Right.
The January 12th, 2026 regular meeting
of the Maliba City Council is now called
to order. Inperson participants, if you
would like to speak, please submit your
request to speak form to the clerk.
Remote participants, if you would like
to speak, please join the Zoom webinar
meeting printed on the agenda and raise
your hand in Zoom when the item you wish
to speak on is called. May we please
have a roll call.
>> Council member Conrad
» Council member Conrad
>> here.
» here.
>> Council member Stewart
» Council member Stewart
>> here.
» here.
>> Council member Yuring
» Council member Yuring
>> here.
» here.
>> Mayor Prom Silverstein,
» Mayor Prom Silverstein,
>> present.
» present.
>> Mayor Rigggins
» Mayor Rigggins
>> here.
» here.
>> You have a quorum.
» You have a quorum.
>> Thank you. Uh, let's do the pledge of
» Thank you. Uh, let's do the pledge of
allegiance, please.
[snorts]
» Ready, begin. I pledge allegiance to the
flag of the United States of America and
to the republic for which it stands, one
nation under God, indivisible, with
liberty and justice for all.
» May we please have an approval uh may we
please have a report on the posting of
the agenda?
>> The agenda for this meeting was properly
» The agenda for this meeting was properly
posted on December 23rd, 2025.
>> May we please have an approval of the
» May we please have an approval of the
agenda. Staff is requesting item 1 B6 to
be continued to a date uncertain.
>> 1 B6 is what?
» 1 B6 is what?
>> 1B6 is the Kimley Horn.
» 1B6 is the Kimley Horn.
>> Okay. Extension.
» Okay. Extension.
>> I'll make a motion to approve the
» I'll make a motion to approve the
agenda.
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> All in favor?
» All in favor?
>> That was with with 1 B6 continue to
» That was with with 1 B6 continue to
data.
>> 1B6 continue. Yes.
» Uh no votes against.
Okay. Honda consent.
Do we have any speaker slips for the
consent?
>> No, we only had one speaker slip for 1B6
» No, we only had one speaker slip for 1B6
which has been continued and will not be
heard tonight. And we do not have any
raised hands on Zoom for the consent
calendar.
>> Okay. Uh does any may want to pull
» Okay. Uh does any may want to pull
anything?
>> I'd like to pull uh number five 1B5.
» I'd like to pull uh number five 1B5.
Just want to get a little more
information about where we are on that.
>> Okay. Do you want a staff report or do
» Okay. Do you want a staff report or do
you just have questions?
>> Um I've just got some Well, I got
» Um I've just got some Well, I got
questions. Let's do it that way.
>> Okay. I'll I want to pull one B4,
» Okay. I'll I want to pull one B4,
please.
>> Okay. So, one B4, 1 B5.
» Okay. So, one B4, 1 B5.
>> 1 B10.
» 1 B10.
>> 1 B10.
» 1 B10.
>> You want to join in?
» You want to join in?
>> Yeah, I'm done. [laughter]
» Yeah, I'm done. [laughter]
>> So, four, five, and 10 are being pulled.
» So, four, five, and 10 are being pulled.
Can we have an approval of the remainder
of the items?
>> I'll make a motion to approve the rest
» I'll make a motion to approve the rest
of the agenda.
>> Consent calendar.
» Consent calendar.
>> And the consent calendar.
» And the consent calendar.
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> All in favor? I
» All in favor? I
>> I
» I
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Uh so let's start with 1B4.
Uh resolution extending the declaration
of the existence of a local emergency
regarding conditions on Pacific Coast
Highway.
>> I just had some questions. I seem to um
» I just had some questions. I seem to um
I just want to get clarity on this. Um
because we vote on this every meeting.
Um we vote to approve it. And if PCH is
in a state of perpetual emergency
declaration, does that give us anything
um special privileges or I mean we have
things like roundabouts and we have uh
improvement projects. Does that have
anything
that is
so having a declared state of emergency
does give the city certain um additional
powers? It does not impact the
development projects that are being
considered though. Those are in al
related to the state of PCH but um are
not required to be done under a state of
emergency.
Okay. I mean it's pretty like when you
read it it's pretty indepth that it's
you know we're it's the data statewide
integrated traffic
how dangerous it is resulting in the
death of 23 people. Are we always going
to be in this state of emergency? Is
there ever going to be like a moment
where we feel safe on PCH and we lift
it?
>> I don't know if that's something it just
» I don't know if that's something it just
comes back to councils over and over and
over again, I guess.
