:11] >> is there consensus from the council that

[2:46:13] » is there consensus from the council that

[2:46:13] you'd wish to bring back an item?

[2:46:15] >> Not if we've just decided, which I feel

[2:46:17] » Not if we've just decided, which I feel

[2:46:17] like we have, unless we have to vote on

[2:46:19] it. But

[2:46:22] >> um

[2:46:23] » um

[2:46:23] >> sounds to me like the it always is the

[2:46:26] » sounds to me like the it always is the

[2:46:26] case that two people can go and the

[2:46:29] issue was just resolved by Steve.

[2:46:30] >> I agree. I think it's I [clears throat]

[2:46:32] » I agree. I think it's I [clears throat]

[2:46:32] I feel good about that.

[2:46:33] >> Yeah, there's no council action but if

[2:46:35] » Yeah, there's no council action but if

[2:46:35] if council member hearing is not

[2:46:37] attending then there isn't an issue, no

[2:46:38] need to bring it back.

[2:46:40] >> And the captains are uh meetings are

[2:46:42] » And the captains are uh meetings are

[2:46:42] happening every Wednesday uh from 3 to

[2:46:44] 4, sometimes from 3:00 to 5:00. So, now

[2:46:47] that we have the decision from council,

[2:46:49] we will make sure to uh invite uh

[2:46:52] council member Conrad and Mayor uh

[2:46:54] Riggins.

[2:46:55] >> Thank you.

[2:46:56] » Thank you.

[2:46:56] >> Thank you.

[2:46:57] » Thank you.

[2:46:57] >> Can't we just can't we just uh separate?

[2:47:00] » Can't we just can't we just uh separate?

[2:47:00] It's a public meeting. I thought we were

[2:47:02] able to to audience.

[2:47:05] >> If you're going to have three council

[2:47:06] » If you're going to have three council

[2:47:06] members participating in that, we would

[2:47:07] need to go notice it as a special

[2:47:08] meeting.

[2:47:09] >> Even though we're spread out in the

[2:47:11] » Even though we're spread out in the

[2:47:11] >> they're not talking and not even

[2:47:13] » they're not talking and not even

[2:47:13] discussing anything with each other.

[2:47:15] It doesn't fall under a ceremonial

[2:47:17] exception. It's not a um community

[2:47:19] meeting put on by a third party

[2:47:20] organization.

[2:47:21] >> It's not another notice commission

[2:47:22] » It's not another notice commission

[2:47:22] meeting which would fall under the Brown

[2:47:24] Act as well.

[2:47:25] >> So there's anytime you have three

[2:47:27] » So there's anytime you have three

[2:47:27] council members present discussing city

[2:47:29] business, it's a meeting under the Brown

[2:47:31] Act unless an exception applies and

[2:47:32] there's not an exception that apply to

[2:47:33] this. This is a city organized um uh

[2:47:37] meeting.

[2:47:38] >> Okay. Thank you.

[2:47:39] » Okay. Thank you.

[2:47:39] >> Um one last thing, do we have consensus?

[2:47:42] » Um one last thing, do we have consensus?

[2:47:42] Should we put on the next agenda the

[2:47:44] mobile home park? I mean, there's been a

[2:47:46] lot of back and forth with some of the

[2:47:48] mobile the residents that live in the

[2:47:50] mobile home park because there's a

[2:47:51] meeting on Thursday at 1:30, but if

[2:47:54] there's something that they've decided,

[2:47:55] we can talk about it at the next meeting

[2:47:57] for council.

[2:47:59] >> Well, can't the the head of that

[2:48:01] » Well, can't the the head of that

[2:48:01] commission just come and give us a

[2:48:03] report?

[2:48:04] >> Yeah. So yeah, we have an item coming in

[2:48:07] » Yeah. So yeah, we have an item coming in

[2:48:07] the first meeting in February for for

[2:48:10] that for a revised or ordinance.

[2:48:12] >> Okay.

[2:48:13] » Okay.

[2:48:13] >> So that's coming.

[2:48:14] » So that's coming.

[2:48:14] >> Great. Thank you.

[2:48:15] » Great. Thank you.

[2:48:16] >> That's it.

[2:48:16] » That's it.

[2:48:16] >> Okay. Does that conclude council

[2:48:18] » Okay. Does that conclude council

[2:48:18] comments?

[2:48:19] >> Do we want a break before we dive into

[2:48:21] » Do we want a break before we dive into

[2:48:21] AA?

[2:48:23] >> Okay. So we're going to take Let's be

[2:48:25] » Okay. So we're going to take Let's be

[2:48:25] back here at 8:25, please.

[2:48:28] >> Thank you.

[2:48:29] » Thank you.

[2:48:29] >> Well, yeah.

[2:48:31] » Well, yeah.

[2:48:31] >> Always go over. Let's actually be back

[2:48:32] » Always go over. Let's actually be back

[2:48:32] here at 8:25.

[3:06:00] Okay, we're back. Um,

[3:06:04] from our amended agenda, we're on to

[3:06:05] item 8A.

[3:06:11] So,

[3:06:13] who's giving the presentation?

[3:06:17] >> Bruce A. Hala. Okay,

[3:06:20] » Bruce A. Hala. Okay,

[3:06:20] >> Bruce.

[3:06:21] » Bruce.

[3:06:21] >> Sure. [laughter]

[3:06:23] » Sure. [laughter]

[3:06:24] Wish I had actually done a PowerPoint.

[3:06:26] Okay, so

[3:06:28] I'm hoping the council have all read

[3:06:30] this. I know that the residents have.

[3:06:33] Um, this is a proposal to adopt a city

[3:06:37] council resolution

[3:06:39] that will formalize

[3:06:41] many of the policies that I think we've

[3:06:43] informally already um, put into place as

[3:06:47] well as put some um, additional meat on

[3:06:49] their bones. Um, so I'll just walk

[3:06:52] through them. I mean it starts off with

[3:06:54] a just a general statement of policy

[3:06:57] which is which I think we all agree on

[3:07:00] which that we declare and by the way

[3:07:02] this will not just be for the fires that

[3:07:05] have occurred. This will be a policy of

[3:07:07] the city of Malibu going forward unless

[3:07:10] and until a future if we adopt it unless

[3:07:12] and until a future city council were to

[3:07:14] change it uh for dealing with um

[3:07:16] casualties mass natural casualties of

[3:07:19] this type. So it says, "We declare it to

[3:07:22] be the policy of the city of Malibu to

[3:07:25] facilitate the expeditious, efficient,

[3:07:27] and economical rebuild of all structures

[3:07:29] in the city destroyed or materially

[3:07:32] damaged by wildfire, earthquake which is

[3:07:35] yet to come, flood, landslide, mudslide

[3:07:38] or similar disaster.

[3:07:41] key now in substantially the same loca

[3:07:43] in in substantially the same location as

[3:07:46] the destroyed or damaged structure and

[3:07:48] in a like forlike manner that does not

[3:07:49] exceed 10% of the area height or bulk of

[3:07:53] the structure destroyed or materially

[3:07:54] damaged. So this is this is basically um

[3:07:58] memorializing as a city council policy

[3:08:01] that we want when there are disasters of

[3:08:04] this nature to see rebuilds in a lake

[3:08:07] like forlike manner. um and we want to

[3:08:10] encourage them to be able to be done in

[3:08:12] an efficient, expeditious and economical

[3:08:14] manner.

[3:08:15] So then we get into what what are we

[3:08:17] going to do pursuant to that policy if

[3:08:19] we adopt it. First of all, we're going

[3:08:22] to ensure that nobody that works for the

[3:08:26] city directly or or as an outsider is

[3:08:29] going to impose any requirements that

[3:08:31] aren't in the law. So, um, and and a

[3:08:34] great example of that is you remember we

[3:08:36] we spent a lot of time dealing with what

[3:08:39] is going to be the base elevation on the

[3:08:41] beach. And we did a lot of um back and

[3:08:44] forth with staff and experts and we came

[3:08:47] to the understanding that the only

[3:08:49] applicable law outside of uh the only

[3:08:52] applicable law was it had to be FEMA

[3:08:54] plus one. I guess one could argue that

[3:08:56] wasn't even the law, but that that was

[3:08:58] the only applicable restriction that was

[3:09:00] other than something we would make up.

[3:09:02] There was no other federal, state,

[3:09:04] county, or city law in place that would

[3:09:06] dictate the height. But we needed to

[3:09:10] adopt a policy of what the height was

[3:09:12] going to be, what the base level

[3:09:13] elevations could be. Well, had we

[3:09:15] employed this policy from day one, and

[3:09:19] this will be, if we have this policy on

[3:09:21] day one going forward, we wouldn't have

[3:09:23] had to have any of that discussion. the

[3:09:24] staff would have simply looked at what

[3:09:26] the law is, come to the recognition that

[3:09:28] the only applicable law was FEMA plus

[3:09:30] one and applied it and the city council

[3:09:32] would not have had to have been involved

[3:09:34] in that. The community wouldn't have had

[3:09:35] to be involved in that and a lot of time

[3:09:37] would have been saved. I'm not smart

[3:09:39] enough to know what all the other

[3:09:41] situations are going to be. None of us

[3:09:43] are, I suspect, going forward that are

[3:09:46] going to come up and someone's going to

[3:09:47] say, "Well, what are we going to do in

[3:09:48] this circumstance?" The answer we're

[3:09:51] saying should be very clear. forget what

[3:09:54] you might want to see done. Let's look

[3:09:56] to the law. Let's look to the federal

[3:09:58] law because that governs here whether we

[3:10:00] like it or not, the state law, the

[3:10:02] county law, and our existing municipal

[3:10:04] code and don't don't impose any

[3:10:06] restriction or requirement whatsoever

[3:10:09] that's not already embedded in those

[3:10:10] laws. Now, we also have the ability

[3:10:12] obviously to look at our own municipal

[3:10:13] code and say, well, let's liberalize

[3:10:15] that. We can't liberalize it beyond the

[3:10:17] requirements of a superior law, but we

[3:10:19] can liberalize it where where it's more

[3:10:21] strict. But any event, this says don't

[3:10:24] apply any rule that's not already in

[3:10:26] place. Don't don't go looking for more

[3:10:28] restrictions.

[3:10:30] Um, there's a provision in here that I'

[3:10:32] I've heard a lot of comments about in in

[3:10:34] in two different directions. It says in

[3:10:37] so doing any doubt respecting and by the

[3:10:40] way again only for like forlike

[3:10:42] rebuilds, not for new build, not for a

[3:10:45] non-disaster build and not for a rebuild

[3:10:49] that's not in tune with like for like.

[3:10:51] If somebody wants to build something

[3:10:52] that's 150% of what was there, this

[3:10:55] doesn't apply to them whatsoever.

[3:10:58] So when we're doing that, any doubt

[3:11:01] respecting the application of a legal

[3:11:03] requirement or the manner of its

[3:11:05] application, respecting a like forlike

[3:11:07] disaster rebuild shall be resolved in

[3:11:09] favor of the city's policy to facilitate

[3:11:12] this expeditious rebuild. And to that

[3:11:15] end, this is the one I' I've heard a lot

[3:11:16] of comments in both directions. Whenever

[3:11:19] there's a difference of opinion on an

[3:11:20] issue that the director of community

[3:11:22] development department defined as the

[3:11:24] CDD director and we know that at this

[3:11:26] moment in time that's Yolanda uh

[3:11:28] recognizes to be a difference of opinion

[3:11:30] upon which reasonable professional civil

[3:11:33] engineers might differ. The city staff

[3:11:36] shall defer to the stamped and certified

[3:11:38] decision of the civil engineer. There's

[3:11:39] other language in there. Now let's make

[3:11:42] clear what that means. It doesn't mean

[3:11:44] as some residents have said in

[3:11:46] advocating for this, whatever my design

[3:11:49] professional says, I'm now going to get

[3:11:51] that and the city's going to have to

[3:11:52] defer to it because your design

[3:11:54] professional may be advocating for

[3:11:56] something which the CDD director doesn't

[3:11:59] believe is within the reasonable

[3:12:01] reasonable range of alternatives that

[3:12:03] are available under the building code.

[3:12:07] What it does mean is that where there's

[3:12:09] a range of alternatives that are

[3:12:12] available, all of which satisfy the

[3:12:13] applicable code, it's usually got to do

[3:12:15] with safety, where there's a range of

[3:12:17] things that could be done to satisfy the

[3:12:18] safety requirement.

[3:12:20] Some design engineers are going to say

[3:12:23] we want to do the absolute strongest

[3:12:25] thing possible. In fact, some are going

[3:12:26] to say more than what's required. Others

[3:12:28] are going to say, I want to do the the

[3:12:30] owner of the property may say, I want to

[3:12:32] do the absolute minimum that I'm

[3:12:33] required to do to meet the law.

[3:12:35] And what this is s saying is when it

[3:12:38] comes to the staff, as long as in the

[3:12:41] opinion of the director and and

[3:12:44] obviously it'll also be lower level

[3:12:46] people who will first look at the

[3:12:48] question. As long as it's something

[3:12:50] which does fall within that range, we're

[3:12:53] not going to debate with the resident or

[3:12:55] their or their design professionals as

[3:12:57] to whether they ought to be doing

[3:12:59] something better or more safe. as long

[3:13:02] as it's as long as it's at the level

[3:13:04] that is the minimum required by the law.

[3:13:05] Again, this is consistent with the first

[3:13:07] thing. We're not going to impose any

[3:13:09] rule greater than the law. So, the FEMA

[3:13:12] thing would be a great example. I think

[3:13:13] some people have advocated at one point

[3:13:16] FEMA plus one isn't really good enough.

[3:13:18] There should be some greater um

[3:13:20] allocation for sea level rise. We

[3:13:22] wouldn't be thinking about those things.

[3:13:24] It's just a question of what is a

[3:13:27] reasonable application of the law.

[3:13:30] Um the next thing is that we're

[3:13:33] encouraging that every reasonable and

[3:13:36] legally permissible effort be pursued to

[3:13:39] liberalize the process for securing

[3:13:41] building code approvals for again for

[3:13:43] like for like disaster rebuilds.

[3:13:47] Um

[3:13:49] you know this is not an indication of

[3:13:52] doing anything that's not both

[3:13:53] reasonable and legal. So these are

[3:13:56] policies. These are these are to to make

[3:13:58] clear that we want to see homes rebuilt.

[3:14:01] We want to see them be rebuilt like for

[3:14:03] like as best we can and we want to make

[3:14:05] it as painless as possible to do it.

[3:14:08] Recognizing obviously we can't solve

[3:14:10] insurance issues. We can't solve state

[3:14:13] laws that are more ownorous than we

[3:14:15] might want them to be. We're stuck with

[3:14:17] them.

[3:14:19] Um

[3:14:22] this this says that we will where we

[3:14:25] where that we find an issue that is

[3:14:28] impacting our residents that we don't

[3:14:31] have the ability to overcome. We will

[3:14:35] advocate to the state that it look into

[3:14:38] the issue and see what can be done to

[3:14:39] help relax the requirement. The answer

[3:14:41] may be there is nothing that could be

[3:14:43] done. But again, we will do what we can

[3:14:45] do to try to get the requirement relaxed

[3:14:48] so that if it's relaxed, more people can

[3:14:51] do more.

[3:14:55] There's a lot of other particular things

[3:14:58] which I think I'll just leave it to

[3:14:59] others to comment on. Um, item four,

[3:15:02] which I think is an important one, is um

[3:15:06] that when dealing with the like forlike

[3:15:08] disaster rebuilds, um, it's imperative

[3:15:11] that our staff members are focused on

[3:15:15] finding ways to get to Yes.

[3:15:19] And importantly, this states, by the

[3:15:21] same token, when we're not dealing with

[3:15:23] disaster rebuilds, we need the staff to

[3:15:26] still be focused on the mission

[3:15:28] statement and the vision statement. The

[3:15:30] reason for this paragraph is it's been

[3:15:33] said to me and I agree with it by the

[3:15:35] staff. How do we justify going out of

[3:15:38] our way to bend over backwards to get

[3:15:40] this done over here and then when

[3:15:42] someone else comes to us and wants the

[3:15:44] same accommodation, not provide that?

[3:15:47] How do we how do we decide who's

[3:15:48] entitled to an accommodation and who's

[3:15:50] not? The answer is right here in a city

[3:15:52] council policy. if it's adopted, if it's

[3:15:54] a disaster rebuild and it's a which

[3:15:56] means it's a lake like for lake and it

[3:15:58] came out of a disaster, we're going to

[3:16:00] use all of these tools in our toolbox

[3:16:02] that we can to make it as easy as

[3:16:04] possible. And this says when someone

[3:16:07] who's doing a regular 5,000 square foot

[3:16:10] build on Point Doom and they want the

[3:16:12] same accommodation and they're saying

[3:16:14] why am I not getting it? The answer is

[3:16:16] right here because this policy of the

[3:16:18] city council is that you're not getting

[3:16:19] that. you're this is for the rebuilds.

[3:16:22] It's not to say that you're not going to

[3:16:24] get fair treatment if you're building

[3:16:26] something large or new, but you're just

[3:16:28] not going to get the special treatment

[3:16:30] that we are creating for disaster

[3:16:32] rebuilds.

[3:16:34] Um, other than that, most of the things

[3:16:36] in here are things that Yolanda has

[3:16:38] already told us she has put into place

[3:16:42] or is putting in place. And this is

[3:16:44] again kind of codifying from a st from a

[3:16:46] city council standpoint that these

[3:16:48] things we agree with them. And one might

[3:16:51] ask why why do we need to do this? Why

[3:16:53] why bother putting this in writing?

[3:16:55] Well, first of all, it it shows that we

[3:16:59] support what's being done. Secondly,

[3:17:03] you know, we would like to think

[3:17:04] Yolanda's going to be with us for the

[3:17:06] indefinite future, but who knows what

[3:17:10] can happen. Yolanda, something could

[3:17:12] happen to Yolanda. We want to make sure

[3:17:14] whoever's in that position knows this is

[3:17:16] the city council's policy. This is what

[3:17:18] their marching orders are. And more

[3:17:20] important, down the line, you know, 5

[3:17:22] years from now, we're going to have

[3:17:23] another disaster.

[3:17:25] And when we do, we don't have to sit

[3:17:27] down here and recreate the wheel again.

[3:17:29] It's already here. It'll be in a policy.

[3:17:32] Maybe there'll be new issues that'll

[3:17:33] come up and we'll have to and the city

[3:17:35] council then will have to decide what to

[3:17:36] do with the new issues, but there'll be

[3:17:38] a policy. They can pull it out of the

[3:17:40] drawer. They read it. They know exactly

[3:17:42] how to deal with these issues. They

[3:17:44] weren't oneoffs for the Palisades fire.

[3:17:46] They were things we learned about how to

[3:17:49] make this process better. And we are now

[3:17:51] putting our improtor on them and saying

[3:17:54] henceforth when there's a casualty of

[3:17:56] this nature, this is the way to approach

[3:17:58] it. So, I'm sure I'm going to hear from

[3:18:01] other council members what's wrong with

[3:18:03] these things because that's just the way

[3:18:04] this works. But I think a lot of this is

[3:18:08] a no-brainer. I know the residents for

[3:18:10] the most part want this and one of our

[3:18:13] roles as city council members is to try

[3:18:15] to do as best we can what our

[3:18:17] constituents want. Um so this is an

[3:18:19] effort to do that. Um to do it in a way

[3:18:22] that doesn't put um undue pressure on

[3:18:25] the staff in a way which I actually

[3:18:28] think makes it easier for the staff

[3:18:30] because it gives them further clear

[3:18:32] direction as to how to do things. And um

[3:18:35] Helen, you want to add anything?

[3:18:36] >> Nope. That was sent same ditto.

[3:18:41] » Nope. That was sent same ditto.

[3:18:41] >> I think we can open it up to public

[3:18:43] » I think we can open it up to public

[3:18:43] comment and council comments.

[3:18:45] >> Well, we can answer any questions there

[3:18:46] » Well, we can answer any questions there

[3:18:46] might be first from the council. But you

[3:18:48] know the other thing is you know this

[3:18:50] also was written as a result of sitting

[3:18:53] here and at other meetings for the last

[3:18:55] year listening to residents comments um

[3:18:59] hearing debate on the council hearing

[3:19:02] from the staff. So, it's it it it's all

[3:19:04] an effort to um consolidate everything

[3:19:07] that we've been doing for the past year.

[3:19:10] What we've learned makes sense. It

[3:19:12] doesn't address the things I think that

[3:19:14] we didn't think make sense and it in

[3:19:16] with hope.

[3:19:17] >> Yeah.

[3:19:17] » Yeah.

[3:19:17] >> This or some version of it will get

[3:19:18] » This or some version of it will get

[3:19:18] approved.

[3:19:19] >> I think that we've done a great job as

[3:19:20] » I think that we've done a great job as

[3:19:20] council. I think the staff has done a

[3:19:22] great job. Like we've been through a

[3:19:24] disaster and it's been a year and the

[3:19:27] residents, we've listened and it's been

[3:19:29] hours and hours and hours and hours of

[3:19:31] information really and this is a

[3:19:33] culmination of it. And like Bruce said,

[3:19:35] God forbid we have an earthquake in a

[3:19:38] year or eight months or something. It's

[3:19:42] sort of just a playbook of what we've

[3:19:44] done u memorializing this. So it's not

[3:19:47] all wasted. So I mean I've gone through

[3:19:49] hundreds of hours of ex- councsil

[3:19:51] members meetings through Woolseie to see

[3:19:54] what they've done. Things like this are

[3:19:56] just important for the future to be able

[3:19:59] to um to just kind of pull up and say

[3:20:01] this is how Palisades was dealt with.

[3:20:04] And I certainly do not want this to come

[3:20:06] across as a criticism of anybody on

[3:20:09] staff or in general. It just seems like

[3:20:11] we're council people and we make

[3:20:13] policies and this is a policy and it and

[3:20:15] it and we've talked about it. So, we

[3:20:17] just want to memorialize it. Um,

[3:20:20] >> and if it weren't for the Brown Act, we

[3:20:22] » and if it weren't for the Brown Act, we

[3:20:22] would have sat down together in a

[3:20:23] conference room and hammered it out, but

[3:20:25] we aren't allowed to do that.

[3:20:26] >> That would have been really fun if we

[3:20:28] » That would have been really fun if we

[3:20:28] could have done this [clears throat]

[3:20:29] together,

[3:20:30] >> but instead this is the process in which

[3:20:33] » but instead this is the process in which

[3:20:33] we have to do it in under these lights.

[3:20:36] Um, that's it. I mean, I think I'd like

[3:20:39] to define a flat pad that came up. Um,

[3:20:43] maybe like being in building and safety,

[3:20:45] you know,

[3:20:47] what a flat pad is. That's something

[3:20:49] that I need to clarify for my own.

[3:20:54] Um, we've talked about case managers

[3:20:57] over and over and over again. Um, that's

[3:20:59] in number five.

[3:21:01] Um,

[3:21:03] continuous support, advocacy, problem

[3:21:05] resolution. These are all things that

[3:21:06] you they're doing anyway. It's just kind

[3:21:09] of

[3:21:11] putting it in permanence.

[3:21:15] Okay. Um, any council members have

[3:21:17] clarifying questions before we go to

[3:21:19] public comment?

[3:21:21] >> How many online speakers do we have?

[3:21:25] » How many online speakers do we have?

[3:21:25] >> There's one raised hand. Two raised

[3:21:27] » There's one raised hand. Two raised

[3:21:27] hands.

[3:21:28] >> Give it 30 seconds.

[3:21:32] » Give it 30 seconds.

[3:21:32] Okay. Um, Kevin Keegan followed by Danny

[3:21:38] and

[3:21:39] Leah's here and Luis is here. Okay. Um,

[3:21:43] and then after Danny, it's Darren.

[3:21:52] » I am Kevin Keegan.

[3:21:54] This uh disaster rebuild policy

[3:21:57] resolution proposed tonight is a step

[3:21:59] toward addressing the city council

[3:22:01] specific action items Mayor Pro Tim

[3:22:04] Silverstein described in his article

[3:22:05] published by the Malibu Times in July of

[3:22:08] last year. While overdue, I thank

[3:22:11] council members Silverstein and Conrad

[3:22:13] sincerely for focusing attention on what

[3:22:16] the city council with its unique powers

[3:22:17] can do to accelerate the disaster

[3:22:20] rebuild process in Malibu. The two

[3:22:22] council members are offering a

[3:22:24] pro-rebuild path forward. Meanwhile, the

[3:22:26] city's staff are doing all they can

[3:22:28] within their current capabilities.

[3:22:30] What's missing is focused policy action

[3:22:33] like this resolution. I have a few

[3:22:35] general comments and questions. This

[3:22:37] policy resolution is forwardinking,

[3:22:40] highlighting future threats of quote

[3:22:41] wildfire, earthquake, flood, landslide,

[3:22:44] mudslide, or similar disaster close

[3:22:47] quote. This council has an opportunity

[3:22:49] to better position residents to be able

[3:22:51] to rebuild expeditially whenever

[3:22:53] disaster strikes. Where appropriate to

[3:22:56] help address liability concerns,

[3:22:59] consider including a mandatory

[3:23:00] assumption of risk and release signature

[3:23:03] step if residents choose to engage in an

[3:23:05] expedited disaster rebuild process. For

[3:23:08] item number two in the proposed

[3:23:10] resolution, I ask for consideration in

[3:23:12] that paragraph of replacing the word

[3:23:15] words must and should with the word

[3:23:17] shall. Item number six in this proposed

[3:23:20] resolution offers a real opportunity for

[3:23:22] residents who are rebuilding.

[3:23:24] Specifically, item six states, quote,

[3:23:26] "There must also be a measurable time

[3:23:28] period between submission of a completed

[3:23:31] PV plan check or building permit

[3:23:33] application and approval or denial

[3:23:35] thereof." Close quote. What many Malibu

[3:23:38] property owners want are estimated time

[3:23:40] frames for rebuild projects. A time-free

[3:23:43] zone around rebuilds hinders the

[3:23:45] process. Giving property owners a

[3:23:47] reasonable level of predictability

[3:23:49] around what the time commitment for

[3:23:51] disaster rebuild process will entail

[3:23:53] would offer current residents helpful

[3:23:55] incentives to stay and rebuild. Lastly,

[3:23:58] item number eight is important because

[3:24:00] it states, quote, "The city shall

[3:24:02] establish targets, goals, and metrics

[3:24:05] for reviews that are published and

[3:24:06] tracked to identify areas of continuous

[3:24:09] improvement." Close quote. I also ask,

[3:24:12] can that statement in number eight be

[3:24:14] revised to include approvals along with

[3:24:16] reviews? So, it would read, the city

[3:24:19] shall establish targets, goals, and

[3:24:21] metrics for reviews and approvals. Those

[3:24:24] are my comments and questions on this

[3:24:26] resolution tonight. Please make those

[3:24:28] edits and approve this policy resolution

[3:24:30] for disaster rebuilds in Malibu. Thank

[3:24:33] you. Thank you Danny followed by Darren

[3:24:39] followed by Arno.

[3:24:43] >> You have five minutes.

[3:24:44] » You have five minutes.

[3:24:44] >> Thank you.

[3:24:46] » Thank you.

[3:24:46] This is historical policym to meet an

[3:24:49] historical moment. It is a bold and

[3:24:52] visionary plan for the present as well

[3:24:54] as it must be said the future. We lost

[3:24:57] 700 homes. We're going to lose more.

[3:25:00] That is the reality of living in this

[3:25:03] special place.

[3:25:06] We choose how we respond to these

[3:25:08] events. And it has to be said, we must

[3:25:11] do better.

[3:25:13] 22 permits in a year. It is unfathomable

[3:25:18] failure.

[3:25:21] The low bar set by the Woosey fire has

[3:25:23] somehow been outdone. It's as if we're

[3:25:26] playing limbo with our own failures. How

[3:25:29] low can we go?

[3:25:32] A couple of points. Please don't let the

[3:25:34] word self-certification

[3:25:36] be heard tonight.

[3:25:39] That's not what this is. This is not

[3:25:40] self-certification. Self-certification

[3:25:43] is homeowners going off on their own

[3:25:45] until the inspectors show up. This is

[3:25:48] homeowners and their professionals

[3:25:49] submitting plans, an inherent peerreview

[3:25:52] process, and debating reasonable

[3:25:55] professional opinions. There's nothing

[3:25:57] being done blind here or undercover.

[3:26:00] Please don't let the word liability risk

[3:26:03] words liability risk come out of your

[3:26:05] mouth. Other jurisdictions are doing

[3:26:08] this and they're doing more. Half the

[3:26:10] homes in Malibu today have assumptions

[3:26:12] of risk recorded against them because 20

[3:26:14] years ago somebody wanted to remodel and

[3:26:16] they were told by Malibu that you're in

[3:26:18] a seismically hazardous area. Yeah, I

[3:26:20] know. We're in Southern California.

[3:26:22] So these waiverss of liability are

[3:26:24] something that Malibu has always been

[3:26:25] comfortable employing. Let's do it again

[3:26:27] if we have to. In fact, I have one. Let

[3:26:30] me read it. Recitals.

[3:26:33] Property owner desires to take certain

[3:26:35] actions. Property owner desires to

[3:26:37] assume all risk relating to and arising

[3:26:39] from the issuance of a building permit

[3:26:41] for said addition, repair,

[3:26:43] rehabilitation, or remodel work,

[3:26:44] including risks relating to the city's

[3:26:46] negligent issuance of such a building

[3:26:49] per permit. Going on. Assumption of

[3:26:51] risk. Property owner hereby assumes all

[3:26:53] risk of damages to the property blah

[3:26:55] blah blah out of the city issuing the

[3:26:57] building permit. Release. Property owner

[3:27:00] hereby releases and discharges city its

[3:27:02] officers, employees and agents from any

[3:27:04] and all claims for losses, damages or

[3:27:06] liabilities.

[3:27:08] We have these. So please, Trevor, don't

[3:27:11] tell anybody that this can't be done or

[3:27:12] it's even hard to do. It's in your

[3:27:15] computer.

[3:27:16] This resolution will provide a framework

[3:27:18] for our recovery. you know in your

[3:27:21] hearts that it is needed. If this city

[3:27:24] has a hope of resuscitation, if our

[3:27:26] businesses have a hope of surviving, we

[3:27:29] have to get these houses back online

[3:27:32] expeditiously,

[3:27:33] efficiently, economically.

[3:27:38] I'm staring at photos in the hallway

[3:27:41] tonight of my neighbor's houses burning

[3:27:43] down.

[3:27:45] We have to help. We have to do all we

[3:27:48] can. And I'm sorry you haven't.

[3:27:54] Now is your chance. Please vote for

[3:27:56] this. If you do not vote for this, this

[3:27:58] most impactful of policy resolutions,

[3:28:01] then you are directly complicit in what

[3:28:04] continues to be a disastrous recovery.

[3:28:08] This will be your legacy. And for some

[3:28:10] of you, you will be running against it

[3:28:12] in November.

[3:28:15] 22 permits in a year. You're playing

[3:28:17] from behind. Now is the time to play

[3:28:19] catchup. Thank you.

[3:28:21] >> Thank you, Darren. Followed by Arno,

[3:28:26] » Thank you, Darren. Followed by Arno,

[3:28:26] followed by Scott Der.

[3:28:32] » Uh, good evening once again and thank

[3:28:34] you um for taking the time to listen,

[3:28:37] but also thank you for putting this

[3:28:38] together. Um it's it was a pleasure to

[3:28:41] read that this was coming up onto the

[3:28:43] council agenda again and um please vote

[3:28:47] in favor of it. Uh earlier there was

[3:28:50] some discussion about what is the lag

[3:28:52] between planning verification and

[3:28:53] building plan check and um my family

[3:28:56] we're in that lag and the lag is due to

[3:28:58] the timeline to design something. It

[3:29:00] does take time. So this resolution of

[3:29:03] efficient, expeditious and economical

[3:29:05] provisions to help everybody reduce that

[3:29:08] timeline is very much appreciated. Um we

[3:29:10] submitted for our PV on December 1st,

[3:29:12] got it on December 23rd. Our submittal

[3:29:15] date for our building plan check is June

[3:29:17] of this year and that's because of

[3:29:19] geotechnical considerations, coastal

[3:29:21] engineering considerations, structural

[3:29:23] engineering considerations, MEP design

[3:29:25] considerations, and the time it takes to

[3:29:27] put together a planning application and

[3:29:29] a plan check set. I'm also anticipating

[3:29:32] an approval in October of 2026 and that

[3:29:34] takes into consideration two rounds of

[3:29:37] back checks if needed. I say that I know

[3:29:39] it sounds crazy, but I've been

[3:29:41] responsible and I've obtained u

[3:29:44] approvals for change orders that are

[3:29:47] upwards of 30,000 square feet within 2

[3:29:50] days in hospitals and healthcare centers

[3:29:52] in California. So if that's possible

[3:29:54] then a 12,200 foot house on the beach

[3:29:56] should be possible within 3 months. this

[3:29:59] resolution is a right step in that

[3:30:01] direction. Um [clears throat] I would

[3:30:05] like to ask one thing and it's just

[3:30:09] um to approve it and also to require uh

[3:30:14] design professional engagement in the

[3:30:16] process. This resolution defends the

[3:30:19] intent of the code if there's ever a

[3:30:20] discrepancy between Yolanda Tyler a plan

[3:30:24] checker and the design professionals.

[3:30:26] Well, it's the design design

[3:30:27] professional's job to reference the

[3:30:29] code, defend their design in relation to

[3:30:32] the code, and that should be what we are

[3:30:35] building. So, item one of this

[3:30:37] resolution defends that notion, and so

[3:30:39] I'm in full support of it. So, thank you

[3:30:41] once again for your consideration.

[3:30:44] >> Thank you, Arno. You have four minutes,

[3:30:48] » Thank you, Arno. You have four minutes,

[3:30:48] followed by Scott Dietrich, followed by

[3:30:50] Janet Faulk.

[3:30:55] Good evening to everyone. Have I could

[3:30:58] you push that yet?

[3:30:59] >> Could you give them four minutes,

[3:31:00] » Could you give them four minutes,

[3:31:00] please? Thank you.

[3:31:02] >> Thank you. Once in a while, I learn

[3:31:05] » Thank you. Once in a while, I learn

[3:31:05] [sighs]

[3:31:06] new English words. I learned one last

[3:31:08] week. To shoe something through, like to

[3:31:12] shoe chickens into a chicken coop. Shoo.

[3:31:15] You know, real quick.

[3:31:17] A lot of items, some only formalities,

[3:31:20] took months to implement. Wouldn't it be

[3:31:23] nice to have a plan in the drawer that

[3:31:25] we could pull out when a disaster

[3:31:26] happens and snap our fingers and do all

[3:31:29] those things immediately for future

[3:31:32] disaster survivors.

[3:31:35] We had formalities that we knew we would

[3:31:39] implement like for example the fee waver

[3:31:41] program that took us nine months to

[3:31:43] implement.

[3:31:46] There's a host of other things that were

[3:31:48] discussed in council meetings and

[3:31:50] eventually approved like fee wavers,

[3:31:52] MEP, AOWTS for beachfront, wave uprush,

[3:31:56] fixture accounts, implementing zones and

[3:31:58] zone captains, review time, fuel

[3:32:01] modification, landscaping, and the list

[3:32:03] goes on. Each item was passed like a

[3:32:07] kidney stone.

[3:32:11] This is not an invitation to go into the

[3:32:14] weeds and dissect each of those items

[3:32:16] for the purpose of derailing the key

[3:32:18] point. I just mention them here for

[3:32:20] everyone to remember that we did not

[3:32:22] just spend time on educating the

[3:32:25] rebuilders.

[3:32:28] But that significant changes were made,

[3:32:30] many of which need to be preserved. And

[3:32:32] the key point is we need to be faster

[3:32:35] next time.

[3:32:37] We need to be prepared on a different

[3:32:40] level. This is not an accusation that

[3:32:43] those decisions took an undue amount of

[3:32:45] time. A city had to be run.

[3:32:51] There were other top priorities like

[3:32:52] people dying on PCH.

[3:32:56] Things had to be fleshed out and we

[3:32:58] learned as we went. And we can blame the

[3:33:00] people who made those decisions and we

[3:33:02] can have compassion,

[3:33:05] but it doesn't change the fact that it

[3:33:07] did take a long time. We couldn't drop

[3:33:11] everything and do only rebuilds. We

[3:33:14] won't next time.

[3:33:16] We need to prepare.

[3:33:19] I want you to remember that voting yes

[3:33:21] on this item doesn't approve a specific

[3:33:23] list of things that will then railroad

[3:33:27] future councils and the future city of

[3:33:29] Malibu into do things that will be to

[3:33:32] their disadvantage.

[3:33:36] So what this

[3:33:38] plan that we have in our draw will

[3:33:40] effectively look like in detail will be

[3:33:42] subject to being fleshed out and decided

[3:33:45] upon deliberately, intelligently

[3:33:50] and with discretion.

[3:33:53] But each and every one of you by voting

[3:33:55] on this agenda item will show colors,

[3:34:01] show if you are reelectable or not.

[3:34:06] because you will say yes to 8A because

[3:34:09] you understand Malibu and have you have

[3:34:12] genuinely comprehended

[3:34:15] what went wrong

[3:34:17] in this year

[3:34:20] or you vote no because you have not

[3:34:22] comprehended what happened last year and

[3:34:24] do not understand Malibu

[3:34:27] and what it means to respond

[3:34:29] appropriately

[3:34:31] to a disaster.

[3:34:33] I trust you do understand.

[3:34:39] Let's chew this through.

[3:34:44] » For Malibu

[3:34:46] and for the future elderly

[3:34:49] and the future children

[3:34:53] that will lose everything.

[3:34:57] Thank you.

[3:35:00] Scott followed by Janet followed by

[3:35:03] Abroy.

[3:35:07] » Good evening again.

[3:35:11] » Bless you.

[3:35:11] >> On

[3:35:15] January 8th,

[3:35:19] we were in shock. That shock carried on

[3:35:22] through much of the year.

[3:35:26] We're now over it. We've heard

[3:35:30] so much input

[3:35:33] on why we need this type of measure

[3:35:38] policy decision by you guys.

[3:35:42] I'm not a geotechnical engineer,

[3:35:46] but I know something about mathematics.

[3:35:50] 22 permits

[3:35:54] in one year

[3:35:56] translates into 27 years to rebuild 600

[3:36:01] homes.

[3:36:03] We can't wait that long. Our staff,

[3:36:06] Yolanda, Tyler, and the rest are busting

[3:36:09] their butts.

[3:36:11] You guys are working overtime. And I had

[3:36:13] to laugh at that one guy who wanted to

[3:36:16] criticize Steve saying, "You guys are

[3:36:19] having fun up there." Uh, maybe not.

[3:36:24] I'm a zone captain in Rambla Pacificico.

[3:36:28] One of my neighbors

[3:36:31] at 3294 Rambla is 82 years old. He got

[3:36:38] immediately

[3:36:41] into planning

[3:36:43] and trying to move it forward. Now, some

[3:36:46] of his delay was due to his geotechnical

[3:36:49] engineer cuz I was talking to Yolanda

[3:36:52] and I don't have that paperwork. But

[3:36:55] there's too much that carries on and

[3:36:59] goes on and goes on and it does relate

[3:37:03] to GEO.

[3:37:05] With this proposal,

[3:37:08] I think it frees up

[3:37:10] Yolanda to push things through. It's

[3:37:14] going to make it easier,

[3:37:16] not more difficult

[3:37:19] because there's certain things that need

[3:37:21] to be done. Now, what I do have is a bit

[3:37:24] of common sense.

[3:37:26] >> [snorts]

[3:37:26] » [snorts]

[3:37:26] >> And if a house has been there for 40

[3:37:30] » And if a house has been there for 40

[3:37:30] years [snorts]

[3:37:32] and the slab's still good and there's no

[3:37:35] cracks and it's certified by a

[3:37:37] geotechnical engineer, you should be

[3:37:40] able to assume

[3:37:43] that it can be rebuilt like for like,

[3:37:46] not even like for like plus 10. That's

[3:37:50] kind of a simple assumption that I think

[3:37:54] we could utilize.

[3:37:56] So I do urge you pass this. It's a

[3:38:00] wonderful step forward and it really

[3:38:05] emphasizes that you guys are behind

[3:38:07] rebuilding and quickly. Thank you.

[3:38:10] >> Thanks Scott Janet followed by Abe

[3:38:16] » followed by Brian Mayer.

[3:38:21] Good evening to all of you. These

[3:38:24] remarks are targeted toward putting the

[3:38:26] requests in 8A into a sort of a positive

[3:38:30] historical perspective on our own very

[3:38:33] special city.

[3:38:35] And to do that, I take you back to 1993,

[3:38:37] 1994 to the old Tanga fire that burned

[3:38:41] 369 homes, of which 268

[3:38:46] were in a brand new city of Malibu.

[3:38:50] and the Malibu City Council and the

[3:38:52] planning personnel all worked hard and

[3:38:54] helped our family build a highly re

[3:38:58] resilient house that would in fact today

[3:39:03] withstand the onslaught that came with

[3:39:05] the 2025 fire.

[3:39:09] And this was not a quick and easy

[3:39:10] rebuild like the very first fire permit

[3:39:13] after the 1993 fire. This was for a

[3:39:16] literal like for like uh very simple

[3:39:19] home, same foundation, the top of Big

[3:39:21] Rock. Just a couple months to get that

[3:39:23] permit. Instead, we put in a new

[3:39:26] foundation. We moved ground level square

[3:39:29] footage up to the second floor. We added

[3:39:31] lots of fire resistant materials and a

[3:39:34] variety of other things. All rebuilt on

[3:39:36] the same footprint and within 10% of the

[3:39:40] original size.

[3:39:43] Now, without the support of the council

[3:39:45] members at that time, that includes some

[3:39:49] names you'll be familiar with, Walt

[3:39:50] Keller, John Harlo, Carolyn Van Horn,

[3:39:55] Joan House, Jeff Kramer,

[3:39:57] as well as the city manager, Carman, and

[3:40:00] planning director, Bernard. We were able

[3:40:03] to be number permit number 32.

[3:40:07] Okay. exactly one year

[3:40:11] after the fire took our home. That was

[3:40:14] November 3rd, 1994.

[3:40:16] And do you know who was one of the

[3:40:19] planners who worked with our architect

[3:40:22] and our contractor?

[3:40:25] Yep.

[3:40:27] Council member and now mayor, Maryanne

[3:40:29] Rigggins.

[3:40:32] So, yes, you

[3:40:34] >> I wasn't here in 93.

[3:40:37] » I wasn't here in 93.

[3:40:37] [laughter]

[3:40:37] in 94. We have evidence that you stamped

[3:40:40] it actually.

[3:40:43] >> It's not me, I swear. [laughter]

[3:40:45] » It's not me, I swear. [laughter]

[3:40:45] >> Okay. All right. Well, you must have

[3:40:46] » Okay. All right. Well, you must have

[3:40:46] been there mentally

[3:40:48] until 2005.

[3:40:50] >> You're really a [laughter] good story.

[3:40:51] » You're really a [laughter] good story.

[3:40:51] >> I I know. I'm sorry. Don't cut our time

[3:40:54] » I I know. I'm sorry. Don't cut our time

[3:40:54] on that one.

[3:40:57] » So, shall I take you out then? Huh?

[3:40:59] >> Yes, please.

[3:40:59] » Yes, please.

[3:40:59] >> Okay, we'll take you out.

[3:41:01] » Okay, we'll take you out.

[3:41:01] >> As much credit as I'd love to take, I

[3:41:02] » As much credit as I'd love to take, I

[3:41:02] can't.

[3:41:03] >> But we do believe you can do it,

[3:41:04] » But we do believe you can do it,

[3:41:04] Maryanne. Right.

[3:41:07] and uh we know it can be done and um

[3:41:10] council members and the planners you

[3:41:12] know need the the the discretion and the

[3:41:15] tools to do their job and that we know

[3:41:17] you can do that. So, we are personally

[3:41:21] forever grateful for all the help that

[3:41:23] we receive from the council and from

[3:41:24] planning uh and uh we we hope that the

[3:41:29] current council can be sort of like

[3:41:31] Walt, John, Carolyn, Joan, and Jeff and

[3:41:35] get this move this forward because we

[3:41:37] know you can do it.

[3:41:38] >> Thank you.

[3:41:40] » Thank you.

[3:41:40] Uh Abroy and Brian Merrick

[3:41:45] and uh Mr.

[3:41:48] All right. Well, happy new year,

[3:41:49] council. It's good to see you. Um, I'm

[3:41:52] going to make uh three points in favor

[3:41:54] of uh the resolution.

[3:41:57] Uh, you heard Scott mentioned GEO. If

[3:42:00] you sort of take a big picture view,

[3:42:03] unquestionably, particularly for the

[3:42:04] landside homes, GEO is the number one

[3:42:07] gating item. And I'm not saying this

[3:42:09] from a city standpoint. And I'm actually

[3:42:11] saying this from an overall perspective,

[3:42:14] which is the homeowner is taking

[3:42:17] it takes weeks and months for the

[3:42:19] homeowner's GEO staff to get the report

[3:42:21] back to them. Then it takes several

[3:42:23] weeks for the city to review it and then

[3:42:25] it's followed by several weeks of

[3:42:28] deliberations over the recommendations.

[3:42:30] So if there is anything which I know ADA

[3:42:34] will effectively streamline that process

[3:42:37] to an extent and there were other

[3:42:39] discussion which is going to be helpful

[3:42:40] as well which we heard earlier this

[3:42:42] evening go needs to be the number one

[3:42:45] priority in in terms of accelerating the

[3:42:48] rebuilds. The second point and Danny

[3:42:51] touched upon this as well is we heard

[3:42:53] chatter that this is about removing

[3:42:55] oversight or letting the homeowners run

[3:42:57] wild. Um it's far from that. There is no

[3:43:01] circumventing of any sort of due

[3:43:02] diligence. In fact, it's the opposite.

[3:43:06] When there is lensure at stake, people

[3:43:09] tend to get more conservative and uh the

[3:43:12] design teams tend to make

[3:43:13] recommendations that are more

[3:43:15] conservative. And this we have heard

[3:43:17] firsthand from the city of LA as well.

[3:43:20] The third point which is perhaps the

[3:43:22] most interesting one is the chatter

[3:43:25] leading up to this meeting is that

[3:43:27] apparently ADA is a developers dream. It

[3:43:31] is exactly the opposite of that.

[3:43:34] Developers would welcome complexities

[3:43:37] that would push the homeowners and the

[3:43:39] rebuilders into the arms of the

[3:43:41] developers because they have the

[3:43:43] wherewithal, they have the knowledge.

[3:43:45] They have the budget. They have the

[3:43:46] resources and they have the

[3:43:47] understanding to tackle all of this. the

[3:43:49] homeowners and the rebuilders don't. So,

[3:43:52] this is exactly the opposite of being a

[3:43:56] developer's dream. In fact, the

[3:43:57] developers would want you to reject ADA.

[3:44:00] Thank you.

[3:44:02] >> Thank you,

[3:44:04] » Thank you,

[3:44:04] >> Brian, Merrick. And then, um, Marissa,

[3:44:17] » thanks again. Um I just here a little

[3:44:21] bit to finish up on what I started

[3:44:22] earlier which is you know for your

[3:44:24] benefit to a certain extent but I'm in

[3:44:27] favor of this because um I do believe if

[3:44:30] this has been around we wouldn't you

[3:44:32] know I think the city of Malibu

[3:44:35] uh really fails a lot of the time

[3:44:37] throughout its history by not planning

[3:44:39] for things in the future. So I like the

[3:44:42] idea that we're thinking about that. Um,

[3:44:44] I just want to note that while we're

[3:44:46] about to get our permit, I hope we're

[3:44:49] almost 800,000 into this with all the

[3:44:52] fees and everything that we're doing to

[3:44:54] try and rebuild this beach house and

[3:44:56] it's only 3,800 square ft. Um, so some

[3:45:00] of the things that we ran into that

[3:45:01] maybe you need to look upon would be,

[3:45:04] uh, the fire department for two or three

[3:45:07] weeks, I think it may have been solved,

[3:45:08] but the fire department, you know,

[3:45:10] requested a fuel modification plan for

[3:45:12] our beach house. Okay. So, those are

[3:45:14] just reasonable things, right? Um, and

[3:45:16] finally, it got overturned. Uh, I don't

[3:45:18] think Halen's question was totally

[3:45:20] answered by the CALR thing. I did talk

[3:45:23] to Rob. You should ask Rob again about

[3:45:25] what we talked about as far as municipal

[3:45:27] code of the city of Malibu requiring a

[3:45:29] variance from CALR for all new seaw

[3:45:32] walls. We're not really new seaw walls.