>> Uh, council member, this was this was in
» Uh, council member, this was this was in
re in response to the Palisades fire and
relative kind of activity that was
around that
>> 2023. It was for the deaths of the
» 2023. It was for the deaths of the
>> Yes, the emergency was declared at the
» Yes, the emergency was declared at the
direction of the council. Um any state
of emergency does have to be reviewed
and renewed by the council every 60 days
or it is terminated. Um so if the
council still thinks there is need for
those additional powers, the additional
spending that can be authorized in their
city manager authority, you would need
to continue the state of emergency. If
you the council determines that isn't
necessary, then we can bring back a
termination.
>> Got it. My recollection is I actually
» Got it. My recollection is I actually
brought that to council initially after
the um the deaths of the um students and
um the I think it's stated in there it's
it we're going to be in an emergency
until Calrans actually fixes it and
we're no longer in an emergency and
since we don't have the power to fix it
ourselves
>> and since the emergency does continue
» and since the emergency does continue
until it's fixed
>> and since unfortunately the law requires
» and since unfortunately the law requires
us to reaffirm this every third every 60
days
>> it's going to have to just keep
» it's going to have to just keep
appearing on our consent calendar. I
mean, it would be better if we could
just say it shall be there until we
declare otherwise,
>> but we have to keep declaring it so
» but we have to keep declaring it so
because they continue to leave the
problem. You know, they're making some
incremental changes,
>> but it's it's still a dangerous place
» but it's it's still a dangerous place
and it's still an emergency. Yeah, in my
view, it is.
>> I agree. I vote on it every two weeks.
» I agree. I vote on it every two weeks.
I'm very um I'm just interested in how
that works because like at what point do
we feel that it's not dangerous anymore?
But I guess that we'll cross that bridge
when we cross it. Maybe it's two years
without death. I don't know. I
>> think we'll know it when we see it.
» think we'll know it when we see it.
>> Okay. Well, um just wanted to double
» Okay. Well, um just wanted to double
check on that because we vote on it.
That's it. Thank you.
>> Would you like to pick a motion or
» Would you like to pick a motion or
>> I'll move that we approve that one.
» I'll move that we approve that one.
>> Yeah, I want to continue approving it.
» Yeah, I want to continue approving it.
So,
>> you'll second.
» you'll second.
>> Second. Okay. All in favor? I I none
» Second. Okay. All in favor? I I none
opposed. Okay. Okay. 1B5.
>> Yeah, I pulled 1B5 primarily because as
» Yeah, I pulled 1B5 primarily because as
I read this, we got a serious problem on
Insul Canyon with this U um storm drain
pipe. And I'm just wondering if we're
going to not approve the repair, which
makes sense. I read the read the report.
It looks like it's in a lot worse
condition than when you first envisioned
it. But are we what kind of risk are we
taking? And is it still serviceable now?
I I just want to just want to know what
we're looking at since it seems to have
gone downhill since we put out the
original RFP.
>> That is an excellent question, council
» That is an excellent question, council
member. The answer to that is yes, it is
still serviceable. We will be going
through an expedited redesign. The pipe
still does require repair, but we do um
believe that it can withstand um
upcoming storms, especially after this
recent storm that it went through. but
it will be um expedited and and
hopefully repaired soon.
>> I'm assuming that you're not going to be
» I'm assuming that you're not going to be
able to put a liner in it like you like
you proposed. It look from what what I
read here, it looks like it's in pretty
bad shape. So, you're going to have to
dig it out.
>> The exact method has not been identified
» The exact method has not been identified
yet. Um but it will be a lot more
extensive than the liner which was
originally anticipated.
>> Okay. All right. I just want to know if
» Okay. All right. I just want to know if
we had a safety issue here. It doesn't
sound like we do, but if we get on it
quickly, we can solve it. That's right.
All right.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Uh, I'll make a mo That satisfies me.
» Uh, I'll make a mo That satisfies me.
I'll make a motion to approve.
>> Do we have a second?
» Do we have a second?
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> Okay. All in favor?
» Okay. All in favor?
>> I
» I
>> I
» I
none opposed. Uh, 1B10.
>> I ask that be pulled.
» I ask that be pulled.
>> Yes. I guess my question is are we
» Yes. I guess my question is are we
required to terminate that declaration
at this time or can we leave or do we
have discretion to leave it in place at
least one more um two-month session I
guess because I know it's rained a lot
but we you know this is the time of year
when historically we're in danger so it
seems to me that it's a little premature
to pull it
>> um well according to the criteria period
» um well according to the criteria period
that were established by this council.
Um, we've more than met like cuz there
was you know 2 in of rain, we've had
more than 12 in of rain. Live fuel
moisture should be greater than 80. It's
now at 166%.