[3:45:34] We're trying to replace an something

[3:45:36] that was there before. And that's what's

[3:45:38] holding us up currently from what I

[3:45:39] understand. This is from my architects.

[3:45:42] Um so based on this uh uh like what is

[3:45:46] the definition of a wildfire? Is it a

[3:45:48] declared disaster by the state or

[3:45:50] federal? I mean or is it a wildfire just

[3:45:52] like hey it started in the canyons and

[3:45:54] it burned one house like who gets the

[3:45:56] benefit from this? So what are the

[3:45:58] definitions of that? Um is there a limit

[3:46:00] on how many houses must be destroyed for

[3:46:03] that to kick in? Right. Um and then how

[3:46:06] much of a structure is does this apply

[3:46:09] to like a guest house? What what what

[3:46:11] exactly are we talking about as far as

[3:46:12] that goes? And how much of that

[3:46:14] structure can be destroyed before it

[3:46:16] kicks in? What if only 50% or what if

[3:46:19] 25% of it was was destroyed? Do you get

[3:46:22] the benefits of this? I um I tend to

[3:46:25] agree with what I've heard up here from

[3:46:26] these other people for the most part.

[3:46:28] So, um you know, I just want to make

[3:46:31] sure that there aren't weird little

[3:46:33] loopholes for people, but otherwise, I

[3:46:35] think pre-planning is a good idea. Thank

[3:46:37] you,

[3:46:39] >> Marissa. You're the final in person and

[3:46:41] » Marissa. You're the final in person and

[3:46:42] then we'll go to our online speakers.

[3:46:47] » Hello. Um I my concern is with some

[3:46:51] people who I'm representing now having

[3:46:54] trouble based on the VE zone uh

[3:46:56] elevations doing uh the BF plus one foot

[3:47:01] because they're going to either have a

[3:47:03] detached garage separate and then

[3:47:05] they'll have to have an elevator to take

[3:47:07] them to their front door or something.

[3:47:09] And some of the property owners have

[3:47:10] lived here for a long time and they're

[3:47:12] senior citizens. One of them has a wife

[3:47:14] in a wheelchair and he would have to

[3:47:16] accommodate her getting it. The ADA,

[3:47:20] there's no ADA compliance in the in the

[3:47:22] rebuild formula. Uh I tried to look

[3:47:25] around that, but I'm I went back to the

[3:47:28] Stanford Act as amended in 2013 and

[3:47:31] that's under and that controls FEMA and

[3:47:33] our and correct me if I'm just not

[3:47:36] remembering that our disaster was not

[3:47:38] federally declared.

[3:47:40] Am I incorrect?

[3:47:43] I'm yes or no.

[3:47:44] >> It was

[3:47:45] » It was

[3:47:45] >> it was okay. So even given that if

[3:47:48] » it was okay. So even given that if

[3:47:48] there's a a way to do a [snorts]

[3:47:51] workaround because if they don't have

[3:47:53] insurance FEMA or anything to replace

[3:47:55] it, they're all, you know, underinsured,

[3:47:57] many of them are underinsured. The ones

[3:47:59] that have the VE zone of like 27 or

[3:48:02] something are going to have trouble even

[3:48:04] rebuilding and the cost to do that is

[3:48:07] going to be a lot more for them. So I

[3:48:09] think if we can find an an avenue and I

[3:48:12] can go over with any of you individually

[3:48:14] or something else to reflect on on how

[3:48:18] we're implementing it because it's okay

[3:48:20] to say footprint plus 10 but if you

[3:48:22] can't even put it in the same place and

[3:48:24] you have have to put it higher than the

[3:48:28] previous house because you have to meet

[3:48:30] the base flood elevation plus a foot for

[3:48:32] your finished floor structural

[3:48:34] crossmember. Then that's a problem for a

[3:48:36] lot of these people. I've been running

[3:48:37] into it. I've got four projects right

[3:48:39] now that are having this problem. Most

[3:48:41] of them are down by Tanga. And also

[3:48:44] another thing I think that that if

[3:48:46] Calrans wants to and this addresses the

[3:48:49] septic issue too. If CALR wants their

[3:48:52] highway to stop sliding into these

[3:48:54] things, they should pay for the

[3:48:56] retaining walls that protect their

[3:48:58] highway. And and then that also impacts

[3:49:01] the way that a bulkhead is designed to

[3:49:04] protect a septic system.

[3:49:06] Okay, Bruce is confused, but I can I

[3:49:08] don't want to give you too much detail

[3:49:09] because nobody understands it. I could

[3:49:11] talk to you individually, but I think

[3:49:13] that there are some avenues that that

[3:49:15] might be helpful to them if they're

[3:49:17] having trouble putting it in the same

[3:49:19] footprint and not have to have a

[3:49:21] breakaway garage or separate access.

[3:49:24] Okay, Bruce is dying to ask me

[3:49:26] something. I can just tell. Do you want

[3:49:27] to ask

[3:49:28] >> part

[3:49:29] » part

[3:49:30] I I appreciate the information and

[3:49:31] knowledge you bring to these meetings on

[3:49:33] these matters but I'm really having a

[3:49:35] difficult time tying any of these

[3:49:37] comments to the item that's on the

[3:49:39] agenda tonight as opposed to other

[3:49:41] things that we've been dealing with for

[3:49:42] the past year. So is there a point that

[3:49:45] I'm missing?

[3:49:45] >> No.

[3:49:46] » No.

[3:49:46] >> Okay.

[3:49:46] » Okay.

[3:49:46] >> No, you're not missing anything. I just

[3:49:48] » No, you're not missing anything. I just

[3:49:48] I was just wanted to get that in because

[3:49:51] other times when I've spoken I haven't

[3:49:52] had the opportunity to get it in and

[3:49:54] this has all transpired prior to those

[3:49:56] since those other times.

[3:49:57] >> This is a little sensation

[3:49:59] » This is a little sensation

[3:49:59] snuck right in here being the last

[3:50:01] person.

[3:50:01] >> I got it.

[3:50:02] » I got it.

[3:50:02] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:50:04] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:50:04] >> Okay. Um do we still have two hands?

[3:50:07] » Okay. Um do we still have two hands?

[3:50:07] >> Yes.

[3:50:07] » Yes.

[3:50:07] >> Okay.

[3:50:08] » Okay.

[3:50:08] >> Joe Drummond.

[3:50:12] » Joe, are you there?

[3:50:15] >> Yes. Council members, this item matters

[3:50:19] » Yes. Council members, this item matters

[3:50:19] because it addresses the single biggest

[3:50:20] cause of fire rebuild delay, not because

[3:50:22] it weakens safety standards. For

[3:50:24] rebuilds on previously developed stable

[3:50:27] lots and mitigated landslide areas, full

[3:50:28] geotechnical investigation should not be

[3:50:31] required. In Big Rock, we receive

[3:50:33] landslide monitoring reports every

[3:50:35] single year, which consistently show no

[3:50:37] measurable movement for at least three

[3:50:38] decades. Regardless, prescriptive

[3:50:41] building codes already allow

[3:50:42] construction in landside areas when

[3:50:44] conservative design standards are met.

[3:50:46] This is the law today here and

[3:50:48] internationally. So, the mere presence

[3:50:50] of a map landslide zone should not be

[3:50:52] used to justify months of additional

[3:50:54] studies where long-term stability is

[3:50:56] already documented. Under current

[3:50:58] practice, geotechnical alone takes eight

[3:51:00] months or more, even for like for-like

[3:51:02] rebuilds of homes that lawfully and

[3:51:04] safely supported existing homes through

[3:51:05] storms, earthquakes, and prior fires for

[3:51:08] decades. Many built before 1970. After

[3:51:10] Wolsey and Palisade, one of the best

[3:51:12] actions the city took was removing

[3:51:14] cottonsh from bu rebuild review. By

[3:51:16] wielding their power over rebuilds,

[3:51:18] projects were repeatedly stalled by

[3:51:20] unnecessary and escalating requirements.

[3:51:22] By contrast, when Yolanda Bundy

[3:51:24] intervened, projects moved forward

[3:51:26] appropriately. In my own case, a 64

[3:51:28] square foot deck built before the fire,

[3:51:30] she allowed staff to rely on a standard

[3:51:33] engineering practice and deferred to my

[3:51:34] licensed structural engineer. That deck

[3:51:36] was negligible in size and risk like our

[3:51:38] rebuilds and it remains standing today.

[3:51:40] So there is precedent here. Meanwhile,

[3:51:42] my 84year-old neighbor on Seabort, the

[3:51:44] first permit issued in Big Rock was

[3:51:46] required to install 19 quesons under an

[3:51:49] uninhabited garage. Any practicing

[3:51:51] geologist or engineer would tell you

[3:51:52] that is overkill. Conservative

[3:51:54] calculations would demonstrate this

[3:51:56] immediately. This is about process

[3:51:58] failure, not safety. Using conservative

[3:52:00] engineering assumptions informed by

[3:52:02] areawide geotechnical data and observed

[3:52:04] historical site performance is standard

[3:52:06] practice and fully protective of public

[3:52:08] safety. Correcting this single

[3:52:10] requirement could reduce total rebuild

[3:52:11] permitting timelines to roughly three

[3:52:13] months instead of 9 months to two years

[3:52:15] and allow Yolanda or city attorney and

[3:52:17] council to be seen as champions of

[3:52:19] recovery. The current approach is

[3:52:20] financial devastation. Families are

[3:52:22] forced to carry mounting monthly

[3:52:24] expenses and fees while navigating a

[3:52:25] fragmented plan check process marked by

[3:52:28] late surprise reviews that render

[3:52:29] advertised 10-day timelines meaningless.

[3:52:32] We support Miss Bundy's decision to hire

[3:52:33] the Santa Rosa Geotechnical Review

[3:52:35] Consultants. This must support recovery,

[3:52:37] not incentivize complexity. You may hear

[3:52:40] this item enables self-certification or

[3:52:42] undermines staff. It does neither.

[3:52:44] Engineers already carry legal

[3:52:45] responsibility. Staff still review

[3:52:47] plans. Inspectors and geologists remain

[3:52:49] on site during construction. The city

[3:52:51] retains full enforcement authority. The

[3:52:53] governor's emergency orders require

[3:52:54] cities to streamline wildfire

[3:52:56] rebuilding. We are asking council to

[3:52:59] direct staff to allow conservative

[3:53:00] prescriptive engineering assumptions for

[3:53:02] rebuilds up to 10%. Rely on area wide

[3:53:05] geotechnical data and long-term

[3:53:07] historical performance. Assign one

[3:53:09] accountable plan check lead with full

[3:53:10] disclosure of requirements and reviews

[3:53:12] on intake. Enforce clear binding review

[3:53:14] timelines consistent with state

[3:53:16] mandates. The city is legally

[3:53:17] responsible for enabling. We're probably

[3:53:19] not prolonging the discussion.

[3:53:20] >> Thank you, Joe. Please.

[3:53:23] » Thank you, Joe. Please.

[3:53:23] >> Next speaker,

[3:53:25] » Next speaker,

[3:53:25] >> Tina Seagull.

[3:53:27] » Tina Seagull.

[3:53:27] >> Tina, are you there?

[3:53:29] » Tina, are you there?

[3:53:29] >> I'm here. Can you hear me?

[3:53:31] » I'm here. Can you hear me?

[3:53:31] >> Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

[3:53:33] » Yes, we can. Please go ahead.

[3:53:33] >> Okay. First of all, mayor and council

[3:53:35] » Okay. First of all, mayor and council

[3:53:35] member, thank you for taking time to

[3:53:37] hear what I have to say. My name is Tina

[3:53:39] Seagull. Our family have been Malibu

[3:53:41] homeowners for over 50 years. 50 years

[3:53:44] ago, two families pulled their resources

[3:53:46] to buy their dream home for $200,000 or

[3:53:49] less. They weren't millionaires, just

[3:53:51] two families who dreamed of owning a

[3:53:53] home on the most beautiful beach in

[3:53:55] California, Lacosta. Over 50 years of

[3:53:58] four generations creating the best

[3:54:00] memories any family could ever imagine.

[3:54:03] birthday parties, fishing with grandpa,

[3:54:05] swimming all day, baptisms, grunion

[3:54:07] runningings, taking our blue and red

[3:54:09] wraps all the way to toys and sports,

[3:54:11] hickory burgers, and watching Endless

[3:54:13] Summer for the millionth time at Mount

[3:54:15] Vu Cinema. One year ago, we watched all

[3:54:18] those memories go up in flames, all but

[3:54:21] three homes gone, 60ome homes destroyed.

[3:54:26] Walking onto that property, my property

[3:54:29] last week, wall after wall after wall

[3:54:32] covered in graffiti, I just wept. I was

[3:54:35] one of the first to hand in person all

[3:54:37] the documents we were asked to submit

[3:54:39] with great hope of a speedy process due

[3:54:42] to promises, fees would be waved, and

[3:54:44] the process would be streamlined. Sadly,

[3:54:47] those promises were not upheld. My plans

[3:54:50] submitted long ago, rejected twice

[3:54:53] already, still await the first step of a

[3:54:56] permit. I'm so tired of answering the

[3:54:59] question, how's the rebuild going?

[3:55:02] Please adopt this resolution. Please let

[3:55:05] us rebuild quickly so we can go back

[3:55:08] home. Thank you.

[3:55:11] >> Thank you. That'll conclude our public

[3:55:14] » Thank you. That'll conclude our public

[3:55:14] comments.

[3:55:16] Hey, who wants to go first?

[3:55:25] » Roshamba,

[3:55:33] you know, listening to the comments, I

[3:55:35] got I guess a one one

[3:55:38] major impression. No matter what we do,

[3:55:40] it's not going to be good enough. No

[3:55:42] matter what we do, I mean, yeah, we

[3:55:45] listen to again, we had this topic on

[3:55:48] the agenda, this this and we were all

[3:55:51] over the place. Uh, and that's going to

[3:55:55] make it more difficult.

[3:55:59] I guess I got two thoughts.

[3:56:03] one

[3:56:05] the

[3:56:08] as Bruce described it and I still think

[3:56:10] falls under the category of

[3:56:11] self-certification of the uh

[3:56:17] applicants engineer can developer

[3:56:20] whatever the heck it is trying to come

[3:56:22] up with a range of what is is available

[3:56:24] or not available and whether how how

[3:56:27] they get the city planner to agree that

[3:56:30] that range is is exists

[3:56:33] and how they're going to how they're

[3:56:34] going to pick and choose from that I

[3:56:35] don't understand yet. I mean, I just

[3:56:37] think that prevent presents more

[3:56:39] complexity to the whole building issue.

[3:56:44] The second thing I think we just got to

[3:56:46] realize just because I put a piece of

[3:56:49] paper together that says, you know,

[3:56:51] we're going to this is going to get done

[3:56:53] in four days, doesn't mean it's going to

[3:56:55] happen that way. I don't know how many

[3:56:57] of you have worked inside of a

[3:56:59] corporation trying to get things done

[3:57:01] and you got to go back. I mean, we

[3:57:02] started off with nothing, right? I mean,

[3:57:04] this this was a we went from zero to

[3:57:09] however many miles an hour we're going

[3:57:11] through right now. It took us a while to

[3:57:12] get there. You don't do that overnight.

[3:57:14] And I'm just afraid if we sit down and

[3:57:16] say, "Okay, we're going to get it done

[3:57:17] in 4 days or 5 days, and that's going to

[3:57:20] be the absolute limit of what we're

[3:57:22] going to do."

[3:57:24] We're going to make people because

[3:57:25] you're not always going to get there. I

[3:57:26] mean, I think everybody's trying and I

[3:57:29] think if I've if I've seen anything take

[3:57:31] place, we you know, we talked about it

[3:57:33] earlier in the meeting. I think Yolanda

[3:57:36] has made huge strides in making this

[3:57:38] thing work better. Uh and I think there

[3:57:40] are more strides to come. I think she's

[3:57:43] got a huge task of trying to train all

[3:57:46] these consultants you got in there. You

[3:57:47] got to keep those guys on track. That

[3:57:49] just that's not easy. I mean, we had we

[3:57:51] had to bring in a whole new staff of

[3:57:53] people to try and get all this stuff

[3:57:54] done. and that has certainly slowed

[3:57:56] things down. And I don't think this

[3:57:58] resolution is going to make a difference

[3:58:00] in that. So, I've got some concerns

[3:58:02] about what this is actually going to

[3:58:04] accomplish for us or how it's going to

[3:58:06] meet the the comments I heard two folks

[3:58:08] giving us. Right. I mean, I don't know

[3:58:11] if it's going to get you what you want.

[3:58:14] Uh I may have more to say or let

[3:58:16] somebody else go for a while.

[3:58:20] » Okay. Um,

[3:58:24] first off, I hear this hear the cries

[3:58:27] for making things work better.

[3:58:30] And if you look back on what the city

[3:58:33] has done, and I'm not trying to take uh

[3:58:36] say we have we could have done things

[3:58:37] better. We changed the municipal code.

[3:58:40] We got the governor to change rules for

[3:58:43] sequo and uh coastal commission that are

[3:58:47] permanent. These are built into the

[3:58:50] Malibu Municipal Code. Now, we've made

[3:58:52] major changes to get to where we are.

[3:58:55] And don't forget this city. When when I

[3:58:57] got voted in to this office, the city's

[3:59:00] philosophy was do everything you can to

[3:59:03] not have a building be added to this

[3:59:06] inventory. And that's part of what's

[3:59:09] actually written into this. You know,

[3:59:10] there's two different rules. Rebuilds

[3:59:12] are one thing. Uh new construction is

[3:59:14] another. So yeah, we had a system set up

[3:59:18] that was designed to slow walk

[3:59:20] everything as opposed to expedite

[3:59:22] anything. We made some pretty good

[3:59:25] changes to that and a lot of these are

[3:59:26] permanent changes. So yeah, it's it's a

[3:59:30] different world than we had a year ago

[3:59:32] tonight, but we still need things to be

[3:59:35] improved and Yolanda has done a lot of

[3:59:38] things to make things better. We hadn't

[3:59:41] even implemented the Baker Tilly report

[3:59:43] which was a critical part about how we

[3:59:45] could make our planning and building and

[3:59:47] safety process better that would even

[3:59:50] even considered. So there's a lot of a

[3:59:52] lot of baggage that need to be cleared

[3:59:54] out of the way. Now, I'm not saying this

[3:59:56] isn't a step in the right direction, but

[3:59:58] I got a lot of problems with this. And

[4:00:01] I've also heard some words that people

[4:00:04] have said in the uh public comments that

[4:00:07] are designed to say, if you take this

[4:00:10] route, you're wrong. Well, let's see if

[4:00:12] we really are wrong. And let me take you

[4:00:16] through a couple of things. First off, I

[4:00:17] got a question to Bruce and Halen. Why

[4:00:21] didn't you have the city staff uh

[4:00:24] associate with you on this? It's one

[4:00:25] thing to have the council which has to

[4:00:27] do this in public, but why is this not

[4:00:30] as it says in here, the attached

[4:00:31] resolution in this report was provided

[4:00:34] by Mayor Pro Tim Silverstein and council

[4:00:36] member Conrad. This report does not

[4:00:38] contain analysis or recommendations

[4:00:40] prepared by the staff. We have some of

[4:00:42] the best people in town and in the area

[4:00:46] and we didn't talk to them. How come?

[4:00:51] Halen

[4:00:52] >> because we're elected officials and we

[4:00:54] » because we're elected officials and we

[4:00:54] are these are policies.

[4:00:57] >> We spoke to them.

[4:01:01] » We spoke to them and we're this is our

[4:01:03] this is inside of our purview from what

[4:01:05] I've understood. We're council. This is

[4:01:08] we make policy. This is policy. We did

[4:01:11] speak to them. I spoke to them.

[4:01:15] >> How that? So yeah, the the answer is

[4:01:18] » How that? So yeah, the the answer is

[4:01:18] first of all, it's it's not an accurate

[4:01:21] um premise that there was no

[4:01:23] conversation. So it's it's kind of like

[4:01:24] when did you stop beating your wife type

[4:01:26] question and I know it wasn't

[4:01:27] intentional. Um but the fact is we did

[4:01:30] have conversations. I'm going to come

[4:01:31] back to them, but we've been operating

[4:01:34] without a city manager for a year. When

[4:01:37] this fire came, we didn't have our

[4:01:40] permanent city manager. he had gone aw.

[4:01:43] We did bring in a very competent

[4:01:45] interim, but it was an interim who was

[4:01:49] who was here more to um keep the peace

[4:01:52] and make sure the lights stayed on and

[4:01:55] and and and provide an empathetic view

[4:01:58] to the residents cuz she was a resident,

[4:02:00] but she was not a city manager who had

[4:02:02] the ability to deal with these kinds of

[4:02:04] policy issues, big picture issues. So,

[4:02:06] we didn't have a city manager. Um, even

[4:02:10] the subordinate staff at the senior

[4:02:11] level was gone. They ditched us after

[4:02:14] the fire. In fact, [clears throat] they

[4:02:16] ditched us because they didn't like the

[4:02:17] fact that the city council was making

[4:02:19] policy decisions that were um that that

[4:02:22] ultimately redounded to everybody's

[4:02:23] benefit. They were upset with the fact

[4:02:25] that they thought we were outside of our

[4:02:27] lane, but we weren't. We were actually

[4:02:28] completely in our lane. Um, Yolanda is

[4:02:33] stretched ridiculously thin. She's

[4:02:35] concentrating on running the [snorts]

[4:02:38] program, not designing the program.

[4:02:40] She's even working on that, too. But

[4:02:42] she's stretched extremely thin. So is

[4:02:45] Tyler. And it's not our job to speak

[4:02:47] with the um subordinate staff. We don't

[4:02:49] we actually aren't even allowed to. So

[4:02:52] we came to all we had all these town

[4:02:55] hall meetings. We had multiple special

[4:02:58] city council meetings. There was all

[4:03:01] kinds of input from the staff, from the

[4:03:03] residents, from other city council

[4:03:05] members. And as a result of taking all

[4:03:08] of that in, we took the laboring ore of

[4:03:12] actually writing something up because we

[4:03:14] didn't have a staff that had the

[4:03:15] bandwidth or in the case of the senior

[4:03:18] management, the experience to do it. We

[4:03:20] stepped up to the plate and we did what

[4:03:23] needed to be done. We then did meet with

[4:03:25] Tyler and Yolanda and we heard their

[4:03:28] comments. They weren't happy with

[4:03:30] everything we did. But you know what? As

[4:03:34] much as we love them and want them to um

[4:03:37] do the great job they're doing, it is,

[4:03:39] as Halen just said, our job to establish

[4:03:41] the policies and the rules, and it's

[4:03:44] their job to implement them. And we try

[4:03:48] we actually made a lot of changes to the

[4:03:50] language to accommodate concerns that

[4:03:52] were raised by Yolanda and Tyler about

[4:03:55] some things that maybe we had gone

[4:03:56] further than they we had gone even

[4:03:58] further than they much we' gone further

[4:04:00] than they would like in some areas that

[4:04:02] we kept it but in other areas where we

[4:04:04] were receptive to the comments and we

[4:04:06] made changes and now we can hash it out

[4:04:10] but I don't think it's a basis for

[4:04:11] rejecting this that um well said it's

[4:04:15] not a basis for rejecting that we deal

[4:04:16] with the staff because we actually did

[4:04:18] and you know if if the question is why

[4:04:21] didn't you deal with the lower level

[4:04:23] staff again you know as well as I do

[4:04:25] we're not even allowed to do that

[4:04:27] >> right

[4:04:27] » right

[4:04:27] >> but but we did

[4:04:29] » but but we did

[4:04:29] >> we are not in ordinary times

[4:04:30] » we are not in ordinary times

[4:04:30] >> right and the way that I see it this is

[4:04:32] » right and the way that I see it this is

[4:04:32] policy and we're policy makers and

[4:04:34] people have I mean they've elected us

[4:04:37] we're in a position we're not

[4:04:39] implementers

[4:04:41] we are looking at problems and we are

[4:04:43] supposed to solve them and we're

[4:04:44] supposed to put them into policy

[4:04:46] And then we go to the staff who's

[4:04:48] extremely competent and they implement

[4:04:50] it. And this is us doing our job in my

[4:04:53] opinion. And I would be very proud of a

[4:04:56] council that would be doing this if I

[4:04:58] was on that side of the audience.

[4:05:03] » Other questions?

[4:05:04] >> Well, I have other questions. Uh, I hear

[4:05:07] » Well, I have other questions. Uh, I hear

[4:05:07] you, but I will I would take a

[4:05:08] disagreement on this because one of the

[4:05:10] things that you learn in leading large

[4:05:13] numbers of people is you have to build a

[4:05:15] consensus. People have to be willing to

[4:05:17] follow you, not just take your orders.

[4:05:20] And that's the difference between policy

[4:05:23] 100% versus consensus building. And I

[4:05:27] would I'm not going to put them on the

[4:05:29] spot, but I'd love to know whether or

[4:05:30] not Yolanda and the rest of the staff

[4:05:33] thinks this is a something that ought to

[4:05:35] be implemented or not or how which parts

[4:05:38] they disagree with. But we're not going

[4:05:39] to do that tonight.

[4:05:40] >> Well, just a comment that you know, you

[4:05:41] » Well, just a comment that you know, you

[4:05:41] know, all my career, we both had very

[4:05:45] successful careers in different areas

[4:05:47] and a lot of people that have been very

[4:05:49] successful in both those areas do it

[4:05:50] based on the belief that consensus

[4:05:52] building is critical. And a lot of

[4:05:55] others do it on the basis that they

[4:05:56] actually understand what needs to be

[4:05:58] done and they get it done whether other

[4:05:59] people agree or not. Uh and there are

[4:06:02] plenty of failures in both ways and

[4:06:03] there are plenty of successes in both

[4:06:04] ways. One of those ways over the other

[4:06:06] is not necessarily better. The result is

[4:06:09] what matters.

[4:06:11] >> That's right. And that's that's one of

[4:06:12] » That's right. And that's that's one of

[4:06:12] the things you want to try and ensure.

[4:06:14] And I think building a consensus is

[4:06:16] better. But that's all right. We'll get

[4:06:18] past that. Um I am a little taken back

[4:06:22] by the uh comment recommended action at

[4:06:25] the request of the mayor pro Tim and

[4:06:27] Silverstein and council member Conrad

[4:06:29] discuss and provide direction on the

[4:06:31] attached resolution.

[4:06:32] >> But this is because the staff didn't put

[4:06:35] » But this is because the staff didn't put

[4:06:35] this together. Look, let's go back to

[4:06:37] how this city council works and what our

[4:06:39] resolutions are and how we work. We all

[4:06:42] have the ability to make propose council

[4:06:45] member proposals.

[4:06:47] The staff also puts things on the

[4:06:49] agenda. When they put them on the

[4:06:50] agenda, they prepare a report.

[4:06:53] >> When we prepare something, they don't

[4:06:55] » When we prepare something, they don't

[4:06:55] create a report for us. In fact, this,

[4:06:57] you know, this is one of the reasons I

[4:06:58] ran for city council 5 years ago for the

[4:07:00] first time. I was offended by the fact

[4:07:02] that the staff was micromanaging the

[4:07:05] city council. And I don't mean the staff

[4:07:07] at the staff as in like Yolanda's level.

[4:07:10] I mean the then city manager. They were

[4:07:12] micro she was micromanaging the city

[4:07:14] council. City council couldn't get

[4:07:16] anything on an agenda that it wanted

[4:07:18] unless it went through the boss, but

[4:07:21] that was not the right boss. So, we

[4:07:23] don't get the staff won't prepare report

[4:07:25] for us when we do something like this.

[4:07:27] The only way we can get a staff report

[4:07:28] is if we take six months to go through

[4:07:31] this consensus building activity and

[4:07:34] have it changed in all kinds of ways and

[4:07:36] have them then prepare a report. That's

[4:07:38] their recommendation. Okay? But that's

[4:07:40] this is not a staff recommendation. This

[4:07:42] is a city council member recommendation.

[4:07:45] It's from two out of five.

[4:07:47] >> And [snorts and clears throat] I think

[4:07:48] » And [snorts and clears throat] I think

[4:07:48] that

[4:07:50] we're entitled to the respect of having

[4:07:52] it reviewed on the merits and the mere

[4:07:55] fact that we presented it as opposed to

[4:07:56] the staff presenting it is not in and of

[4:07:58] itself a meaningful objection.

[4:08:00] >> Now, my my question was really what are

[4:08:02] » Now, my my question was really what are

[4:08:02] you asking this council to do?

[4:08:04] >> Adopt this resolution, right?

[4:08:05] » Adopt this resolution, right?

[4:08:05] >> It says direction. I was just trying to

[4:08:07] » It says direction. I was just trying to

[4:08:07] figure out because it says direction on

[4:08:09] the attached resolution.

[4:08:13] Yeah, the direction would be approve the

[4:08:15] resolution. You know, look, we didn't

[4:08:16] write this. We didn't even write this

[4:08:18] this okay, this front report. We didn't

[4:08:20] have any approval of this front report.

[4:08:22] I would have written it differently.

[4:08:24] >> All right. Um,

[4:08:27] » All right. Um,

[4:08:27] I don't have a problem with much of

[4:08:29] what's in here, but I do have a problem

[4:08:31] with your number one and number two

[4:08:33] paragraphs. And one of the comments I

[4:08:37] want to read back uh I've heard several

[4:08:40] times about the geology

[4:08:44] people have been reaching out to Santa

[4:08:46] Rosa um to get their input and there's

[4:08:50] really two different versions of their

[4:08:51] input uh from Santa Rosa and I want to

[4:08:54] read the part about geology. Uh this is

[4:08:58] from the chief building official in fact

[4:09:01] last week uh I guess it's uh Jimmy Bliss

[4:09:05] and he says and this is addressed to uh

[4:09:07] Joe Drummond and a variety of other

[4:09:09] people and I'm included on this along

[4:09:11] with I think some of the city the

[4:09:12] council members and here's the quote the

[4:09:15] California building and residential

[4:09:16] codes do not allow the building official

[4:09:18] to wave requirements in general only to

[4:09:21] interpret them. see the California

[4:09:23] residential code. So and so many of the

[4:09:26] properties destroyed by our fires were

[4:09:28] up in the hills and the combination of

[4:09:29] fire and subsequent demolition grading

[4:09:32] operations significantly changed many of

[4:09:34] the soil properties conditions in those

[4:09:36] areas. In the hills here, it is quite

[4:09:39] common for the slope and state of the

[4:09:40] soil to require a geotechnical report

[4:09:42] anyways and the reports typically

[4:09:45] recommend peer and great beam

[4:09:46] foundations on a case-byase basis where

[4:09:50] we were sometimes able to accept mostly

[4:09:53] in the flatter regions affected by the

[4:09:54] fires older geotechnical reports for

[4:09:56] those properties of subdivisions. The

[4:09:59] only time the building official can

[4:10:00] allow work to proceed without a

[4:10:02] geological report is when they have

[4:10:04] sufficient evidence knowledge of a

[4:10:06] specific site to determine the proposed

[4:10:08] design is okay without it. Anywhere

[4:10:11] affected by, in their case, bay mud,

[4:10:13] sandy soils, landslide areas, expansive

[4:10:16] soils, compressible soils, or areas on

[4:10:19] significant slopes would not typically

[4:10:21] fall in this category. Geotechnical

[4:10:24] reports are an important part of

[4:10:26] ensuring your future homes and

[4:10:27] businesses are built in a safe manner.

[4:10:30] Um, I'd also highlight the fact that,

[4:10:33] you know, you're not doing this just for

[4:10:34] the home that's being built, but for

[4:10:36] everybody around it. To be downs slope

[4:10:38] of a failing hillside. Just a second.

[4:10:40] >> Yeah.

[4:10:41] » Yeah.

[4:10:41] >> Yeah. Just downs slope of a failing

[4:10:43] » Yeah. Just downs slope of a failing

[4:10:43] hillside where a house is going to fall

[4:10:46] on your house. That's not the that's not

[4:10:49] just a concern of the home builder of

[4:10:51] the home that's failing, but it's

[4:10:53] everybody around it, not to mention the

[4:10:54] values of properties,

[4:10:57] especially when it could have been uh

[4:10:59] avoided by having the proper

[4:11:00] construction.

[4:11:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I concur 100% with

[4:11:04] » Yeah. Yeah. I I I concur 100% with

[4:11:04] everything you just said, and I've said

[4:11:05] it myself in the past, and there's

[4:11:07] absolutely nothing in the language here,

[4:11:09] if you read it word for word, that says

[4:11:12] anything to the contrary.

[4:11:13] >> All right. I disagree, I disagree. Um,

[4:11:16] » All right. I disagree, I disagree. Um,

[4:11:16] >> so let's talk about the language.

[4:11:17] » so let's talk about the language.

[4:11:17] >> Well, let's talk about structure here.

[4:11:19] » Well, let's talk about structure here.

[4:11:19] You got two different ideas. And I know

[4:11:23] the comment was made. Let's don't make

[4:11:24] this self-certification. Well, wait a

[4:11:26] minute. What is this? When you look at

[4:11:29] number one, it says to that end,

[4:11:31] whenever there's a difference of opinion

[4:11:33] on an issue that the director of

[4:11:34] community development department

[4:11:36] recognizes to be different of opinion

[4:11:38] upon which reasonable professional civil

[4:11:40] engineers might differ, the city staff

[4:11:42] shall defer to the stamped and certified

[4:11:44] decision of the civil engineer employed

[4:11:46] by the applicant so long as the engineer

[4:11:49] is a California licensed civil engineer

[4:11:51] experienced in a particular practice

[4:11:54] that's implicated by this controversy

[4:11:55] and so forth.

[4:11:56] >> Yes.

[4:11:58] » Yes.

[4:11:58] Now what that does is say in

[4:12:01] self-certification

[4:12:03] the homeowner or builder is responsible

[4:12:06] and takes the liability for hold on for

[4:12:10] the for a self-certification. In fact

[4:12:12] it's recorded as such on the title. Now

[4:12:15] uh on the title report what you've done

[4:12:18] though here is to say that if you give

[4:12:20] me a u

[4:12:23] engineering report say geology or

[4:12:26] structural and we don't agree with it

[4:12:29] your applicant wins.

[4:12:32] >> No hold on it's what that's the way I'm

[4:12:35] » No hold on it's what that's the way I'm

[4:12:35] reading it. But hold on and if that's

[4:12:37] the case we're going to issue a building

[4:12:39] permit and now the city takes the

[4:12:41] responsibility.

[4:12:43] >> Okay. So, so it doesn't No, but this is

[4:12:44] » Okay. So, so it doesn't No, but this is

[4:12:44] the point. It doesn't say that. But to

[4:12:46] the extent you're concerned that it

[4:12:48] suggests that, that's the point of this

[4:12:50] discussion now is we should tweak the

[4:12:51] words to get to the point where we all

[4:12:53] reach an agreement on what it should

[4:12:54] mean.

[4:12:55] >> But [snorts] let let me just give you an

[4:12:56] » But [snorts] let let me just give you an

[4:12:56] analogy because I was thinking about

[4:12:58] this in response to Steve's comment too

[4:13:00] earlier

[4:13:00] >> where he said that um it looks like a

[4:13:03] » where he said that um it looks like a

[4:13:03] version of self-certification. And I I

[4:13:06] am not sufficiently versed in building

[4:13:09] code issues to be able to give a

[4:13:11] specific example in the building code.

[4:13:14] Maybe Yolanda can let me let me just but

[4:13:16] I'll give you an analogy in the law

[4:13:18] which I think works pretty well. When um

[4:13:22] there's a jury decision or or at a bench

[4:13:24] trial, a judge's decision, and somebody

[4:13:26] appeals, the question on appeal is not

[4:13:30] is the party who lost

[4:13:32] right in the arguments about why they

[4:13:34] shouldn't have lost. The question isn't

[4:13:36] should the party have who won should

[4:13:39] they have won. The question is, is there

[4:13:41] a basis in the record to support the

[4:13:44] decision that the jury or the judge

[4:13:46] reached?

[4:13:48] What this is intended to do, and and

[4:13:50] that's [clears throat] a pretty that's a

[4:13:51] more liberal standard than this, by the

[4:13:53] way. What this is intended to do is say

[4:13:56] when the appellet judge here, Yolanda or

[4:13:58] whoever's in Yolanda's seat at the time,

[4:14:01] looks at a range of alternatives and the

[4:14:05] and the one that is being advocated by

[4:14:07] the homeowner is within one of those

[4:14:09] alternatives that she believes is fair

[4:14:12] and appropriate and fits the the

[4:14:14] requirements. Then notwithstanding the

[4:14:16] fact that she might personally have

[4:14:18] reached a different decision had she

[4:14:20] been on the jury, she'll affirm the

[4:14:23] decision that's being presented to her

[4:14:25] because it falls within a range of

[4:14:27] reasonable approaches. It doesn't say

[4:14:30] that if it isn't within that range in

[4:14:33] her judgment that she will approve it.

[4:14:36] It says that if it's in that range, so

[4:14:38] so long as it hits the range, even if

[4:14:40] it's at the bottom end, and she likes to

[4:14:42] be more cautious than that, and she

[4:14:43] would rather them be 20% better than the

[4:14:46] minimum requirement, she won't impose

[4:14:48] that requirement on them because they've

[4:14:50] hit the minimum that they're required

[4:14:51] to. So, she's saying, "If I were on the

[4:14:54] jury, I might not have I might not have

[4:14:56] ruled for that party, but I understand

[4:14:59] why that party won. It's a fair and just

[4:15:02] result, and I'm going to therefore go

[4:15:03] with it." Okay, Bruce, we're not done

[4:15:05] court of law, but let me give you let me

[4:15:07] give you a 100% example of why this is

[4:15:11] fatal. And I also will tell you why this

[4:15:14] is a developer's dream.

[4:15:17] >> A developer that wants to do a lake for

[4:15:19] » A developer that wants to do a lake for

[4:15:19] lake rebuild.

[4:15:20] >> You bet.

[4:15:20] » You bet.

[4:15:20] >> Okay,

[4:15:21] » Okay,

[4:15:21] >> let's take my house built in 1998 to

[4:15:24] » let's take my house built in 1998 to

[4:15:24] 2000. I have a very wellrespected

[4:15:29] architect engineer came up and said,

[4:15:31] "For my house, it's going to have a And

[4:15:33] the contractors out here don't know

[4:15:35] this. A post-tension slab

[4:15:38] came to the city and they said, "Not so

[4:15:41] fast. You're on a hillside slope. You

[4:15:44] need 23 quesons.

[4:15:47] The extra cost in 2000 was about

[4:15:50] $100,000. Today that's $500,000. That's

[4:15:53] within the range you just described. A

[4:15:55] post-tension slab by a a contractor

[4:15:59] that's experienced in Malibu versus what

[4:16:01] the city required.

[4:16:03] Now, 20 years later, the hillside down

[4:16:07] the street from me failed. $7 million to

[4:16:10] fix the project and

[4:16:13] my house, one of the comforts I had was

[4:16:16] I'm on 23 quesons. The house had it been

[4:16:19] on just a post-tension slab might have

[4:16:22] moved more and we would have a different

[4:16:24] problem. But here's the advant here's

[4:16:26] what happens. And let's take our guys in

[4:16:28] New Zealand just to pick on them for a

[4:16:30] minute. who some of the people that are

[4:16:31] that are uh promoting some of this may

[4:16:35] actually have a relationship with them.

[4:16:37] They're going to have this property

[4:16:39] these units constructed in China

[4:16:43] and you can have a California engineer

[4:16:45] in China certify whatever they're doing

[4:16:48] structural design and so forth. How's

[4:16:50] the city going to uh override that with

[4:16:52] your language that says that there's a

[4:16:54] range of possibilities within uh their

[4:16:57] determination, professional

[4:16:58] determination? And the answer is well,

[4:17:01] you might lose your license.

[4:17:02] >> No, the city's not overriding anything.

[4:17:04] » No, the city's not overriding anything.

[4:17:04] City's not overriding anything. The city

[4:17:06] is in the first instance evaluating the

[4:17:09] proposal.

[4:17:09] >> Let me and this is where you get a

[4:17:12] » Let me and this is where you get a

[4:17:12] question. Who is right? So you got the

[4:17:14] engineer in China who is certified by

[4:17:18] California is licensed and he says or

[4:17:22] she says I think this structural design

[4:17:24] works. It works for us in other places.

[4:17:26] It's within the range of possibilities

[4:17:29] >> aso as opposed to having the city decide

[4:17:32] » aso as opposed to having the city decide

[4:17:32] what's what's competent or not. Now hold

[4:17:35] on Bruce. If you've got 16 lots and you

[4:17:38] can build them for a half a million

[4:17:39] dollars cheaper, the developer just

[4:17:42] picks up $8 million worth of profit.

[4:17:44] >> You're creating a straw man.

[4:17:46] » You're creating a straw man.

[4:17:46] >> No, I'm not creating a straw man. I'm

[4:17:47] » No, I'm not creating a straw man. I'm

[4:17:47] giving you an example of where this is

[4:17:49] going to go. And the reason why I say

[4:17:52] this, if you had self-certification,

[4:17:55] the homeowner, developer would have to

[4:17:56] be responsible for it. And this is the

[4:17:59] reason why the major home builders in

[4:18:01] the United States, at least in San Diego

[4:18:03] and Phoenix, have said, "We're not

[4:18:05] touching self-certification because

[4:18:07] we're responsible for it." But when you

[4:18:09] take the approach you have here, the

[4:18:11] city becomes responsible for it. I think

[4:18:14] you'd be a lot better off if we didn't

[4:18:15] have any part of this right here in

[4:18:17] number two and let the city staff make

[4:18:21] the decision because it's our permit

[4:18:23] that's on it, our name. And by the way,

[4:18:26] one of the things that that isn't

[4:18:28] mentioned here, who's got the liability

[4:18:31] insurance for a bad decision by the

[4:18:33] outside engineer? Okay,

[4:18:34] >> the answer. Hold on. Did you know that

[4:18:36] » the answer. Hold on. Did you know that

[4:18:36] California doesn't require liability

[4:18:38] insurance for any engineers?

[4:18:42] >> I'm going to submit to you that you're

[4:18:43] » I'm going to submit to you that you're

[4:18:44] misreading this.

[4:18:45] >> All right.

[4:18:45] » All right.

[4:18:45] >> And I think a lot of people are. First

[4:18:47] » And I think a lot of people are. First

[4:18:47] of all, the pro the language in here

[4:18:49] about stamped and certified decision of

[4:18:52] the civil engineer employed by an

[4:18:55] applicant so long as such civil engineer

[4:18:57] as a California licensed civil engineer

[4:18:59] experienced in a particular practice

[4:19:00] that is implicated by the item in

[4:19:02] controversy

[4:19:03] is not an indication of who has to be

[4:19:07] relied upon. It's actually a requirement

[4:19:10] before you even get to the question of

[4:19:12] whether you consider what they're

[4:19:14] proposing. So in other words, if someone

[4:19:16] who doesn't have these qualifications

[4:19:18] presents something, this doesn't apply

[4:19:19] at all. This does not but but this this

[4:19:24] does not say that when someone has those

[4:19:26] qualifications, the city is obliged to

[4:19:29] do as they say, which which I think is

[4:19:31] your what you're assuming and I think

[4:19:32] what Steve was assuming too in the way

[4:19:34] he was describing it. What this says is

[4:19:36] that first of all, if it's not someone

[4:19:38] who meets those qualifications, they're

[4:19:40] irrelevant. They just, you know, they're

[4:19:42] shown the door. If they do meet those

[4:19:44] qualifications and they present a plan

[4:19:46] and the city reviews the plan and the

[4:19:49] city is satisfied that the plan meets

[4:19:52] the legal requirements, then

[4:19:54] notwithstanding the fact that there may

[4:19:56] be some better way to do it that is more

[4:20:00] conservative than the applicable legal

[4:20:02] requirement, the city won't impose that

[4:20:04] additional legal requirement. This is

[4:20:06] another This is an example of how to

[4:20:08] apply the rule that's being set forth

[4:20:12] which says don't impose any rules that

[4:20:15] aren't in the law. So, it's a straw man

[4:20:18] to say that this means we're going to

[4:20:20] have to do it because they say it's

[4:20:22] within a reasonable range. The

[4:20:24] determiner of whether it is or is not

[4:20:26] within the range is the city. So the

[4:20:30] city has already made a decision that it

[4:20:32] is in fact in the range and it's saying

[4:20:36] that's the end of the analysis.

[4:20:37] >> Who in the city makes that decision?

[4:20:39] » Who in the city makes that decision?

[4:20:39] >> Yeah. Who's going to do that? Who

[4:20:40] » Yeah. Who's going to do that? Who

[4:20:40] >> makes you got to have that?

[4:20:41] » makes you got to have that?

[4:20:41] >> The director of the community

[4:20:44] » The director of the community

[4:20:44] development department. It says it

[4:20:46] explicitly. Now, that person, whoever it

[4:20:48] is at the time, right now it's Yolanda,

[4:20:51] can certainly in the first instance have

[4:20:54] other members of the staff make the

[4:20:55] recommendation or even the decision if

[4:20:58] she wants to defer it to them. She's not

[4:20:59] cuz she's the building the um official

[4:21:02] >> the building official. So, she is making

[4:21:04] » the building official. So, she is making

[4:21:04] these decisions as it is right now. All

[4:21:07] this is is saying again in two different

[4:21:10] sentences in a paragraph, we're only

[4:21:12] going to require what the law requires.

[4:21:15] We're not. And again, and I'm confident

[4:21:16] Yolanda is doing exactly that. No.

[4:21:18] >> And this is Yolanda's doing exactly

[4:21:20] » And this is Yolanda's doing exactly

[4:21:20] that. She's not requiring anything that

[4:21:22] the law doesn't require because it's not

[4:21:23] her job to invent new rules. It's her

[4:21:25] job to apply the law. And she's applying

[4:21:27] the law as she understands it. Again,

[4:21:30] this is a future-looking document. This

[4:21:33] is to make sure that the next city

[4:21:35] council with the next disaster doesn't

[4:21:37] have to take 9 months to get to this

[4:21:39] point and that the next community

[4:21:40] development director when this happens

[4:21:43] 10 years from now doesn't have to spend

[4:21:45] 9 months to get to this point and maybe

[4:21:47] that person won't have the same approach

[4:21:49] Yolanda has and will want to maybe that

[4:21:51] Lauren Doyle would be the community

[4:21:53] director or a person I don't mean Lauren

[4:21:56] a person like that and this is saying

[4:21:59] don't do what you were doing do what the

[4:22:01] law requires. So it's it's just I I

[4:22:04] don't understand how you're getting this

[4:22:06] point that um we have to follow

[4:22:08] somebody. We don't [snorts] this makes

[4:22:10] very clear over and over again the law

[4:22:14] governs and the decision of the

[4:22:16] community development direct depart

[4:22:18] development department director is going

[4:22:20] to decide what the law is.

[4:22:22] >> Okay.

[4:22:23] » Okay.

[4:22:23] >> All right.

[4:22:23] » All right.

[4:22:23] >> And can I just jump in because I think

[4:22:25] » And can I just jump in because I think

[4:22:25] we're going to end up going around

[4:22:26] circles here.

[4:22:27] >> And by the way, one last thing. If if

[4:22:28] » And by the way, one last thing. If if

[4:22:28] the pro I wouldn't I wouldn't support

[4:22:31] this, but if your problem is with that

[4:22:33] sentence, you don't throw the ba the

[4:22:35] baby out with the bath water.

[4:22:37] >> If you have a problem with a particular

[4:22:39] » If you have a problem with a particular

[4:22:39] sentence, we talk about taking the

[4:22:41] sentence out or changing the sentence,

[4:22:42] but there's still a whole bunch of other

[4:22:44] stuff in here that I'm not hearing

[4:22:45] criticism of.

[4:22:46] >> Yeah.

[4:22:46] » Yeah.

[4:22:46] >> Oh, well, we haven't gotten to that yet,

[4:22:47] » Oh, well, we haven't gotten to that yet,

[4:22:47] so just hang on.