And there are no fire weather watches or
red flag warnings in the foreseeable
future. So
I I think that we have far exceeded the
criteria and it's appropriate to um
terminate it at this point.
>> It doesn't mean and I just want to say
» It doesn't mean and I just want to say
it doesn't really change what we do. Um
our staff is out all the time removing
encampments. This just provides us a
little, you know, extra tools and
justification for moving quickly in
areas, but we do this every day. And so
it's not like we stop doing it. So I I
think we're still protected.
>> What would the upside of removing it
» What would the upside of removing it
then be? Because once it's removed, it's
hard to get back and we know that we're
just going to go back into dry season,
>> right? Well, the whole point of an
» right? Well, the whole point of an
emergency is that you don't just declare
them for any reason, right? So, we put
the criteria in there so that we can be
consistent. And I mean, it could be in
some respects, and Trevor would have to
correct me if I'm wrong, but it provides
some legal coverage that you're
consistent. You have criteria. It's
triggered when you meet the criteria,
and we we terminate it when we hit the
other criteria. So then somebody
couldn't accuse us of just having an
ongoing emergency and using that to say
violate their civil rights or whatever
may be.
>> That's correct. And if it drops, you'll
» That's correct. And if it drops, you'll
bring back a new resolution to go reimp
implement the the state of emergency.
Correct.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Has the fire department been consulted
» Has the fire department been consulted
about whether this is appropriate at
this time?
Not specifically because but they would
definitely agree and we consulted with
them on the criteria but it's it's not
within our um
um sorry process to get approval from
the fire department but we do get the
data from the fire department
like the live fuel moisture is provided
to us by the fire department.
>> Right.
I I don't support withdrawing this at
this time, but we'll see what the vote
is, I guess.
>> Well, what would um
» Well, what would um
what would the benefit of not
withdrawing it at this time be?
>> I think there are some incremental
» I think there are some incremental
benefits that are set forth in the
declaration or else we wouldn't have
done it in the first place. So, I would
like to see it remain in place at least
through the end of February as we've
historically done it. I know the
criteria have been satisfied or at least
I'm hearing that they are, but I'm still
I'm still concerned given the time of
year and given the history that this is
premature.
>> Is there any reason why we can't keep it
» Is there any reason why we can't keep it
on? I mean, it's a problem with PU.
>> Well, we've we've met the criteria.
» Well, we've we've met the criteria.
>> We've met the criteria.
» We've met the criteria.
>> So, there's okay.
» So, there's okay.
>> But the criteria to meet it is no longer
» But the criteria to meet it is no longer
in place,
>> right? And I think to for our own like
» right? And I think to for our own like
as a city our credibility so that when
we're declaring this that we're
consistent we have criteria and we're
not just say using it as a tool to do
thing. I mean we use it as a tool but in
the situation where there's high fire
danger
where we're not we're not in fire danger
right now. Thank goodness. Yeah.
>> And we're not in fire danger because the
» And we're not in fire danger because the
live fuel moisture is at such a high
level.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Um are there other things behind besides
» Um are there other things behind besides
the uh f the vegetation
having moisture in it that
um that there are other things that can
occur that can still
occur that we're mitigating by having
this in place?
Not sure. [laughter]
>> Yeah, I know that was I did not.
» Yeah, I know that was I did not.
>> I mean, it is possible that the live
» I mean, it is possible that the live
fuel moisture could go down because
we're having these Santa Ana winds, but
because the live fuel moisture is so
high, it's highly unlikely that it would
bring it down enough to create a danger.
>> And the long-term um weather forecast is
» And the long-term um weather forecast is
one that
>> correct
» correct
>> doesn't anticipate having these red flag
» doesn't anticipate having these red flag
conditions or anything in it. When was
the last time we approved this?
>> The last
» The last
>> year. Uh, last year.
» year. Uh, last year.
>> No, no, no.
» No, no, no.
>> I'm sorry. When was the the last date
» I'm sorry. When was the the last date
that this came before this council that
we approved this? Was it just one?
>> When did we do it originally? Like the
» When did we do it originally? Like the
last year in September?
>> But didn't we do it again at some point
» But didn't we do it again at some point
in time?
>> The most recent extension of this
» The most recent extension of this
particular state of emergency was
November 24th, 2025.
>> Okay. And when would that die a natural
» Okay. And when would that die a natural
death if we didn't affirmatively
terminate it?
>> I'm looking at that now and it looks
» I'm looking at that now and it looks
like it would be January 23rd, 2026.