[4:22:50] Well, let me just one say one thing here

[4:22:52] because I think I think when you have

[4:22:55] Steve, myself, and Doug all reading this

[4:22:58] and we're all reading it a certain way

[4:23:01] that maybe it's not written in a way

[4:23:04] that you intend that it's not coming

[4:23:06] across

[4:23:08] how you're intending it to be. What I

[4:23:11] think that we if we were to look at

[4:23:13] this, one of the things that we need to

[4:23:15] be doing is that just further

[4:23:19] stipulating that minimum code

[4:23:22] requirements when it comes to the

[4:23:23] building code is what is accepted across

[4:23:28] the board. If somebody wants to propose

[4:23:33] higher construction standards than a

[4:23:35] minimum code, they're welcome to do

[4:23:37] that. But the building code is very

[4:23:39] clear as it is the minimum code

[4:23:42] standards and the design professionals

[4:23:46] that are out there

[4:23:48] also are in this choosing to recommend

[4:23:53] higher code standards but the minimum

[4:23:56] code is all they need to be. So I I

[4:23:59] think that you know we're reading this I

[4:24:02] think in a similar manner. So I don't

[4:24:05] think it's intending to say what you

[4:24:07] think it is. So at the very minimum, we

[4:24:10] need to go through number one and really

[4:24:13] clarify what the intention is and how it

[4:24:17] can be improved to actually say minimum

[4:24:21] code standards is what

[4:24:22] >> can be applied.

[4:24:23] » can be applied.

[4:24:23] >> I just want to bring up one thing. When

[4:24:25] » I just want to bring up one thing. When

[4:24:25] you talk about having the building

[4:24:27] official make a decision, what you

[4:24:30] really are back to the same system we

[4:24:31] have today where the applicant submits

[4:24:35] their proposed engineering for

[4:24:36] structural or geology or whatever and

[4:24:39] then the city has employed people to

[4:24:42] review it. And if the city's reviewers

[4:24:46] say that you need to do this and this

[4:24:48] because of their local knowledge of the

[4:24:51] hillsides or the structural issues,

[4:24:54] who wins in that argument? And the

[4:24:56] answer should be since we're issuing the

[4:24:58] building permit and we're the ones

[4:25:00] taking the liability for the decision,

[4:25:02] it should be our city staff that makes

[4:25:04] the call.

[4:25:05] >> It's exactly deferred to somebody that

[4:25:07] » It's exactly deferred to somebody that

[4:25:07] that has nothing to lose.

[4:25:09] >> Once again, it's exactly what it says.

[4:25:11] » Once again, it's exactly what it says.

[4:25:11] And secondly, I I take issue repeatedly

[4:25:13] when residents say this or or I should

[4:25:15] say when the people that appear before

[4:25:16] us in in land use matters appear say

[4:25:18] this and I take issue when you say it

[4:25:20] and I don't think you do it

[4:25:21] intentionally. We don't have liability

[4:25:23] just because somebody does something

[4:25:24] that ends up years later being a

[4:25:26] problem. Um the standards for liability

[4:25:29] for when a city or any other when a

[4:25:31] municipality approves a permit are

[4:25:34] extremely narrow and they're not at all

[4:25:37] just because it was wrong or shouldn't

[4:25:39] have been approved that you have

[4:25:40] liability. It's a it's it's a uh red

[4:25:42] herring and it really shouldn't come

[4:25:44] into the conversation. We should be

[4:25:45] deciding what makes sense, not being

[4:25:47] concerned about fake liability

[4:25:50] suing us after the girls got killed on

[4:25:52] PCH.

[4:25:53] >> They're not getting a judgment, are

[4:25:54] » They're not getting a judgment, are

[4:25:54] they?

[4:25:55] >> They're suing. Well, hold on a second.

[4:25:57] » They're suing. Well, hold on a second.

[4:25:57] Here's the other thing. If you go to

[4:25:58] Agura Hills over by the wildlife

[4:26:00] crossing, that whole hillside fell away

[4:26:02] with houses and the city of Agura Hills

[4:26:05] got uh responsibility for uh the

[4:26:09] planning process that they didn't do

[4:26:11] properly. So, you can say all you want

[4:26:13] to about it being red herring, but

[4:26:14] that's not the way it works in real

[4:26:16] life.

[4:26:16] >> I've heard now um so much conflicting

[4:26:21] » I've heard now um so much conflicting

[4:26:21] information. I've heard that we're not

[4:26:24] liable as the city that they we are

[4:26:27] liable if something goes wrong. What is

[4:26:30] the fact of the matter? Are we if you

[4:26:35] have a certified

[4:26:39] is the building department liable

[4:26:41] because I have waiverss of indemnity. I

[4:26:44] have heard so many different things now.

[4:26:47] Well, every permit requires the

[4:26:49] applicants to indemnify and defend the

[4:26:51] the city. That's a requirement. The city

[4:26:53] also has a number of immunities that are

[4:26:56] um you know require that that uh protect

[4:26:59] the city and negligence related to the

[4:27:01] issuance of permits. So, there's a lot

[4:27:03] of protections for cities um that are

[4:27:05] built in there, but it's not impossible

[4:27:07] for a city to to get sued or to lose. Um

[4:27:11] but it's it's a difficult uh it's

[4:27:14] difficult for a city to um face

[4:27:18] liability over the approval of a permit.

[4:27:20] >> And are there waiverss in which people

[4:27:22] » And are there waiverss in which people

[4:27:22] sign

[4:27:25] >> when they're building?

[4:27:26] » when they're building?

[4:27:26] >> It's uh they sign an indemnity um

[4:27:29] » It's uh they sign an indemnity um

[4:27:29] provision is as a requirement to

[4:27:32] identify and defend the city. um other

[4:27:35] other types of dependencing on the

[4:27:36] permit there are other things

[4:27:37] assumptions of risk

[4:27:39] >> um or other types of documents that are

[4:27:41] » um or other types of documents that are

[4:27:41] required to be signed as well

[4:27:42] >> but you know I mean Doug made the point

[4:27:43] » but you know I mean Doug made the point

[4:27:43] and I agree with him I've said it before

[4:27:45] the mere fact that the um applicant

[4:27:48] indemnifies the city doesn't first if if

[4:27:52] a third party gets harmed that is not

[4:27:55] very meaningful because easily the

[4:27:57] liability if there were one could exceed

[4:27:59] the wherewithal of the um applicant to

[4:28:02] satisfy a judgment

[4:28:04] And then somebody would be looking to

[4:28:05] the city as well. And I don't ever make

[4:28:08] decisions on whether there will or won't

[4:28:10] be potential liability. I mean, you

[4:28:12] know, I've been a lawyer for [snorts] 40

[4:28:13] years and when I represent my clients,

[4:28:15] that's what I tell them. Don't don't ask

[4:28:17] me the question, what will my potential

[4:28:19] liability be if I don't do the right

[4:28:21] thing? The question is, what's the right

[4:28:23] thing to do? Because if you do the right

[4:28:26] thing in the first instance, you're not

[4:28:28] going to have a liability to be

[4:28:29] concerned about. Do could you get sued?

[4:28:32] Sure. The great thing about this country

[4:28:34] is it takes $75 for a filing fee or

[4:28:37] whatever it is and anyone can sue

[4:28:38] anybody for anything, but the judicial

[4:28:41] system works it out. And as Trevor said,

[4:28:44] it's not impossible to be liable for

[4:28:45] something when you're a municipality

[4:28:47] approving a building permit. But it's

[4:28:49] extremely rare and it would require

[4:28:50] something a lot more than simply having

[4:28:52] made the wrong decision. And we

[4:28:54] shouldn't be t we shouldn't be getting

[4:28:56] all tied up worrying about liability

[4:28:58] when we should be trying to decide

[4:29:00] what's the right thing to do. Let me

[4:29:02] just give you think of the discussion

[4:29:04] we've had here

[4:29:06] however long now. Okay.

[4:29:10] How do you think this is going to be

[4:29:12] absorbed by the staff when they start

[4:29:14] going through this thing? I mean, you

[4:29:15] think it's going to be a complex thing

[4:29:18] for everybody to understand and make

[4:29:19] sure they know what the hell we're doing

[4:29:20] and we do it right. And let me give you,

[4:29:22] you know, this process that said we can

[4:29:25] trust the

[4:29:27] professionals. go back to the uh motel

[4:29:30] that was being built across from the

[4:29:32] pier. All right. Doug Burg has been

[4:29:34] constructing stuff in the city for a

[4:29:36] long long time. And he he proposed a

[4:29:39] garage that a subterranean garage that

[4:29:41] really wasn't subterranean. All it was

[4:29:43] was built on the same level. They put

[4:29:45] some dirt around the side and called the

[4:29:46] subterranean. And the staff approved it.

[4:29:49] Staff approved it. Right. So, I'm just

[4:29:52] saying, you know, look,

[4:29:54] to some point we have to we're paying

[4:29:56] Yolanda and her staff a lot of money.

[4:29:58] I'm not a lot of money and probably not

[4:30:00] enough Yolanda. I apologize for that.

[4:30:02] But, but I mean, that's their job.

[4:30:06] That's why they hire these. Look, I

[4:30:08] don't I don't know how many of these

[4:30:09] permits you've taken a look at or

[4:30:11] Kayla's taken a look at that have come

[4:30:12] into your chron. You don't you've never

[4:30:14] seen one of these things.

[4:30:16] >> These people have and we're paying them

[4:30:18] » These people have and we're paying them

[4:30:18] to do that and they're good at it. And I

[4:30:21] don't want to take it away from them.

[4:30:22] That's exactly what you're doing. You're

[4:30:24] taking it away from their ability to do

[4:30:26] and that's wrong.

[4:30:27] >> It does not take away anything from

[4:30:29] » It does not take away anything from

[4:30:29] anybody. And it doesn't say trust

[4:30:31] anybody whatsoever. It actually says

[4:30:34] before you even get to have the benefit

[4:30:37] of a doubt. You have to be all these

[4:30:38] things, a licensed professional in the

[4:30:40] proper standard in the proper um field.

[4:30:43] But what this ultimately says is that it

[4:30:46] is the city that makes a decision as to

[4:30:49] whether the proposal is within a range

[4:30:53] that the law permits.

[4:30:55] >> That's what the city's doing today.

[4:30:56] » That's what the city's doing today.

[4:30:56] >> Fine. So then what's your problem?

[4:30:58] » Fine. So then what's your problem?

[4:30:58] >> That's exactly right. We're not really

[4:31:00] » That's exactly right. We're not really

[4:31:00] changing. We're memorializing it. It

[4:31:02] says community director. We're trusting

[4:31:04] her. We're This is what we're doing. We

[4:31:07] are just putting it pen to paper, voting

[4:31:10] on it. If there are things that you

[4:31:11] don't like, we can change some of those

[4:31:14] things.

[4:31:14] >> Yeah, we still haven't heard Maryann's

[4:31:15] » Yeah, we still haven't heard Maryann's

[4:31:15] objections, and I'm not sure I don't

[4:31:17] think Doug's finished either, but I

[4:31:18] mean, Steve, I I really I hear you

[4:31:20] coming at this from a standpoint of

[4:31:22] being defensive, that this is a

[4:31:23] criticism, that we haven't done things

[4:31:25] right, that the residents, no matter

[4:31:26] what, aren't going to be satisfied. That

[4:31:28] is not at all the purpose of this. And

[4:31:30] in fact, I didn't hear from the comments

[4:31:31] at all that this is something that

[4:31:33] they're going to be dissatisfied with no

[4:31:35] matter what we do. And

[4:31:37] >> say that they wanted more.

[4:31:39] » say that they wanted more.

[4:31:39] They may want more,

[4:31:40] >> right?

[4:31:40] » right?

[4:31:40] >> But that's fine. That's the They're

[4:31:43] » But that's fine. That's the They're

[4:31:43] allowed to ask for everything and

[4:31:44] anything they want. They could ask for

[4:31:45] us to build their houses for them and to

[4:31:47] put them up tomorrow.

[4:31:48] >> This mentality of that they're not

[4:31:49] » This mentality of that they're not

[4:31:49] entitled to ask for things is strange to

[4:31:52] me.

[4:31:53] >> This has been pervasive that I've been

[4:31:55] » This has been pervasive that I've been

[4:31:55] noticing for a very long time since I've

[4:31:57] been here. And I don't really appreciate

[4:31:59] it because I'm a resident. And if my

[4:32:01] horse my house burned down, I would be

[4:32:03] here hoping to get what I needed from my

[4:32:05] council. They are entitled to these

[4:32:08] things and we're entitled

[4:32:10] to have a great working relationship

[4:32:12] here. Everybody is entitled. We can do

[4:32:14] everything at once. We don't have to

[4:32:16] exclude one party and we're defending

[4:32:19] another. This us against them thing is

[4:32:21] so bizarre to me. We're trying to do

[4:32:24] what council people do. We're trying to

[4:32:26] support staff. We're not criticizing

[4:32:29] staff. We think we've done a fabulous

[4:32:31] job. We're also trying to listen to

[4:32:32] residents and also we know we are in a

[4:32:35] disasterprone city. So instead of not

[4:32:39] preparing for the next one, we have

[4:32:41] tools that we can just trust. But

[4:32:44] there's so much mistrust,

[4:32:46] >> you know, and also after the fire, the

[4:32:48] » you know, and also after the fire, the

[4:32:48] staff after taking some time came to us

[4:32:51] with a bunch of municipal code amendment

[4:32:54] proposals and we didn't necessarily a

[4:32:56] lot of us we didn't understand exactly

[4:32:58] what they meant. The residents didn't

[4:33:00] understand what they meant. We had to

[4:33:01] have meetings to talk about what they

[4:33:03] meant. We tweaked some of the words. We

[4:33:05] listened to the explanations. We didn't

[4:33:07] just have a knee-jerk reaction of, you

[4:33:09] know, no, we don't like the fact that

[4:33:11] this is being proposed. We don't want to

[4:33:12] make changes. We listened. We rec we

[4:33:15] knew that they were coming from the

[4:33:16] right place, that they were intended to

[4:33:18] benefit the residents. We wanted to make

[4:33:20] sure we didn't go too far and do the

[4:33:22] wrong thing. All the right things that

[4:33:23] we should be doing now with this, too.

[4:33:25] But the mere fact this isn't coming from

[4:33:27] the staff and the mere fact that there

[4:33:28] may be questions about what it means

[4:33:30] means we should be having a discussion

[4:33:32] about what does this mean? Should we

[4:33:34] change this word or shouldn't we change

[4:33:36] this word? Do we like this concept or

[4:33:38] don't we like this concept? And that's

[4:33:40] what we're we're trying to do. But we

[4:33:41] shouldn't just be like there's problems

[4:33:44] so let's throw this out. We don't do

[4:33:45] this which is the which is what I sense

[4:33:47] is the the attitude. We're not saying to

[4:33:50] throw the whole thing out, but the

[4:33:51] problem that you've presented here is,

[4:33:53] and I'm using number section one, the

[4:33:56] idea that the applicants professional

[4:33:59] wins in the conversation. I know if I

[4:34:02] was turning in a plan for rebuilding and

[4:34:05] I had an architect that presented

[4:34:08] something, I want the city staff to be

[4:34:11] the quality control to make sure that's

[4:34:13] correct and not just say, "Oh, you

[4:34:15] submitted it by and you got a license

[4:34:17] stamp. Go for it.

[4:34:19] >> It's not what it says.

[4:34:20] » It's not what it says.

[4:34:20] >> That's what it says.

[4:34:21] » That's what it says.

[4:34:21] >> It's not. Everyone out there knows it's

[4:34:22] » It's not. Everyone out there knows it's

[4:34:22] not what it says. Every single one of

[4:34:24] these residents knows that's not what it

[4:34:26] says. Our lawyer knows that's not what

[4:34:28] it says. Ask them.

[4:34:31] >> I I I I'm sorry.

[4:34:34] » I I I I'm sorry.

[4:34:34] >> I know that you are the policy makers,

[4:34:37] » I know that you are the policy makers,

[4:34:37] but that I'm the impletor.

[4:34:39] And it really states

[4:34:42] what I'm getting out of it that it is to

[4:34:45] the civil engineers submitting the plans

[4:34:46] that they're going to be the one. The

[4:34:48] way it's written, it is not clear for

[4:34:50] interpretation and I'm just letting you

[4:34:52] know as my recommendations are your

[4:34:54] building official. The other thing that

[4:34:56] I want to make clear on assumption of

[4:34:57] risk and release when an assumption of

[4:35:00] risk and release for technical is

[4:35:02] submitted

[4:35:03] is is is filled out, we still do a

[4:35:06] review. We we for the minimum code

[4:35:09] compliance. We ask for structural

[4:35:11] calculations. We ask for title 24. We

[4:35:14] ask for your technical engineers uh

[4:35:17] report. So what the assumption of risk

[4:35:20] and release is letting the property

[4:35:22] owner know that hey there is a risk on

[4:35:26] your property.

[4:35:28] We will we as a city we would not we

[4:35:31] would not be able to issue a permit if

[4:35:33] we don't feel that it's safe.

[4:35:36] So when we put our safe uh stamp or

[4:35:39] compliance when we do a review is safe

[4:35:41] for the intended use

[4:35:44] the uh assumption of risk is agrees that

[4:35:48] the proposed structure is still deemed

[4:35:50] safe but is acknowledged to be in a

[4:35:54] geohazard area. That's all it is.

[4:35:59] the interpreta the number two when you

[4:36:01] say that um

[4:36:04] liberalize the process of securing

[4:36:07] building code approval. I am not sure

[4:36:09] what your uh statement indicates uh

[4:36:12] because as a building official and as a

[4:36:15] the representative for your building and

[4:36:17] safety we adhere to the mandatory

[4:36:20] minimum building code compliance.

[4:36:24] So it's not for us to make it more

[4:36:26] liberal, more flexible or more

[4:36:29] stringent. We need to be neutral.

[4:36:33] Uh the other statement that is said on

[4:36:36] paragraph 2, eliminate the need for

[4:36:38] geotechnical analysis for a life forlife

[4:36:40] disaster rebuild to be reconstruct on

[4:36:45] flat paths.

[4:36:50] And this goes back to minimum code

[4:36:53] compliance. If it's already required as

[4:36:56] a building official,

[4:36:59] there is no way to implement this if

[4:37:02] this is happening on an active

[4:37:04] landslide.

[4:37:06] Um so for implementation

[4:37:10] um paragraph one and two

[4:37:14] uh needs a little more work

[4:37:16] um because I would not be able to

[4:37:18] implement it. it it goes against the

[4:37:21] building code

[4:37:22] >> and I and on just like I said to Doug, I

[4:37:24] » and I and on just like I said to Doug, I

[4:37:24] agree with everything you just said. I

[4:37:26] truly do. And I don't think that's what

[4:37:28] this says. It says that this it says

[4:37:30] that where there are issues like that,

[4:37:32] we should explore ways to to get around

[4:37:35] them. Explore doesn't say you have to

[4:37:37] succeed. It says look at it as hard as

[4:37:40] possible and see if there are ways to

[4:37:42] get what needs to be done done. If not,

[4:37:45] it can't be done. But I I want to ask

[4:37:46] the city attorney because I'm I'm

[4:37:47] serious with this. Does this say that um

[4:37:51] we have to defer to licensed

[4:37:53] professionals anywhere?

[4:37:59] » We're talking about section one.

[4:38:01] >> Let's do one first. Yeah. Does this does

[4:38:03] » Let's do one first. Yeah. Does this does

[4:38:03] this say legally? Does this say we have

[4:38:04] to defer to licensed professionals?

[4:38:06] Because I that was not what was intended

[4:38:07] and I don't believe the words say that.

[4:38:13] Well, you have the city staff shall

[4:38:14] defer to the stamped and certified

[4:38:16] decision of the civil engineer employed

[4:38:17] by an applicant so long as such they are

[4:38:20] licensed basically in California and

[4:38:22] experienced in that. So you do have that

[4:38:24] language.

[4:38:25] >> Read the whole sentence from the

[4:38:27] » Read the whole sentence from the

[4:38:27] beginning

[4:38:28] >> to that end. Whenever there is a

[4:38:30] » to that end. Whenever there is a

[4:38:30] difference of opinion on an issue that

[4:38:32] the community development direct uh

[4:38:34] development department CDDD director

[4:38:36] direct recognizes to be a difference of

[4:38:38] opinion upon which reasonable

[4:38:39] professional civil civil engineers might

[4:38:41] differ. the city staff shall defer to

[4:38:44] the stamped and certified decision of

[4:38:46] the civil engineer employed by the

[4:38:47] applicant.

[4:38:48] >> Right. So wouldn't in order to meet the

[4:38:50] » Right. So wouldn't in order to meet the

[4:38:50] first requirement, doesn't the city have

[4:38:53] to first decide it meets the law?

[4:38:57] you're um it comes down to the comm the

[4:39:00] community development director believes

[4:39:03] that uh there's a the difference of

[4:39:07] opinion upon basically a reasonable

[4:39:09] difference of opinion about the issue.

[4:39:11] If there's if there can't be a

[4:39:13] reasonable difference in opinion then

[4:39:15] this community development director

[4:39:16] would not have to defer. That's the

[4:39:18] intention. Right.

[4:39:19] >> Right. if if there's not a if the

[4:39:20] » Right. if if there's not a if the

[4:39:20] community director does not determine

[4:39:22] it's a reasonable interpreta a

[4:39:24] reasonable proposal then they don't have

[4:39:26] to defer to it.

[4:39:29] >> So the gatekeeper is the city at all

[4:39:33] » So the gatekeeper is the city at all

[4:39:33] times. And again if the language needs

[4:39:36] to be tweaked to make it even clearer,

[4:39:38] let's talk about tweaking the language,

[4:39:40] but let's not get held up thinking it

[4:39:42] means something different than it does

[4:39:44] and then saying no. Why don't we try to

[4:39:46] find a way to get to yes?

[4:39:48] >> Hold on a second. If I could, and I want

[4:39:50] » Hold on a second. If I could, and I want

[4:39:50] to go to Maryanne, but isn't this the

[4:39:53] process? If it's what you think it is

[4:39:55] that we're already doing right now, the

[4:39:57] applicant submits the geology report,

[4:40:00] the city looks at it and says, "No, we

[4:40:02] don't agree with it." And the city wins,

[4:40:05] but you're saying the city loses.

[4:40:07] >> Now, if for as long as it's within a

[4:40:09] » Now, if for as long as it's within a

[4:40:09] range of what could be possible, my slab

[4:40:11] example is a perfect example. Post

[4:40:13] tension slabs are built everywhere,

[4:40:16] but they're not built in Malibu on last

[4:40:19] street.

[4:40:22] Um, first of all, I think it is exactly

[4:40:24] what we're doing now after 6 to9 months

[4:40:28] of hashing it out, which I commend

[4:40:32] Yolanda and her staff for getting to

[4:40:34] that point. And I commend the city

[4:40:35] council for getting to that point as

[4:40:36] well. And this is intended to

[4:40:39] memorialize where we've gotten to and

[4:40:41] where the staff has gotten to without a

[4:40:44] formal policy that approves where

[4:40:46] they've gotten to. So I think it really

[4:40:48] does do nothing more than memorializes a

[4:40:51] city council policy where we are. And to

[4:40:54] the extent that anyone here believes the

[4:40:56] language goes further than that, or even

[4:41:00] worse, if anyone here thinks the

[4:41:01] language goes to a point which is

[4:41:03] inappropriate or or unlawful, let's fix

[4:41:06] the language to make sure that it

[4:41:08] doesn't.

[4:41:09] But the point is this is supposed to

[4:41:11] provide a road map not only for now. And

[4:41:14] it's it's actually the road map that's

[4:41:15] already been built. A road map for now,

[4:41:17] but a road map for the future so that

[4:41:20] the next disaster, as Arno said, you

[4:41:22] just pull it out of the drawer and there

[4:41:24] it is. It's already there. It's not a

[4:41:26] question of well, what did we do last

[4:41:27] time? Let's think about it and do we

[4:41:29] agree that we should do the same thing

[4:41:31] this time. It's it's it's a policy that

[4:41:33] could be pulled out and applied. It

[4:41:35] doesn't have to be created again. You

[4:41:37] don't have to keep reinventing the wheel

[4:41:39] every time we have a disaster. So yes,

[4:41:41] it is what we're doing now.

[4:41:43] >> As I said, it was a result of sitting

[4:41:46] » As I said, it was a result of sitting

[4:41:46] here for the past year after

[4:41:49] >> thesis. It's the culmination. It's the

[4:41:51] » thesis. It's the culmination. It's the

[4:41:51] end result. It feels like a little bow

[4:41:53] is put on it. It's a closure. It's a

[4:41:56] document. Um and again, if you don't

[4:41:59] like some of the things, it's open for a

[4:42:01] discussion. Um, but to just throw it out

[4:42:05] because I think you think what it says

[4:42:07] or you're interpreting it in a way that

[4:42:09] you believe

[4:42:11] is possibly I maybe you need to we need

[4:42:14] to take a little bit more time and you

[4:42:15] guys

[4:42:17] need to reread it.

[4:42:18] >> Yeah, but I mean you know this is the

[4:42:20] » Yeah, but I mean you know this is the

[4:42:20] problem of the Brown Act. We this is the

[4:42:21] only way we can talk to each other about

[4:42:23] this and and get it done.

[4:42:24] >> Let me defer to Maryanne. I've talked

[4:42:26] » Let me defer to Maryanne. I've talked

[4:42:26] long enough.

[4:42:27] >> Okay. So [snorts] I hear the community.

[4:42:30] » Okay. So [snorts] I hear the community.

[4:42:30] I hear what you're saying. I hear what

[4:42:31] you want. Everything else,

[4:42:35] um, I appreciate the council members

[4:42:38] that put this together. I appreciate

[4:42:41] what the other council members have said

[4:42:43] to this. Um,

[4:42:46] I think that

[4:42:50] [sighs and gasps] my first first pass

[4:42:52] through this, I just kept writing

[4:42:54] micromanaging staff, micromanaging

[4:42:56] staff, micromanaging staff. Now that

[4:42:59] I've had a chance to hear from the

[4:43:00] council members who put this together,

[4:43:03] I'm

[4:43:05] and hear from the community and

[4:43:06] everything else

[4:43:10] hear that there are people who don't

[4:43:13] understand

[4:43:14] what exists in the city process, what

[4:43:16] has been done by previous councils going

[4:43:19] back all the way to the 93 fire that was

[4:43:22] right on the

[4:43:25] the city hadn't even gotten its feet

[4:43:27] settled yet. and then this major

[4:43:29] disaster happens and then the mudslides

[4:43:31] following them. Um,

[4:43:34] I think that the

[4:43:39] the municipal code and the local coastal

[4:43:41] program had the exemptions and the

[4:43:44] natural disaster rebuild

[4:43:47] um codes already in them. I think that

[4:43:51] it's been a policy of all the councils

[4:43:54] that have encountered the disasters

[4:43:57] 93 2007

[4:44:00] 2018

[4:44:02] they have all led with we want people to

[4:44:05] rebuild their homes. Now the problem is

[4:44:09] we don't know why people didn't rebuild

[4:44:11] after Woolseie. The city had some

[4:44:14] responsibility on that. COVID had some

[4:44:17] of the responsibility on that and there

[4:44:20] are a lot of external extenduating

[4:44:24] circumstances that have led to people

[4:44:26] not rebuilding and we do need to

[4:44:28] acknowledge that. We do need to

[4:44:30] acknowledge that people are underinsured

[4:44:32] that they had life circumstances that

[4:44:36] took them in a different direction when

[4:44:38] it came time to rebuild.

[4:44:41] I appreciate this document in as much as

[4:44:43] that I know that there are people who

[4:44:45] are looking for the city to just have a

[4:44:48] policy of yeah, we're going to be very

[4:44:51] conservative on new buildings, but when

[4:44:55] it comes to rebuilding, it's, you know,

[4:44:58] all hands go. I think our codes say that

[4:45:01] already. Obviously, our community

[4:45:04] doesn't think that. Obviously, there are

[4:45:07] council members that don't think that.

[4:45:09] And so you're looking to have something

[4:45:12] that makes it very clear that rebuilding

[4:45:14] gets priority over everything. I think

[4:45:17] the things that we've done over the last

[4:45:19] year have shown that this particular

[4:45:21] council feels this way. I think that the

[4:45:24] staff I know that they were in the EOC

[4:45:28] emergency operations center and they

[4:45:30] were already looking at the codes and

[4:45:32] what needed to be modified because of

[4:45:35] the nature of where this particular

[4:45:37] disaster hit. And they did that after

[4:45:40] Woolseie. They're do did it after

[4:45:42] Palisades. And they'll do it after the

[4:45:44] next one. Though I don't know what other

[4:45:47] things could be needed after those two

[4:45:50] disasters to be honest with you, but I'm

[4:45:53] sure there will be something. Um, given

[4:45:56] that we've been talking about this for

[4:45:57] an hour and a half, we still have other

[4:45:59] things on the council. I would suggest

[4:46:01] that we schedule a workshop to actually

[4:46:04] sit down and go through what this

[4:46:07] because

[4:46:09] I think there's three of us up here that

[4:46:11] don't read this the same way that the

[4:46:13] two people that put this together. Um,

[4:46:16] and it needs some more time

[4:46:19] and order to get to a place that

[4:46:22] I think any of us would feel

[4:46:26] comfortable with supporting it and

[4:46:29] moving it forward. So my suggestion is

[4:46:31] that we pause on this and finish the

[4:46:34] rest of the business on our agenda for

[4:46:36] >> Interestingly, Helen and I had wanted

[4:46:37] » Interestingly, Helen and I had wanted

[4:46:37] this to be a workshop from the day we

[4:46:40] presented it. And again, because of the

[4:46:43] way the city was being run at the time

[4:46:45] because, you know, we're still we're

[4:46:46] still somewhat semi-rutterless. I don't

[4:46:49] with no disrespect intended, but you

[4:46:51] know, we don't we don't have a permanent

[4:46:52] city manager who's who's been a city

[4:46:54] manager. Um, we we had wanted this to be

[4:46:57] a workshop. I think a lot of the issues

[4:47:00] that we're dealing with tonight in an

[4:47:02] awkward way could have been dealt with

[4:47:03] in a lot better way. Um, but we didn't

[4:47:06] have the right to call a workshop. We

[4:47:07] had the right to put it on an agenda.

[4:47:10] Um, and it's been on the agenda now for

[4:47:12] two months and we've been trying to get

[4:47:13] it to the point where we actually our

[4:47:15] intention the very first night we had it

[4:47:17] on there was to say

[4:47:19] let's put this on a workshop. So, I

[4:47:21] actually concur with that. Um, I also

[4:47:24] didn't feel that I, you know, a lot of

[4:47:27] this stuff has already been done. Almost

[4:47:29] all of it's already been done. So, the

[4:47:32] urgency of getting this in place is less

[4:47:35] than it was as you know. Um, keeps being

[4:47:38] said, I I wrote an article about this 6

[4:47:40] months ago. Um, and I'm remiss for not

[4:47:42] having pressed to have it put on the

[4:47:44] agenda back then. So, to the residents,

[4:47:47] I apologize for not having done that.

[4:47:49] Um, but you know, a good example in here

[4:47:52] is this has a provision towards the end

[4:47:54] of paragraph 2 about finding ways to let

[4:47:57] people use their existing septics and

[4:47:59] their listing and their existing

[4:48:00] foundations. And until a couple weeks

[4:48:02] ago, the being able to use your existing

[4:48:04] septic system if it wasn't destroyed was

[4:48:08] still a gating issue and it was finally

[4:48:10] and it was resolved to the to the, you

[4:48:11] know, by our by our great staff. Yolanda

[4:48:14] took the lead on that and we got and

[4:48:15] that was resolved. This has been

[4:48:17] pressing for that. You know, I've been

[4:48:18] I' I've been saying that in writing for

[4:48:20] many months. Halen has been and it was

[4:48:23] in this proposal and the events have

[4:48:25] passed the requ the requirement that

[4:48:28] that we try to find a way to get it

[4:48:29] done. We still have to find a way if

[4:48:31] possible to let people use foundations.

[4:48:34] Maybe that's already been done, but

[4:48:35] okay, it has. So again, these are not

[4:48:38] these are not creating new rules. These

[4:48:41] are these are memorializing as policy

[4:48:45] that which we've all struggled with. so

[4:48:47] mightily and gotten to the point of

[4:48:49] doing. But having a workshop, I support

[4:48:51] that. I suspect Tailon does. Let's let's

[4:48:53] let's schedule a workshop. I if you know

[4:48:57] I I feel bad suggesting to the residents

[4:48:59] that we'd have to wait a little while

[4:49:00] longer, but maybe it makes sense to do

[4:49:02] it once Joe comes in.

[4:49:03] >> Yeah.

[4:49:03] » Yeah.

[4:49:04] >> And we can and we can do it and he can

[4:49:06] » And we can and we can do it and he can

[4:49:06] coordinate with the staff better the way

[4:49:08] it would have been done had it come from

[4:49:09] the staff in the first place. But, you

[4:49:12] know, let's just not throw this out. I

[4:49:14] think it's an important piece of policy

[4:49:17] that we owe it to the community to put

[4:49:19] into place and we owe it to future city

[4:49:20] councils to put into place.

[4:49:22] >> I disagree with that, but I'd rather

[4:49:24] » I disagree with that, but I'd rather

[4:49:24] they have the opportunity to

[4:49:28] to think about the specific nature of

[4:49:32] those disasters when and if they come,

[4:49:34] how they that city wants to respond and

[4:49:37] that council wants to respond at that

[4:49:38] time where we've already got the things.

[4:49:40] I just want to go back to the opening

[4:49:41] comments that Doug made regarding, you

[4:49:43] know, getting some feedback from the

[4:49:45] staff in terms of, you know, I had the

[4:49:48] experience. We rebuilt the company. All

[4:49:50] right? We did it under this rule that

[4:49:53] we're going to get it done in two years

[4:49:54] period. All right? So, we made up what

[4:49:57] we thought were the right rules, but we

[4:49:58] sat down with everybody in that company

[4:50:00] and we said, "Here's what we're going to

[4:50:02] do." And they had a chance to come back

[4:50:04] and say, "That works. That's going to

[4:50:06] work. That's stupid." All right? And so

[4:50:08] when we got to the end of making the

[4:50:09] final decision, even though we thought

[4:50:11] we knew exactly what the hell we're

[4:50:13] supposed to be doing, we got better

[4:50:14] input as a result of talking to them. So

[4:50:16] I just don't think we want to do this

[4:50:18] without a conversation with the folks

[4:50:20] who actually have to do the work because

[4:50:21] they forgot more about this than I'm

[4:50:23] ever going to know.

[4:50:24] >> Yeah. Before you start, I just and I

[4:50:27] » Yeah. Before you start, I just and I

[4:50:27] wanted to address things. So the

[4:50:28] foundation thing, the foundation's set

[4:50:30] since Woolseie. It's the same policy

[4:50:33] they were using in Woolseie. So that's

[4:50:35] not something that just got done. It it

[4:50:38] has been the documents have been

[4:50:40] available. People have been able to get

[4:50:42] it for the rebuild center. They've been

[4:50:44] able to get it from the website. So that

[4:50:47] goes back, you know, six years where

[4:50:49] it's already been in process. So that's

[4:50:52] what I'm kind of talking about that

[4:50:54] there's there's information that's out

[4:50:55] there, but people aren't either adopting

[4:50:58] it or

[4:50:59] >> I whichever. So go ahead. And I think um

[4:51:03] » I whichever. So go ahead. And I think um

[4:51:03] so what I've heard from from I mean

[4:51:06] forever is just to be proactive and to

[4:51:08] not and to be less reactive and I felt

[4:51:11] that you know this is these are

[4:51:13] unprecedented

[4:51:15] earthquakes are unprecedented fires are

[4:51:17] unprecedented um if another council like

[4:51:19] I know I would totally appreciate just

[4:51:21] having a guide book and I don't have to

[4:51:25] adopt it but with my council members at

[4:51:27] that time I could say well this is what

[4:51:28] they did in 2025 this works this works

[4:51:30] this doesn't work and it might save them

[4:51:32] time and it might not. But having that

[4:51:34] option of the information is so

[4:51:36] important just to have this sort of

[4:51:38] structure and foundation for the city.

[4:51:41] Um because to me somehow it feels a

[4:51:43] little irresponsible for us to go

[4:51:44] through all of this and I'm I'm grateful

[4:51:47] that we have it on video but to have

[4:51:48] these documents and policy. If I was a

[4:51:51] council member in 10 years and I'd go,

[4:51:53] "Oh my god, they live through Palisades

[4:51:54] and they didn't have a policy from

[4:51:56] that." I think I would feel like

[4:52:00] it was irresponsible. So that to me I

[4:52:03] think there's a little bit of

[4:52:04] defensiveness and everybody should sleep

[4:52:06] on on this and because it's not intended

[4:52:09] again to criticize or say that anybody's

[4:52:12] doing a bad job in my opinion. It's

[4:52:14] literally like it's our job to make

[4:52:16] policy and we've explored all of these

[4:52:19] things for a year and we're putting it

[4:52:20] into a document. So, we'll sleep on it

[4:52:22] and we'll come back to it in a workshop,

[4:52:24] I think, because that would be great. As

[4:52:26] Bruce said, I was hoping for an open

[4:52:29] dialogue with people where we don't have

[4:52:31] to be up here doing this in a very

[4:52:34] structured format. Um, so do we vote on

[4:52:39] that

[4:52:41] >> draw? I mean, do we need a vote on this

[4:52:43] » draw? I mean, do we need a vote on this

[4:52:43] or are we just directing staff? I think

[4:52:46] there's consensus from the body to

[4:52:47] schedule a workshop

[4:52:49] >> and it will be after the new city

[4:52:51] » and it will be after the new city

[4:52:51] manager

[4:52:52] >> to schedule a workshop with the new city

[4:52:53] » to schedule a workshop with the new city

[4:52:53] manager.

[4:52:54] >> So yeah,

[4:52:57] » So yeah,

[4:52:57] >> I just want one other comment is I had

[4:52:59] » I just want one other comment is I had

[4:52:59] comments generally for the community

[4:53:01] too. I I don't think Danny I don't and

[4:53:03] others have said this too. I do not

[4:53:05] believe it's fair though to be calling

[4:53:07] 22 building permits a monumental

[4:53:11] um failure. There are plenty of reasons

[4:53:14] why it has taken the time it's taken for

[4:53:17] the ones to be approved to be approved.

[4:53:19] And I do believe that it doesn't help to

[4:53:22] be criticizing the staff as as claiming

[4:53:25] a failure. Um, and whoever said it was

[4:53:28] Scott, the math is 22 in one year means

[4:53:31] it'll take 27 for all of them. You know,

[4:53:34] there's exponential improvement. It's

[4:53:36] not it's not that you're going to get 22

[4:53:37] a year every year. here and there's

[4:53:39] going to be plenty that aren't going to

[4:53:40] be built full stop because people just

[4:53:41] are going to decide they're not capable.

[4:53:43] I mean that happens every time

[4:53:45] everywhere despite the best of

[4:53:47] abilities. Um so I I think the staff is

[4:53:50] doing an amazing job and this was

[4:53:52] intended to memorialize a lot of the

[4:53:53] things that they've done already and to

[4:53:55] try to put them in place. And um

[4:53:58] whatever we vote on this doesn't prove

[4:54:00] electability or non-electability because

[4:54:01] I'll tell you I'm not electable no

[4:54:03] matter what because I'm turned out.

[4:54:08] Okay. So, um, we're going to move on to

[4:54:11] the next item. Yeah.

[4:54:12] >> Okay. So, we're on to 5A.

[4:54:14] » Okay. So, we're on to 5A.

[4:54:14] >> Thank you all for your comments.

[4:54:16] » Thank you all for your comments.

[4:54:16] >> I I'd like to make one quick comment.

[4:54:18] » I I'd like to make one quick comment.

[4:54:18] There's there are things in here that

[4:54:20] are workable and probably need to be

[4:54:21] documented,

[4:54:22] >> but I think uh there's issues that we

[4:54:25] » but I think uh there's issues that we

[4:54:25] have with this. Some of it language,

[4:54:27] some of it's philosophy, but I would

[4:54:30] encourage everybody and the phrase

[4:54:32] that's used often times in management,

[4:54:34] participatory management. It's amazing

[4:54:36] what the people on the shop floor know

[4:54:39] that the engineers in the offices don't.

[4:54:41] And that's where you start getting this

[4:54:43] all together. Go back to Steve's point.

[4:54:45] When you build it with a team, you'd be

[4:54:48] surprised how much better it's

[4:54:50] >> this is a very inhibited process.

[4:54:51] » this is a very inhibited process.

[4:54:51] >> Yeah. I mean, Doug, genuine question.

[4:54:53] » Yeah. I mean, Doug, genuine question.

[4:54:53] You know, if if this was something you

[4:54:55] were trying to accomplish and you had

[4:54:57] these ideas and you thought they made

[4:54:58] sense and you were dealing with a city

[4:55:01] whose staff was overwhelmed with the

[4:55:04] rebuild process and and didn't have time

[4:55:06] to do the normal evaluation of something

[4:55:09] and you had a um city manager who wasn't

[4:55:13] willing to impose this on the staff and

[4:55:15] appropriately so and you're not allowed

[4:55:17] to talk to the staff beyond the city

[4:55:20] manager and the director level. How

[4:55:22] would you go about getting your

[4:55:24] consensus from the staff to get to be

[4:55:25] able to present something to the city

[4:55:27] council?

[4:55:28] >> It's a failure if you're not able to

[4:55:29] » It's a failure if you're not able to

[4:55:29] sell the concept to somebody. And

[4:55:32] honestly, if if your job as a leader,

[4:55:35] you and I think it's Michelle has a

[4:55:38] comment uh that he always puts on his

[4:55:39] emails, you can't explain it to a

[4:55:41] six-year-old, you don't know what you're

[4:55:43] talking about. So, that's where I think

[4:55:46] you have to be able to sell the concept

[4:55:47] that we need to have this and invest the

[4:55:49] time. And honestly, we've spent enough

[4:55:52] time right now, we could have gotten

[4:55:54] Yolanda's input on this and been able to

[4:55:56] build some of this and come back with

[4:55:58] maybe iterations.

[4:56:00] It look it takes time to build a

[4:56:03] successful result. And that's what I

[4:56:06] Steve's point. It you got to you got to

[4:56:09] work the the minds and get the consensus

[4:56:12] built. It's not the five of us up here

[4:56:15] to do this.

[4:56:16] >> That's what we're trying to do. I think

[4:56:18] » That's what we're trying to do. I think

[4:56:18] that there's a misconception that we're

[4:56:20] not trying to do that. But I think that

[4:56:22] Bruce, we've asked for workshops over

[4:56:24] and over and over again. We've asked for

[4:56:25] collaborations with desks that are down

[4:56:27] there where we can talk about these

[4:56:29] things. Um the this strange fact notion

[4:56:33] that you're saying that we're not

[4:56:35] building consensus. The Brown Act is not

[4:56:37] a consensus building activity.

[4:56:40] >> Okay. I'm I'm sorry. We We really have

[4:56:42] » Okay. I'm I'm sorry. We We really have

[4:56:42] other stuff we need to Let's talk about

[4:56:44] this at the workshop. We can have it in

[4:56:47] council gu items in the future, but

[4:56:48] we've got some things that we need to do

[4:56:51] tonight. I think we all heard each

[4:56:53] other. We're willing to talk and flush

[4:56:56] this out some more. Nobody's dismissing

[4:56:58] it slight out of hand. We're not shoeing

[4:57:01] it away. We're just giving us an

[4:57:04] opportunity where we can actually have a

[4:57:07] more robust long-term conversation. So,

[4:57:09] I would like us to move on to 5A before

[4:57:12] we have to start calling all these

[4:57:14] things special things. So

[4:57:18] 5A, do we have a staff report? Anybody

[4:57:22] wants to comment, put in a speaker slip

[4:57:24] for 5A, please do so now or forever hold

[4:57:26] your peace.

[4:57:30] Do we have anybody online?

[4:57:33] >> We have no speaker slips and one raised

[4:57:35] » We have no speaker slips and one raised

[4:57:35] hand.

[4:57:36] >> Okay.

[4:57:36] » Okay.

[4:57:36] >> Yolanda, will you please guide us

[4:57:38] » Yolanda, will you please guide us

[4:57:38] through here, please?

[4:57:39] >> Yes. Um should it's a very short

[4:57:42] » Yes. Um should it's a very short

[4:57:42] presentation.

[4:57:44] Uh just uh as a background on December

[4:57:47] 8th uh we brought to you city council

[4:57:50] emergency ordinance number three uh 531U

[4:57:55] uh to incorporate the new uh state

[4:57:58] building codes uh and also bring the

[4:58:01] first reading of the ordinance. Um at

[4:58:03] that time we recommend to do a second

[4:58:06] reading of the ordinance. Uh and that is

[4:58:09] what we're doing uh this evening. Any

[4:58:12] clarifi clarifying questions by council?

[4:58:16] >> Okay,

[4:58:17] » Okay,

[4:58:17] >> just one quick qu one quick question.

[4:58:20] » just one quick qu one quick question.

[4:58:20] How much flexibility do we have to make

[4:58:22] changes to this or not accept it?

[4:58:25] >> None.

[4:58:26] » None.

[4:58:26] >> No.

[4:58:27] » No.

[4:58:27] >> Yeah. It's it's a state law. We just

[4:58:29] » Yeah. It's it's a state law. We just

[4:58:29] need to adopt it, right?

[4:58:30] >> Yes. Uh we're following uh county's uh

[4:58:33] » Yes. Uh we're following uh county's uh

[4:58:33] recommendations. We also have added our

[4:58:37] uh usual recommended amendments uh due

[4:58:40] to our climatic uh regional and

[4:58:43] geotechnical issues that the city has

[4:58:46] very similar to what we had in 2020 uh

[4:58:50] three and under the building code

[4:58:51] adoption

[4:58:52] >> and this does not apply to the uh

[4:58:55] » and this does not apply to the uh

[4:58:55] rebuilds because we're still under the

[4:58:57] 23 code. Correct.

[4:58:59] >> That is correct. the uh state of

[4:59:01] » That is correct. the uh state of

[4:59:01] California, the governor u um provided

[4:59:04] an executive order in which they he

[4:59:07] allows uh fire rebuilds to rebuild under

[4:59:10] the 2023 code. Uh there is an option uh

[4:59:15] if any of the fire rebuilds that are

[4:59:17] moving forward, they would like to

[4:59:19] comply with the new code. Um they are

[4:59:21] allowed to do that. And to just to

[4:59:24] disclose to council, I have uh four

[4:59:27] properties that decided to move forward

[4:59:29] with the 2026 codes.

[4:59:31] >> Okay. Thank you.

[4:59:34] » Okay. Thank you.

[4:59:34] >> Any other questions? Public comment,

[4:59:37] » Any other questions? Public comment,

[4:59:37] please.

[4:59:41] » Joe Drummond.

[4:59:44] >> Joe, are you there?

[4:59:46] » Joe, are you there?

[4:59:46] >> Hi. Yes. People are saying they can't

[4:59:49] » Hi. Yes. People are saying they can't

[4:59:49] hear me. Can you hear me?

[4:59:50] >> We can hear you. Oh, sorry. We can hear

[4:59:52] » We can hear you. Oh, sorry. We can hear

[4:59:52] you.

[4:59:54] >> Okay. Well, I'm speaking tonight

[4:59:55] » Okay. Well, I'm speaking tonight

[4:59:55] specifically on the adoption of

[4:59:57] California Building Code section 106.3

[5:00:00] to work exempted. A key provision from

[5:00:03] the state and county code is being

[5:00:05] omitted. And if that omission is not

[5:00:07] corrected, it will continue to cause

[5:00:09] unnecessary hardship for mal residents.

[5:00:12] The state code explicitly provides that

[5:00:14] a building permit is not required for

[5:00:17] decks, walks, and driveways not more

[5:00:20] than 30 in above grade, not over any

[5:00:23] basement or story below, and not part of

[5:00:26] an accessible route. I can personally

[5:00:28] attest to the consequences of omitting

[5:00:30] this provision. It took more than three

[5:00:33] years to permit my 64 square foot

[5:00:36] freestanding deck which remained

[5:00:38] standing even after the fires which was

[5:00:40] designed using prescriptive engineering

[5:00:42] assumptions by the way which is routine

[5:00:45] worldwide.