>> Okay. So, I I don't see why we we need
» Okay. So, I I don't see why we we need
to take any action on this. I would just
leave it be and if it's really
appropriate to terminate it, let it die
on its own.
» Has anybody said something to you um
with regards to this? Did somebody reach
out and say Malibu?
>> No. Oh, okay.
» No. Oh, okay.
>> No, no,
» No, no,
>> I think it's just the fact that the
» I think it's just the fact that the
conditions were met back in the fall
when we approved it and now with all the
rain, the conditions have changed.
>> Um, just the conditions change so vastly
» Um, just the conditions change so vastly
and frequently here.
>> I don't want to have to go through
» I don't want to have to go through
probably won't change until midsummer
at the at the soonest. Mhm. And this
would expire in next January 2020.
>> No, just like in a couple weeks.
» No, just like in a couple weeks.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> So, it's expiring anyway if we don't
» So, it's expiring anyway if we don't
take action.
>> If we don't take action.
» If we don't take action.
>> So, do we have a motion for something?
» So, do we have a motion for something?
>> I'll make a motion to let it expire
» I'll make a motion to let it expire
naturally.
>> Deny.
» Deny.
>> I'll second it.
» I'll second it.
>> What What's the motion, Trevor? So, the
» What What's the motion, Trevor? So, the
motion is to take no action on this item
with the council's understanding that
the state of emergency will lapse on
January 23rd.
>> Yes. To allow it to lapse,
» Yes. To allow it to lapse,
>> right? Unless we unless we somehow for
» right? Unless we unless we somehow for
some reason redo it on the 24th.
>> We had new circumstances.
» We had new circumstances.
>> Yeah, exactly.
» Yeah, exactly.
Okay. All in favor?
>> I I Okay.
» I I Okay.
>> None opposed.
» None opposed.
>> All right. So, that concludes the
» All right. So, that concludes the
consent calendar. Do we have any
presentations or anything to take us to
6:30?
>> We don't have any presentations and we
» We don't have any presentations and we
don't have any commissioner updates, but
we will have a city manager update for
you.
>> Okay, let's have our city manager
» Okay, let's have our city manager
update, please.
>> Thank you, Mayor Council. And um I'm not
» Thank you, Mayor Council. And um I'm not
going to be 45 minutes until 6:30. So um
but
>> well, Sergeant Sodelin's here, so we
» well, Sergeant Sodelin's here, so we
never know.
>> That is true. That's true.
» That is true. That's true.
[clears throat]
No, but happy happy new year and good to
see good to see everybody and um just
want to say thank you for this
opportunity to kind of fill in and help
with the transition to have the new sue
manager Joe come in. I'm excited to have
him come in. Um it's going to be a big
benefit to the city and I see a lot of
good things that are come out of that.
So um a couple things that I want to
bring up is that we had over 10 inches
of rain dur during this break and we
were quite busy. Uh the good thing was
that no major issues to report. Uh but I
I do want to thank public works, our
maintenance department, our staff. Um
they were out here working on Christmas
Eve, Christmas Day and New Year's Eve or
New Year's Eve. Uh um kind of making
sure the roads are are clear and
monitoring storms and doing a really
good job with that. So, just really want
to thank them for actually taking time
during during the holiday break to do
that. Um, but unfortunately, the rains
did have um some impact on the skate
park. Um, there was a lot of uh water
and um it's it's it's causing some
issues with the construction. Uh the
contractor is working and trying to make
sure that all of the the ground is kind
of gets dry and so you can get back to
working again. And so we're working with
them to come up with a date when he can
have have that completed. So, um, thank
the rain for this this little delay.
Um,
there's there's several rebuild meetings
that they're that occurring this uh next
couple of weeks. We have the geotech
workshop this Wednesday from 11 to 1.
There's design professional workshops on
Thursday from 11 to 12:30 and a FEMA
fire rebuild workshop on January 21st
from 9 to noon.
Um, also want to point out on February
4th at 10:00 a.m. there's a ribbon
cutting for the PCH signal
synchronization project. We're gonna
we're gonna
kick that project on or finish that
project off and have a nice little
ceremony on kind of that completing that
project. Um, but I also want to point
out and congratulate public works. Um,
and I'm a little biased because I'm up
here. I can I can do that, right? I can
but um congratulate public works on
receiving the project of the year award
for um for the PC signal sync project.
So they applied for a transportation
project and from APWA Ventura County
chapter and got that. So that's a big
accomplishment. Um after that uh they'll
be applying for the national um project
of the year at APWA conference which is
in uh Houston.