[5:00:46] It is not rocket science to rebuild our

[5:00:48] homes. It is simple engineering science

[5:00:51] for our simple deck. What should have

[5:00:53] been a simple administrative review

[5:00:55] became a prolonged process involving

[5:00:57] multiple geotechnical studies,

[5:01:00] escalating fees, and even threats of a

[5:01:02] variance, later confirmed by the city

[5:01:04] attorney to be unnecessary. A small

[5:01:07] freestanding deck under 30 in of off

[5:01:10] grade supported by a modest concrete

[5:01:12] pile foundation should not be treated

[5:01:14] like a major addition or a hillside

[5:01:17] structure. These are low risk projects

[5:01:19] that should be resolved in months, not

[5:01:21] years. I respectfully ask the council to

[5:01:23] do one of two things. Restore the

[5:01:25] working center provision exactly as

[5:01:27] written in a state code or adopted it

[5:01:30] with a clear size cap such as 200 square

[5:01:33] ft or decks to ensure it applies only to

[5:01:36] true small low impact projects. Equally

[5:01:39] important, the city must clearly explain

[5:01:41] what process applies to work exempted

[5:01:43] work. In my case, the lack of clarity

[5:01:45] led to code enforcement action and a

[5:01:47] three-year ordeal despite acting in good

[5:01:49] faith under the state code. To be clear,

[5:01:51] this change would not affect decks

[5:01:53] attached to higher stories to elevated

[5:01:55] beachfront residents or other structures

[5:01:57] that legitimately require full

[5:01:59] permitting and safety review. Those

[5:02:01] protections would remain fully intact.

[5:02:03] Directing this commission in this item

[5:02:05] would be a small but meaningful reform.

[5:02:08] One that aligns Malibu with state law

[5:02:10] and reflects a shared commitment to

[5:02:12] making everyday project simpler,

[5:02:14] clearer, and more reasonable for the

[5:02:15] residents. I urge you to correct this as

[5:02:18] part of item 5A. Thank you.

[5:02:22] So that can conclude [clears throat] our

[5:02:24] public comment. Can we

[5:02:29] » Yes, those are all the public speakers.

[5:02:30] Okay. So, public comments closed. Any

[5:02:34] comments by council?

[5:02:36] >> I have a question. So, what Joe is

[5:02:38] » I have a question. So, what Joe is

[5:02:38] asking is what we just heard we couldn't

[5:02:40] do, which is to change it. Is that what

[5:02:43] I'm hearing?

[5:02:44] >> I'm sorry.

[5:02:45] » I'm sorry.

[5:02:45] >> I have a

[5:02:47] » I have a

[5:02:47] >> I have a um a graphic. Oh. Uh and just

[5:02:51] » I have a um a graphic. Oh. Uh and just

[5:02:51] to make it clear and I have a copy of

[5:02:52] the code in front of me from the 2025

[5:02:54] code. Uh let me just show the council

[5:02:57] that I have the actual code right here.

[5:03:00] Everybody here,

[5:03:01] >> thank you.

[5:03:02] » thank you.

[5:03:02] >> I have a copy of the sheet uh what uh

[5:03:05] » I have a copy of the sheet uh what uh

[5:03:05] section 105 what permits are exempted

[5:03:09] and none of them uh uh at asking for

[5:03:12] decks to be excluded or not permitted.

[5:03:15] So we are staying within regulation and

[5:03:17] I can pass this to councils to read it.

[5:03:19] Uh in addition, I want to clarify that

[5:03:22] uh permits uh are not required for decks

[5:03:25] that are uh 30 in above. And so I put a

[5:03:29] graphic together. What we're talking

[5:03:31] right now uh on the situation of uh or

[5:03:35] one of our residents is the foundation

[5:03:37] system. Um it was a deepen foundation

[5:03:40] cut into the hill with an unpermitting

[5:03:42] grading. Uh and that trigger the uh

[5:03:44] permit requirements. Uh, so just to

[5:03:47] clarify that for council

[5:03:50] >> Steve, go ahead.

[5:03:51] » Steve, go ahead.

[5:03:51] >> Yeah,

[5:03:52] » Yeah,

[5:03:52] >> I'll make I'll make a motion to approve

[5:03:53] » I'll make I'll make a motion to approve

[5:03:53] staff recommendation.

[5:03:54] >> I'll second.

[5:03:56] » I'll second.

[5:03:56] >> I'd like to make a comment,

[5:03:57] » I'd like to make a comment,

[5:03:57] >> please.

[5:04:00] » please.

[5:04:00] >> I've been trying to understand some of

[5:04:02] » I've been trying to understand some of

[5:04:02] these things for years. We're told all

[5:04:05] the time we don't have any discretion.

[5:04:09] Um, I'm reading the report.

[5:04:12] It expressly says page 204 after the

[5:04:16] chart

[5:04:18] um that

[5:04:20] these these provisions apply to all

[5:04:23] building occupancies throughout the

[5:04:24] state whether or not adopted by a local

[5:04:27] jurisdiction.

[5:04:28] However, local governments will

[5:04:30] typically pass ordinances adopting those

[5:04:32] parts of the code by reference which

[5:04:35] they seek to amend in accordance with

[5:04:37] local conditions and to establish

[5:04:39] administrative provisions. So they you

[5:04:41] we says basically local governments tend

[5:04:45] to affirmatively adopt these even though

[5:04:47] they don't have to but they also might

[5:04:50] seek to amend them. Uh and then says

[5:04:53] local amendments must be specific to

[5:04:56] each addition of the code. State law

[5:04:58] requires amendments to the standards be

[5:05:00] based on a governing body's express

[5:05:02] findings that such modification is

[5:05:04] necessary reasonably necessary because

[5:05:07] of local clatic geological or

[5:05:09] topographical conditions. So this says

[5:05:11] very clearly we actually could if we

[5:05:14] chose to and we had bases for doing so

[5:05:17] make amendments even though this is the

[5:05:19] state default law.

[5:05:21] Um, we never study whether there are

[5:05:25] things that we believe we ought to be

[5:05:27] doing as exceptions to these rules cuz

[5:05:30] we're told all the time that these are

[5:05:31] the rules like them or take them like

[5:05:34] them or not that we have to adopt.

[5:05:37] Actually, we don't have to adopt them at

[5:05:38] all. If we don't adopt them, they're the

[5:05:39] law. And if we do adopt them, they're

[5:05:41] also the law. And we also have the right

[5:05:43] to change them if we have a basis for

[5:05:45] doing so. But we've never once been told

[5:05:48] what bases we could apply to make

[5:05:50] changes if we if we did want to if we

[5:05:53] did feel they were appropriate or

[5:05:54] necessary. So, you know, I think I said

[5:05:57] last time when we brought this up at

[5:05:59] like midnight, we're doing this too

[5:06:02] fast. I don't really understand enough

[5:06:04] about it. We haven't had public input.

[5:06:06] But, you know, it's not the case that

[5:06:07] just because the state adopted it, we

[5:06:09] have no choice but to adopt it. It says

[5:06:11] here very clearly, we can make changes

[5:06:13] if they're appropriate based on

[5:06:14] appropriate findings, but I've never

[5:06:16] been told what kinds of changes we might

[5:06:19] be able to make and what findings we

[5:06:21] would have to make to make them.

[5:06:22] >> So, so Yolanda, can you explain?

[5:06:26] » So, so Yolanda, can you explain?

[5:06:26] >> Yes. And uh uh thank you. Um

[5:06:30] » Yes. And uh uh thank you. Um

[5:06:30] Mayor Prom, the if you read the

[5:06:34] following ordinance, actually the

[5:06:36] ordinance does have the amendments. Uh

[5:06:40] in addition uh page 21 of the code

[5:06:43] adoption findings, those are the

[5:06:46] amendments down to the uh code and it

[5:06:50] states if the decision the conditions

[5:06:52] were administrated, climatic,

[5:06:54] geological, geological,

[5:06:57] uh administrative, topographical. Um so

[5:07:00] we do we did provide amendments and this

[5:07:03] is regular amendments due to the our

[5:07:07] location. Uh so this document was uh

[5:07:12] released uh for public uh uh for public

[5:07:17] viewing. I remember uh the end of

[5:07:20] November. Uh so

[5:07:22] it has been a transparent document uh

[5:07:27] for the past I will say uh close to 40

[5:07:31] days.

[5:07:31] >> I I appreciate that. So in the sense

[5:07:33] » I I appreciate that. So in the sense

[5:07:33] that it's been published. I mean, you

[5:07:35] know, like when we did the housing

[5:07:36] element, we would have somebody come

[5:07:38] here and present to us all the things we

[5:07:40] were doing, explain why we were doing

[5:07:42] them, give us our options as to whether

[5:07:44] we would do do other things. Um,

[5:07:48] again, we, you know, we we have

[5:07:50] different approaches to things up here.

[5:07:52] Some some council members are of the

[5:07:56] view that if the staff thinks something

[5:07:58] makes sense and it's complicated and

[5:08:00] technical, it gets presented and we and

[5:08:02] we just approve it. Um, some like I I'm

[5:08:06] one of them believe we should be fly

[5:08:08] specking everything and making our own

[5:08:10] decisions whether we think they make

[5:08:11] sense or not and and then go forward and

[5:08:14] others I guess have somewhere in

[5:08:15] between. But um the process we follow,

[5:08:20] you know, I I appreciate that these are

[5:08:21] here and and I know you and others have

[5:08:23] taken a lot of time to put it together,

[5:08:25] but these aren't things we were

[5:08:27] presented with. Why are we doing this

[5:08:29] one? Does this one make sense? Are there

[5:08:31] alternatives to what's being proposed

[5:08:33] that we could be doing? Or is there more

[5:08:34] than what we're being proposed we could

[5:08:36] be doing? And it's because there's just

[5:08:38] too much to do. I get that. Um, but I I

[5:08:42] feel like a lot of these things are

[5:08:45] presented to us as fay.com please

[5:08:47] because we really don't have the basis

[5:08:51] to make a decision to the contrary. So,

[5:08:53] it's either take it or leave it. And

[5:08:54] that's not a criticism so much as it's

[5:08:56] an explanation of where we are.

[5:08:59] Um, so that that's that's pretty much

[5:09:01] why I abstained from this last time. And

[5:09:04] just the process, the way this city

[5:09:07] operates in general, and I'm sure other

[5:09:08] cities operate like that, it it it

[5:09:11] bothers me as someone who's used to

[5:09:13] getting into the weeds and deciding

[5:09:15] whether I think things make sense or

[5:09:16] not.

[5:09:19] >> Anybody else? Yolanda, I believe the the

[5:09:22] » Anybody else? Yolanda, I believe the the

[5:09:22] amendments that are proposed are done to

[5:09:23] be consistent with the county and I

[5:09:25] think the amendments are only allowed if

[5:09:27] they're stricter than what's already

[5:09:28] required by the

[5:09:30] >> the state building code.

[5:09:32] » the state building code.

[5:09:32] >> That is correct. Uh the code cannot be

[5:09:35] » That is correct. Uh the code cannot be

[5:09:35] um those are minimum state uh

[5:09:37] compliance. The only way that the city

[5:09:40] can change it needs to be more

[5:09:41] restrictive. Uh in order to uh propose

[5:09:44] those amendments uh we need to make a

[5:09:47] justification. In addition to that, uh,

[5:09:50] as you stated, uh, Mayor Prom, um, yes,

[5:09:54] uh, if the city didn't, uh, adopt any

[5:09:57] codes, then automatically, uh, the

[5:10:00] California code, uh, becomes our

[5:10:03] building code.

[5:10:04] >> Okay. So, so,

[5:10:05] » Okay. So, so,

[5:10:05] >> uh, let me just, let me just finish. Um,

[5:10:09] » uh, let me just, let me just finish. Um,

[5:10:09] uh, we did bring an urgency ordinance

[5:10:12] because we usually adopt the county, um,

[5:10:15] the county codes. Uh the state of

[5:10:18] California requires that uh 30 days

[5:10:21] after after the adoption

[5:10:24] uh filing needs to be done through the

[5:10:26] California state uh um building standard

[5:10:29] commission uh so the city can be in uh

[5:10:33] regulations and stay in compliance with

[5:10:34] the building codes.

[5:10:36] >> Well, wait a minute. So this the the

[5:10:38] » Well, wait a minute. So this the the

[5:10:38] report at least doesn't say that the

[5:10:40] only kinds of amendments that are

[5:10:41] permissible are more restrictive

[5:10:44] amendments. I I can provide you a copy

[5:10:47] of of of adoption of the of of the um of

[5:10:52] of an ordinance and what it states that

[5:10:54] it needs to be more resting.

[5:10:55] >> You can so so there there's under no

[5:10:58] » You can so so there there's under no

[5:10:58] circumstance can a flex municipality

[5:11:01] believe that there's a requirement

[5:11:03] that's too stringent and relax it no

[5:11:05] matter what findings they make. Okay,

[5:11:06] that's that's what I was reading this to

[5:11:08] mean. So if I if that's not what it

[5:11:10] says, I take that back.

[5:11:11] >> Yeah. and I I can provide a copy of uh

[5:11:13] » Yeah. and I I can provide a copy of uh

[5:11:13] state um documentation which uh will

[5:11:16] give you more information on that. I

[5:11:18] apologize.

[5:11:19] >> That's okay. So So all the changes we're

[5:11:21] » That's okay. So So all the changes we're

[5:11:21] making then are making more stringent

[5:11:24] the building code than would otherwise

[5:11:26] be imposed upon us by the state.

[5:11:28] >> That is correct.

[5:11:29] » That is correct.

[5:11:29] >> Okay. And but we but they're also they

[5:11:32] » Okay. And but we but they're also they

[5:11:32] have been proposed in the first instance

[5:11:34] by the county is what you're saying.

[5:11:35] They're not really our changes so much

[5:11:38] as we're just adopting them. Some of

[5:11:39] them are county and some of them are

[5:11:41] specific to the city. An example

[5:11:45] uh septic systems. Uh we have a plumbing

[5:11:48] code that we follow. There's a a number

[5:11:51] of plumbing fixtures that are allowed

[5:11:54] per your um toilets and and lavatories

[5:12:00] and um

[5:12:03] so we were able to change that to give

[5:12:05] credit uh to property owners that were

[5:12:08] using lowflow toilets. So that was one

[5:12:12] of the the changes that we so our

[5:12:15] community can take advantage of of using

[5:12:18] lowflow toilets and and have more

[5:12:22] fixtures.

[5:12:23] So that's just an example of of what was

[5:12:26] included on the ordinance.

[5:12:28] >> Okay. So let me ask this. I I this kind

[5:12:31] » Okay. So let me ask this. I I this kind

[5:12:31] of hearken back a little bit to the

[5:12:32] conversation we had earlier about the

[5:12:34] rebuilds, but I understand the new

[5:12:36] code's not going to apply to rebuilds.

[5:12:37] So this is not a specific issue with

[5:12:39] them, but if we were operating in um you

[5:12:44] know postwoolie where we didn't have a

[5:12:46] governor's order saying the old code is

[5:12:49] going to continue to apply then when we

[5:12:51] adopt a new code which we add additional

[5:12:55] more stringent requirements to wouldn't

[5:12:58] we then be making it more difficult for

[5:13:00] a rebuild than otherwise would have been

[5:13:02] the case had we not adopted those

[5:13:03] additional standards?

[5:13:08] How do

[5:13:09] >> do you follow my question?

[5:13:11] » do you follow my question?

[5:13:11] >> Trying to know where where where are we

[5:13:13] » Trying to know where where where are we

[5:13:13] going with the your question.

[5:13:16] I mean the the the standard state code

[5:13:18] would have been but the county codes

[5:13:23] I think what I'm hearing is that he's

[5:13:26] wondering that if we just defaulting on

[5:13:28] what our

[5:13:30] requirements are to by law we just

[5:13:34] automatically the new code gets imposed

[5:13:37] without the additional

[5:13:40] um adoption that the county goes

[5:13:41] through.

[5:13:42] >> Mh.

[5:13:45] » Mh.

[5:13:45] Is it more stringent for the

[5:13:48] >> What I'm hearing is every all these

[5:13:50] » What I'm hearing is every all these

[5:13:50] pages of of single space requirements

[5:13:53] are things that we're adding as

[5:13:55] additional burdens and you know as

[5:13:58] everyone knows in the ordinary course of

[5:14:00] new builds I'm perfectly fine with that.

[5:14:03] Um, and we have fortunately in this

[5:14:06] particular instance a governor's order

[5:14:08] that says in the case of these rebuilds,

[5:14:11] we're not going to impose these new

[5:14:13] requirements. But actually, we are

[5:14:14] imposing them on Woolseie, right?

[5:14:16] Because we're we're saying that if you

[5:14:18] had lost your home in a different fire,

[5:14:20] we're going to adopt these more

[5:14:22] stringent requirements than the state's

[5:14:23] imposing on you. Well, if the

[5:14:25] application uh came in um prior to the

[5:14:29] new adoption of the code, we are not

[5:14:32] imposing new. They're staying within the

[5:14:34] within when the application was

[5:14:36] submitted.

[5:14:37] >> Right. But if but if tomorrow,

[5:14:40] » Right. But if but if tomorrow,

[5:14:40] 6 months from now, one of the 40% of the

[5:14:43] homes that still hasn't applied to be

[5:14:45] rebuilt or whatever the percentage is,

[5:14:47] they come in with a like forlike

[5:14:49] rebuild. If we were not to adopt this,

[5:14:53] then they'd be operating under a less

[5:14:54] stringent code than the one that we're

[5:14:56] being asked to adopt. Right.

[5:14:58] >> We're talking for policy or for we'll

[5:15:00] » We're talking for policy or for we'll

[5:15:00] see.

[5:15:00] >> Woolseie.

[5:15:01] » Woolseie.

[5:15:01] >> Yeah, we'll see. Well, Woolseie did not

[5:15:04] » Yeah, we'll see. Well, Woolseie did not

[5:15:04] follow the executive order,

[5:15:06] >> right? So,

[5:15:06] » right? So,

[5:15:06] >> so we will have to comply with the new

[5:15:08] » so we will have to comply with the new

[5:15:08] codes.

[5:15:09] >> So, would we would we have a way, for

[5:15:11] » So, would we would we have a way, for

[5:15:11] example, to say we're imposing these

[5:15:14] additional more stringent requirements,

[5:15:15] but not with respect to a casualty

[5:15:18] rebuild?

[5:15:21] So that when someone comes in with their

[5:15:23] wooy rebuild three months from now.

[5:15:25] >> So the building code is for safety and

[5:15:27] » So the building code is for safety and

[5:15:27] for resiliency, right?

[5:15:29] >> Uh so uh

[5:15:33] » Uh so uh

[5:15:33] >> we are following the executive order

[5:15:35] » we are following the executive order

[5:15:35] from the state of California allowing

[5:15:37] the 2023 code for the palace. Right.

[5:15:41] >> There's nothing for wooly fire and it's

[5:15:44] » There's nothing for wooly fire and it's

[5:15:44] been more than seven years. Right.

[5:15:46] >> Right. Uh so

[5:15:49] » Right. Uh so

[5:15:49] um

[5:15:51] >> I'm forget forget whether we should or

[5:15:53] » I'm forget forget whether we should or

[5:15:53] shouldn't do it. I'm just asking

[5:15:54] factually. Isn't it accurate that if we

[5:15:57] adopt this then that means that when

[5:16:00] someone comes in to rebuild a property

[5:16:03] that was destroyed in a fire other than

[5:16:06] the Palisades fire

[5:16:08] >> and Franklin fire and broad fire. Yes.

[5:16:10] » and Franklin fire and broad fire. Yes.

[5:16:10] that we'll see fire will follow under or

[5:16:13] any topanga fire that never they never

[5:16:15] rebelled in 1993 and they decide to come

[5:16:18] back tomorrow to submit an application.

[5:16:20] >> Yeah. it will trigger the current code

[5:16:23] » Yeah. it will trigger the current code

[5:16:23] uh 2026

[5:16:24] >> and and if there's a fire 6 months from

[5:16:27] » and and if there's a fire 6 months from

[5:16:27] now and 100 homes are lost and they

[5:16:31] don't have an executive order to exempt

[5:16:33] them from anything then the state code

[5:16:36] if we didn't do anything which would

[5:16:38] apply to them would be less stringent

[5:16:39] than the code we're being asked to adopt

[5:16:41] tonight.

[5:16:43] >> They would need to comply with the

[5:16:44] » They would need to comply with the

[5:16:44] current code.

[5:16:45] >> Right. But the state code that would be

[5:16:47] » Right. But the state code that would be

[5:16:47] the default if we don't do anything

[5:16:49] would be less stringent than the one

[5:16:51] we're adopting.

[5:16:52] >> I guess I'm trying to understand your

[5:16:54] » I guess I'm trying to understand your

[5:16:54] question. You're trying to say uh let's

[5:16:56] flex the code for any rebuilds uh that

[5:16:59] happens. Um I I I mean I'm just trying

[5:17:02] to understand where we're going on this

[5:17:04] and I'm trying to give you the

[5:17:06] information that you ask that you want

[5:17:09] me to to give you. I I guess I'm I'm

[5:17:11] just asking is it is it an accurate

[5:17:13] statement that if a fire were to wipe

[5:17:16] out a large number of homes in futurero,

[5:17:20] you know, 3 months from now, and the

[5:17:23] owners of those homes were to seek to

[5:17:25] rebuild them like for like and they

[5:17:26] don't have the benefit of an executive

[5:17:28] order, then by adopting this tonight, we

[5:17:32] would be creating a code that is more

[5:17:34] stringent than the state code that would

[5:17:36] otherwise apply by default to those

[5:17:37] rebuilds. Is that accurate or

[5:17:39] inaccurate? That's what I'm trying to

[5:17:40] find out.

[5:17:41] >> You will be I mean the the the code that

[5:17:44] » You will be I mean the the the code that

[5:17:44] you're adopting is more stringent than

[5:17:46] the 2023 code.

[5:17:48] >> No, but it's also more stringent than

[5:17:49] » No, but it's also more stringent than

[5:17:49] the 2025 code because we're adopting

[5:17:53] various additional requirements to it.

[5:17:55] >> Amendments,

[5:17:56] » Amendments,

[5:17:56] >> the amendments, the pages of amendments.

[5:17:58] » the amendments, the pages of amendments.

[5:17:58] But okay, the notwithstanding the chaos

[5:18:03] that that would occur, you're really

[5:18:05] going to create a an environment of

[5:18:09] uncertainty because people aren't going

[5:18:11] to know which ones staff's going to

[5:18:13] have, okay, what date did this happen?

[5:18:16] Which code do I get here? and the

[5:18:18] consistency and the resale and yeah,

[5:18:22] they're under the state code, but

[5:18:24] they're not actually under the the

[5:18:26] adopted code of the city. I mean,

[5:18:30] >> what's the purpose of going down this

[5:18:32] » what's the purpose of going down this

[5:18:32] intellectual discussion?

[5:18:34] >> And it's a it's also a layer that you're

[5:18:36] » And it's a it's also a layer that you're

[5:18:36] adding to it, right? Um, remember how we

[5:18:39] say that you cannot the minimum codes

[5:18:43] cannot be lowered down.

[5:18:44] >> Mhm.

[5:18:45] » Mhm.

[5:18:45] >> Right. So, let's say Yeah. you um under

[5:18:49] » Right. So, let's say Yeah. you um under

[5:18:49] what justification,

[5:18:52] climatic,

[5:18:54] topographic or geographic

[5:18:57] can we make an assumption that any

[5:19:00] rebuilds, future rebuilds next year or

[5:19:04] the following year do not need to comply

[5:19:06] with this code?

[5:19:09] I and I I guess I'm asking Trevor to

[5:19:12] answer this question because I don't

[5:19:13] know how to answer that question. Well,

[5:19:18] Which question?

[5:19:19] >> Um, a proposal of allowing fire

[5:19:23] » Um, a proposal of allowing fire

[5:19:23] rebuilds, future fire rebuilds not to

[5:19:26] comply with this code and comply with

[5:19:29] >> I I would think you would want to be

[5:19:30] » I I would think you would want to be

[5:19:30] careful. I mean, look at these are like,

[5:19:32] you know, not allowing wood shake roofs.

[5:19:34] I mean, do you really want to take that

[5:19:36] out? I mean, is that something we want

[5:19:37] to allow fire rebuilds to do? Um, if you

[5:19:40] want to go and make adjustments to this,

[5:19:42] I think, you know, suggest that we pass

[5:19:44] the code tonight. So this the county

[5:19:46] code provisions apply to everyone else

[5:19:49] in the city. If you want to go look at

[5:19:51] adjusting some of this, you know,

[5:19:52] Yolanda can look into it if you want to

[5:19:54] have more direction or or something

[5:19:56] about particular um provisions of what

[5:19:58] the county is adopted. There's also

[5:20:00] concern

[5:20:01] >> Mayor Pro's concern on fire rebuilds. Uh

[5:20:04] » Mayor Pro's concern on fire rebuilds. Uh

[5:20:04] if there's not an executive order, uh

[5:20:07] what codes will trigger?

[5:20:08] >> Yeah, let me ask.

[5:20:08] » Yeah, let me ask.

[5:20:08] >> Uh so that is the question.

[5:20:10] » Uh so that is the question.

[5:20:10] >> Let me ask this question. Um,

[5:20:14] » Let me ask this question. Um,

[5:20:14] are we able I mean, look, the we have a

[5:20:17] state code. The state code presumably

[5:20:19] has been combed over by very by

[5:20:22] intelligent and and experienced people

[5:20:24] and they've decided from a statewide

[5:20:26] standpoint, this is the minimum standard

[5:20:27] that makes sense. We have a county

[5:20:29] that's gone further and adopted more

[5:20:32] stringent requirements. Um, are we in a

[5:20:36] position where we could adopt all the

[5:20:38] county's amendments only with respect to

[5:20:41] noncasualty rebuilds going forward so

[5:20:45] that when there's another casualty, the

[5:20:48] more less the less restrictive standards

[5:20:50] of the state, which we have the right to

[5:20:53] follow by themselves alone, would apply,

[5:20:57] but we are nonetheless imposing the more

[5:20:59] restrictive ones on new bills going

[5:21:02] forward. So that that way when when when

[5:21:04] someone loses their house and they come

[5:21:05] to us and complain about item number

[5:21:08] seven on this page that's imposing this

[5:21:11] greater expense to them that they wish

[5:21:12] they didn't have to um absorb

[5:21:16] that they wouldn't have to they wouldn't

[5:21:17] be able to make that argument because

[5:21:18] we'd say no look all we did was go by

[5:21:20] the minimum state standard. You have to

[5:21:22] apply with you have to comply with the

[5:21:23] state and we gave you a pass on

[5:21:27] everything that we adopted that

[5:21:29] otherwise applies to new bills. Are we

[5:21:32] do we have the ability to make all of

[5:21:33] these additions these exa these except

[5:21:36] these amendments which are all more

[5:21:38] stringent applicable only in the case of

[5:21:40] a non-casualty rebuild

[5:21:44] >> and then and then what happens in the

[5:21:45] » and then and then what happens in the

[5:21:45] casualty rebuild that adopts

[5:21:47] >> they would be under the state minimum

[5:21:50] » they would be under the state minimum

[5:21:50] law

[5:21:50] >> why would you want to do that you're

[5:21:52] » why would you want to do that you're

[5:21:52] creating a secondass structure

[5:21:55] >> yeah you might want to adopt the modern

[5:21:57] » yeah you might want to adopt the modern

[5:21:57] you know all the studies that we're

[5:21:59] doing with prior combustation and

[5:22:03] >> why why is the county better than the

[5:22:04] » why why is the county better than the

[5:22:04] state?

[5:22:05] >> Well, hold on a second.

[5:22:06] » Well, hold on a second.

[5:22:06] >> Because they're they're specialized to

[5:22:07] » Because they're they're specialized to

[5:22:07] our particular area and so they're

[5:22:09] taking into account the special nature

[5:22:12] that occurs within Los Angeles County.

[5:22:15] >> It's also it aids I think by all the

[5:22:18] » It's also it aids I think by all the

[5:22:18] cities do it is so that contractors are

[5:22:20] familiar with the county code and the

[5:22:22] county building codes and then they can

[5:22:24] you know apply it the same throughout.

[5:22:26] Um,

[5:22:28] I would want to look closely if this is

[5:22:30] something you want to explore making a

[5:22:32] carveout for for uh, you know, fire

[5:22:36] rebuilds. Um, for other ones, we could

[5:22:39] take a look into it. I wouldn't want to

[5:22:40] just on the fly put that through. And I

[5:22:42] know Y has concerns about you cannot

[5:22:46] divide. I mean the statement on on

[5:22:50] chapter one state this applies to every

[5:22:53] single new construction even even if

[5:22:57] it's a fire rebuilt it will be

[5:23:00] considered under the building code as a

[5:23:02] minimum minimum for safety

[5:23:06] for resiliency for safety of our city.

[5:23:10] You cannot divide. Okay. I wanna do

[5:23:15] uh one portion of the population I will

[5:23:17] do on one code and one portion of the

[5:23:19] other population I will do in another

[5:23:21] code.

[5:23:21] >> Yeah.

[5:23:22] » Yeah.

[5:23:22] >> We will be against against the state

[5:23:24] » We will be against against the state

[5:23:24] law.

[5:23:25] >> Well, we're No, no. Well, first of all,

[5:23:26] » Well, we're No, no. Well, first of all,

[5:23:26] we're doing exactly that right now

[5:23:28] pursuant to the executive order. We're

[5:23:30] applying an older law which

[5:23:31] >> because the governor has put that

[5:23:33] » because the governor has put that

[5:23:33] exception, not because the city of

[5:23:35] Malibu decided that

[5:23:37] >> I I get that. But you said it would be

[5:23:39] » I I get that. But you said it would be

[5:23:39] against state law. I'm saying no

[5:23:40] wouldn't let's adopt the state let's

[5:23:41] leave let's let's adopt the state law

[5:23:43] for for all for everybody and then let's

[5:23:46] also adopt more stringent ones for new

[5:23:49] builds that that isn't saying that if

[5:23:51] you have a fire rebuild you're going to

[5:23:52] get a less stringent than the state law

[5:23:56] >> but you're going to get a less stringent

[5:23:57] » but you're going to get a less stringent

[5:23:57] than the county law

[5:23:58] >> yeah that's right so it's not

[5:23:59] » yeah that's right so it's not

[5:23:59] >> which we have the right to do

[5:24:01] » which we have the right to do

[5:24:01] >> okay um I think people want modern

[5:24:04] » okay um I think people want modern

[5:24:04] building

[5:24:05] >> okay

[5:24:05] » okay

[5:24:05] >> and from staff perspective you're

[5:24:08] » and from staff perspective you're

[5:24:08] >> you

[5:24:09] » you

[5:24:09] And Bruce, let me let me give you

[5:24:11] another example. I just picked up one

[5:24:12] page here and it's page 15, a top item.

[5:24:16] It says you got to have sheer walls

[5:24:18] because we're in a high seismic zone. I

[5:24:21] mean, to leave that out would be

[5:24:24] suicidal,

[5:24:24] >> but it is out with respect to all the

[5:24:26] » but it is out with respect to all the

[5:24:26] rebuilds from Pelit.

[5:24:27] >> No, it's in it's in the prior one. A lot

[5:24:30] » No, it's in it's in the prior one. A lot

[5:24:30] of this is continuation of what was in

[5:24:31] the prior years. It's things like the

[5:24:35] solar panels uh that are required in 20

[5:24:39] 26 or whatever this new one

[5:24:42] because we're in the in the 23 zone. You

[5:24:45] don't have to do that. All I'm saying is

[5:24:49] understand that all these conditions

[5:24:50] that are in here, a lot of them, in

[5:24:52] fact, I think most of them are

[5:24:54] continuations of the ones that were

[5:24:55] there before. So, it's

[5:24:58] >> okay. I understand.

[5:25:00] » okay. I understand.

[5:25:00] >> Okay. So, we'll call the question. We

[5:25:01] » Okay. So, we'll call the question. We

[5:25:01] have a first and we have a second. Do we

[5:25:03] want to do a roll call or

[5:25:06] >> I just the motion was staff's

[5:25:08] » I just the motion was staff's

[5:25:08] recommendation?

[5:25:09] >> Yes.

[5:25:10] » Yes.

[5:25:10] >> And city attorney, did you want to read

[5:25:11] » And city attorney, did you want to read

[5:25:11] the title of the ordinance?

[5:25:12] >> Well, I read it at the last one, so I

[5:25:14] » Well, I read it at the last one, so I

[5:25:14] don't need to repeat it second time

[5:25:16] unless you really want me to.

[5:25:20] » You want to roll call?

[5:25:23] >> All in favor?

[5:25:24] » All in favor?

[5:25:24] >> I.

[5:25:24] » I.

[5:25:24] >> Those opposed?

[5:25:26] » Those opposed?

[5:25:26] >> None. Abstain.

[5:25:29] » None. Abstain.

[5:25:29] You said I. I'm sorry I didn't hear you.

[5:25:32] Okay. Um, it's after 10:30.

[5:25:36] Do I want to hear a motion to hear item

[5:25:39] 6A?

[5:25:40] >> I'll make a motion. I hear item 6A.

[5:25:42] » I'll make a motion. I hear item 6A.

[5:25:42] >> I'll second.

[5:25:43] » I'll second.

[5:25:43] >> All in favor?

[5:25:44] » All in favor?

[5:25:44] >> I.

[5:25:45] » I.

[5:25:45] >> I.

[5:25:46] » I.

[5:25:46] >> Okay. It's about our um fire rebuild

[5:25:50] » Okay. It's about our um fire rebuild

[5:25:50] ambassador.

[5:25:52] We want a staff report.

[5:25:54] >> No.

[5:25:55] » No.

[5:25:56] >> Okay. Do we have any public comment?

[5:25:59] » Okay. Do we have any public comment?

[5:25:59] No, we don't have any speaker slips or

[5:26:01] raise hands on Zoom for item 6A.

[5:26:03] >> Okay, so we're back up here at the

[5:26:05] » Okay, so we're back up here at the

[5:26:06] council.

[5:26:06] >> I asked months ago if we could put this

[5:26:08] » I asked months ago if we could put this

[5:26:08] on the agenda to discuss it. And in

[5:26:11] light of the fact that we are now months

[5:26:13] later and things are operating the way

[5:26:16] they are now, I would just withdraw the

[5:26:18] the request.

[5:26:22] » Okay.

[5:26:22] >> So, where does that leave us? that we're

[5:26:25] » So, where does that leave us? that we're

[5:26:25] not going to go we're going to continue

[5:26:26] without a fire rebuild ambassador and

[5:26:28] this is going to conclude.

[5:26:31] >> I think this is like the official

[5:26:32] » I think this is like the official

[5:26:32] termination that we lacked prior and

[5:26:35] this closes that chapter.

[5:26:37] >> So do we need to do a motion on this or

[5:26:40] » So do we need to do a motion on this or

[5:26:40] is it a withdrawn request and

[5:26:43] >> just withdraw it?

[5:26:44] » just withdraw it?

[5:26:44] >> Well, but does that satisfy the

[5:26:47] » Well, but does that satisfy the

[5:26:47] requirement of the original

[5:26:49] resolution?

[5:26:50] >> It already expired. Yeah, I think it

[5:26:52] » It already expired. Yeah, I think it

[5:26:52] that the ambassador already expired and

[5:26:56] uh the ambassador did resign as well. I

[5:26:59] think this was bringing back a report um

[5:27:01] that the council had wanted before that

[5:27:03] had taken place and it was didn't happen

[5:27:05] and so now the report's gone through. If

[5:27:07] the council wants to reimplement it or

[5:27:09] put it in, but if they want to take no

[5:27:10] action, I don't think anything is

[5:27:11] required here tonight. Kelsey, correct

[5:27:13] me if I'm wrong.

[5:27:14] >> That's correct. You don't have to take

[5:27:15] » That's correct. You don't have to take

[5:27:15] an action. And if you'd like, you can

[5:27:17] make a motion to determine that you will

[5:27:19] not move forward with the position, but

[5:27:21] the resolution did expire. So there is

[5:27:24] position currently.

[5:27:25] >> That's my motion. What you just said?

[5:27:27] » That's my motion. What you just said?

[5:27:27] >> Is there a second?

[5:27:28] » Is there a second?

[5:27:28] >> I'll second.

[5:27:29] » I'll second.

[5:27:29] >> All in favor? I

[5:27:31] » All in favor? I

[5:27:32] >> Okay.

[5:27:33] » Okay.

[5:27:33] I hear to hear item 6B.

[5:27:36] >> I'll make a motion to hear item 6B.

[5:27:38] » I'll make a motion to hear item 6B.

[5:27:38] >> A second.

[5:27:39] » A second.

[5:27:39] >> All in favor? I I

[5:27:41] » All in favor? I I

[5:27:41] >> Okay. Can we have a staff report,

[5:27:42] » Okay. Can we have a staff report,

[5:27:42] please, on 6B?

[5:27:46] This is receive and file, right?

[5:27:49] >> Um,

[5:27:51] » Um,

[5:27:51] >> yeah,

[5:27:55] » if I may, Madame Mayor, this this

[5:27:59] presentation may generate considerable

[5:28:02] discussion.

[5:28:04] >> Um,

[5:28:06] » Um,

[5:28:06] there's already been significant

[5:28:08] discussion that's ensued this evening.

[5:28:11] Uh we don't have anything urgent

[5:28:14] requiring the council provide direction

[5:28:16] on this this evening. Um if we were to

[5:28:19] continue it to the next available

[5:28:21] meeting

[5:28:22] um that would still be consistent with

[5:28:26] what stat staff would need to fulfill

[5:28:29] the uh intent of the council going

[5:28:32] forward.

[5:28:32] >> I'll make a motion to agree with what he

[5:28:34] » I'll make a motion to agree with what he

[5:28:34] just said.

[5:28:35] >> Well Trevor, since we already started

[5:28:37] » Well Trevor, since we already started

[5:28:37] the hearing, do we have to hear the

[5:28:38] public comment?

[5:28:39] >> We haven't substantively done anything.

[5:28:40] » We haven't substantively done anything.

[5:28:40] So, if you want to move to continue the

[5:28:43] item, you could. Do we have any public

[5:28:44] speakers on it, Kelsey?

[5:28:45] >> One.

[5:28:46] » One.

[5:28:46] >> Yes, we have one speaker slip, but no

[5:28:48] » Yes, we have one speaker slip, but no

[5:28:48] raised hands.

[5:28:49] >> I I would recommend that you let him

[5:28:51] » I I would recommend that you let him

[5:28:51] speak

[5:28:52] >> since he's waited.

[5:28:52] » since he's waited.

[5:28:52] >> He's waited a [clears throat] long time.

[5:28:54] » He's waited a [clears throat] long time.

[5:28:54] You don't have to. You could continue

[5:28:55] it, but [cough]

[5:28:57] >> doesn't make sense to hear the public

[5:28:58] » doesn't make sense to hear the public

[5:28:58] speaker and then

[5:29:00] >> Mr.

[5:29:04] Thank you.

[5:29:05] >> So, do you understand we're going to

[5:29:06] » So, do you understand we're going to

[5:29:06] actually we're going to have hear your

[5:29:08] public comment, but

[5:29:09] >> we're going to bring this back in the

[5:29:11] » we're going to bring this back in the

[5:29:11] future and

[5:29:11] >> Thank you.

[5:29:12] » Thank you.

[5:29:12] >> restarted. So, but we want you to hear

[5:29:14] » restarted. So, but we want you to hear

[5:29:14] what you

[5:29:15] >> Good evening,

[5:29:16] » Good evening,

[5:29:16] >> council member, mayor.

[5:29:19] » council member, mayor.

[5:29:19] >> I'm representing an American Polo

[5:29:21] » I'm representing an American Polo

[5:29:21] Federation. I want to bring to the city

[5:29:24] of Malibu a big sport elite that is

[5:29:27] Polo. I'm working with Pacific Palis to

[5:29:31] see where we can fill we can find a land

[5:29:35] to do this sport and one of the thing

[5:29:39] what we we need to bring is fund for the

[5:29:43] victims victims for the fire and we want

[5:29:47] to open a school for

[5:29:51] eotherapy for um adults and and kids

[5:29:56] with disabilities. is um so the other

[5:30:00] thing that we I'm from Argentina so I

[5:30:03] hope you understand

[5:30:06] >> um I want to bring a tournament the most

[5:30:09] » um I want to bring a tournament the most

[5:30:09] important that was made in Monteito

[5:30:13] Santa Barbara Palm Beach Wellington I

[5:30:16] think is will be very important for the

[5:30:19] city of Malibu to have a big tournament

[5:30:22] here

[5:30:24] so I'm looking for a

[5:30:27] to build two fields of polo.

[5:30:33] » Um, if I can ask a qu, how much land do

[5:30:36] you need?

[5:30:37] >> Uh, for two field of polo is about 200

[5:30:40] » Uh, for two field of polo is about 200

[5:30:40] by 150 m. 200 m by 150 m.

[5:30:46] >> Large.

[5:30:47] » Large.

[5:30:47] >> Yes, it's very large.

[5:30:49] » Yes, it's very large.

[5:30:49] >> You're talking about horses. Horse horse

[5:30:51] » You're talking about horses. Horse horse

[5:30:51] polo.

[5:30:52] >> Yes. Yeah. We want to teach polo. We

[5:30:54] » Yes. Yeah. We want to teach polo. We

[5:30:54] want to bring

[5:30:56] college you know to practice. So it's a

[5:30:59] lot

[5:31:00] >> involvement of polo.

[5:31:02] » involvement of polo.

[5:31:02] >> So if somebody

[5:31:04] » So if somebody

[5:31:04] math to me what does that three and so

[5:31:08] it's like 200 becomes like 600 ft.

[5:31:11] >> Okay.

[5:31:11] » Okay.

[5:31:11] >> And but that doesn't include the stables

[5:31:14] » And but that doesn't include the stables

[5:31:14] and the viewing area and so forth,

[5:31:16] >> right? Because it's so a polar field I

[5:31:19] » right? Because it's so a polar field I

[5:31:19] think is like a football field.

[5:31:21] >> Pretty big.

[5:31:22] » Pretty big.

[5:31:22] >> Pretty pretty big. And it has to be

[5:31:24] » Pretty pretty big. And it has to be

[5:31:24] grass.

[5:31:25] >> Yes, we

[5:31:26] » Yes, we

[5:31:26] >> How many horses are you talking for two

[5:31:29] » How many horses are you talking for two

[5:31:29] teams?

[5:31:29] >> Um 32 horses.

[5:31:34] » Um 32 horses.

[5:31:34] >> The other thing is um

[5:31:36] » The other thing is um

[5:31:36] >> we want to build an arena so to do a

[5:31:40] » we want to build an arena so to do a

[5:31:40] tournament, you know, Burbank they did a

[5:31:42] tournament and was very good. So

[5:31:48] >> yeah, [clears throat]

[5:31:49] » yeah, [clears throat]

[5:31:49] >> I I would just say this is unofficial,

[5:31:52] » I I would just say this is unofficial,

[5:31:52] right? as benefit and nice as it would

[5:31:54] be. I just don't think we have any land.

[5:31:56] >> I saw coming from Canon Road. I I saw a

[5:32:00] » I saw coming from Canon Road. I I saw a

[5:32:00] lot of land in that in that area.

[5:32:03] >> So, our city does not go very far. We

[5:32:05] » So, our city does not go very far. We

[5:32:05] only go about a mile. We don't even go

[5:32:08] up a mile.

[5:32:09] >> What about on the front here?

[5:32:11] » What about on the front here?

[5:32:11] >> I think would be too small.

[5:32:13] » I think would be too small.

[5:32:13] >> Yeah.

[5:32:13] » Yeah.

[5:32:13] >> No, I think that will bring that would

[5:32:15] » No, I think that will bring that would

[5:32:15] be possible. And you're talking about a

[5:32:17] permanent polo field and polo school

[5:32:21] traveling.

[5:32:22] >> I tell you the I I can bring a sponsor

[5:32:25] » I tell you the I I can bring a sponsor

[5:32:25] here, bring a lot of money to the city

[5:32:28] and also No, I tell you is this polo is

[5:32:32] big money.

[5:32:33] >> It's huge. It's good money.

[5:32:35] » It's huge. It's good money.

[5:32:35] >> Yeah. So they still playing for a long

[5:32:37] » Yeah. So they still playing for a long

[5:32:38] time in Wellington, Palm Beach,

[5:32:40] Pocaraton

[5:32:42] and I think will be nice invaluable. You

[5:32:45] know they are doing in Santa Barbara.

[5:32:47] >> Can I give you my card?

[5:32:49] » Can I give you my card?

[5:32:49] >> Can I give you [clears throat] my card

[5:32:50] » Can I give you [clears throat] my card

[5:32:50] and I can help you? We can talk about

[5:32:52] it.

[5:32:52] >> Yeah,

[5:32:53] » Yeah,

[5:32:53] >> maybe. Okay.

[5:32:53] » maybe. Okay.

[5:32:53] >> Yeah.

[5:32:54] » Yeah.

[5:32:54] >> I would say if on the the topic of the

[5:32:57] » I would say if on the the topic of the

[5:32:57] ecoin therapy, I mean we do have um an

[5:33:00] equestrian center. It's very small in

[5:33:03] comparison to what the numbers you're

[5:33:05] talking about,

[5:33:06] >> but um if you were just doing the ecoin

[5:33:09] » but um if you were just doing the ecoin

[5:33:09] therapy, there might be something. So, I

[5:33:12] would encourage you to talk with our um

[5:33:15] community services department.

[5:33:16] >> Mhm.

[5:33:17] » Mhm.

[5:33:17] >> Um because we are looking at

[5:33:21] » Um because we are looking at

[5:33:21] different possibilities of

[5:33:22] >> Well, at least to start with one field

[5:33:24] » Well, at least to start with one field

[5:33:24] >> and you need a flat field.

[5:33:26] » and you need a flat field.

[5:33:26] >> Yes.

[5:33:26] » Yes.

[5:33:26] >> Yeah. We will we'll [laughter]

[5:33:29] » Yeah. We will we'll [laughter]

[5:33:29] we'll be

[5:33:29] >> I'm not laughing at I we're not laughing

[5:33:31] » I'm not laughing at I we're not laughing

[5:33:31] at you. It's just so limited here in

[5:33:33] Malibu like just the land,

[5:33:36] >> you know, cuz then you're going to need

[5:33:37] » you know, cuz then you're going to need

[5:33:37] parking

[5:33:38] >> because it brings

[5:33:40] » because it brings

[5:33:40] >> Mhm. You saw what is Monteito?

[5:33:42] » Mhm. You saw what is Monteito?

[5:33:42] >> I think Yeah, it's beautiful.

[5:33:44] » I think Yeah, it's beautiful.

[5:33:44] >> Yeah, but it's not a large place. So, we

[5:33:48] » Yeah, but it's not a large place. So, we

[5:33:48] can build here and Malu I think will be

[5:33:50] great.

[5:33:51] >> Um so, thank you very much for your

[5:33:53] » Um so, thank you very much for your

[5:33:53] comment. We are going to have this

[5:33:55] discussion again. Um, I think council

[5:33:57] member Conrad will talk to you, you

[5:33:59] know, and like I said, for any ecoin

[5:34:01] therapy, please talk to about our

[5:34:03] equestrian to see if there's a a smaller

[5:34:05] thing. Um, I think we're going to finish

[5:34:08] the meeting out tonight. I am going to

[5:34:12] request that we adjourn the meeting in

[5:34:15] memory of Darlene Dubrey

[5:34:19] um, who died recently. She was a active

[5:34:23] C member for Malibu since 2015. She

[5:34:26] played a key role during the Wolsey fire

[5:34:28] and assisted with past distribution

[5:34:31] following the Palisades fire. Even

[5:34:33] though she was also displaced from her

[5:34:35] home due to smoke damage,

[5:34:38] Darlene loved surfing, biking, and was

[5:34:41] well known at the senior center

[5:34:43] participating in many of their

[5:34:44] activities. Darlene had a sweet and

[5:34:47] caring nature and never had an unkind

[5:34:49] word to say about anyone. Darlene will

[5:34:52] be mess be missed by many people who

[5:34:55] knew and love her and that was uh put

[5:34:58] together from Susan Dwanius in uh public

[5:35:01] safety. So just want to make that

[5:35:04] acknowledgement of um adjournment. So

[5:35:06] and with that we are adjourned.

[5:35:09] >> Thank you.

City Council Regular Meeting January 12, 2026

Transcript