>> The signal sign
» The signal sign
is that project now working. It's
there's there's a few things that we're
trying to get get fixed. As you as you
remember, we had that accident at the
corner of Civic Center and PCH or I mean
web away and PCH that knocked out that
that signal controller that needs to be
replaced and once that is then it'll be
fully fully function. Right now it's
it's partially functional. It's kind of
working but once that's done once that's
replaced then it'll be fully functional.
Okay, cool.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
Um
then uh uh yeah, lastly um Monday,
January 19th, city will be closed for
Martin Luther King Day. And uh now I'm
going to hand it over to Director Bundy
so she can give an update on fire bills.
>> Ask a couple clarifying questions first.
» Ask a couple clarifying questions first.
>> Go ahead.
» Go ahead.
>> Um the FEMA workshop, I believe that's
» Um the FEMA workshop, I believe that's
virtual, not in person.
>> Yes, that is correct. the female wor uh
» Yes, that is correct. the female wor uh
will be uh virtual.
>> Okay. So, um all the coastal properties
» Okay. So, um all the coastal properties
that are out there in the world and any
uh people who are associated with
coastal properties, make sure you tune
into that. I think it's going to be
really important. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Good evening, council. Happy
» Thank you. Good evening, council. Happy
new year. Um giving you a brief update
on our fire rebuilds. Uh to date we have
received uh 209 planning applications
submitted 147 of them have received an
approval. We are currently h working
with 43 families on their uh building
plan check and we have issued 22 permits
which are under construction. We have
also issued 491 total permits on the
affected area. is constitute repairs,
removals, new structures. Uh and that is
the numbers that we have. Wanted to
share very briefly with the council and
with the community um what is uh going
on on beach properties that are uh
gotten approval back in um the beginning
of um August. Uh was currently our
pouring foundation systems. the seaw
walls has been uh on place [snorts]
and then um a big rock we have a
property that is already framing. So um
just wanted to share that with the um
council and with the community and also
just a brief brief update. Um um we
continue working on a streamlining our
processes. Uh the next one uh to qualify
for the streamline is the commercial
tenant improvement projects. Uh this
will signifies that um the eligible
tenants uh uh projects can be reviewed
and over-the-counter with planning and
building safety staff. Um the
eligibility for this will be an interior
alteration only for offices and small
retails under 3,000. And so that is
currently uh something that we already
are doing. Um and that concludes my
presentation.
>> Thank you so much.
» Thank you so much.
>> Quick clarifying question. Thank you so
» Quick clarifying question. Thank you so
much. I'm excited about the Streamland
uh commercial tenant improvements. I
didn't hear restaurants or cafes. Are
they included?
>> I heard boutiques and offices.
» I heard boutiques and offices.
>> Yeah, this uh does not include um a mop
» Yeah, this uh does not include um a mop
sink,
>> restaurants. Well, and that's what we
» restaurants. Well, and that's what we
kept it very for very small small
interior scope of work. Uh yeah, that's
something that we can do over the
counter. uh if it's a minor alteration
in any um B occupancy and M occupancy
some restaurants that have less than 50
uh occupants are considered B occupancy.
So that will also encapsulate uh any
restaurants that OKAF that falls under
that description.
>> Okay. What does B stand for?
» Okay. What does B stand for?
>> F offices. It's under the building code
» F offices. It's under the building code
is defined as uh offices and a small uh
small businesses. Okay.
>> One of the exemptions is that if they
» One of the exemptions is that if they
had less than 50 occupancies for a
restaurant, it can be classified as a B
occupancy.
>> That's great. I mean, cuz small. So,
» That's great. I mean, cuz small. So,
let's say somebody needs a sign. This is
over the counter.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Oh, great.
» Oh, great.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Mop sink type of
» Mop sink type of
>> Yes. And also um they can also we have a
» Yes. And also um they can also we have a
uh in our design portal they can submit
it electronically also to set up the
appointment if they want to do it
virtually we can do it virtually or in
person.
>> Great. Thank you.
» Great. Thank you.
>> I think the most important thing for no
» I think the most important thing for no
matter what it is that you're doing have
a basic site plan showing um where
everything's going to be located and
where entrance and exits are. that helps
um facilitate approvals because those
are the a lot of the um
>> interior
» interior
uh circulation plan is a lot of what the
the code is looking for. I'm not
>> that is correct. Mayor uh are the means
» that is correct. Mayor uh are the means
of erases something that uh even when we
have an existing uh uh property we are
going to be asking on the means of
safety remains as required per the fire
code and the building and safety code.
>> Yeah. Um Yolanda, we we keep hearing in
» Yeah. Um Yolanda, we we keep hearing in
the um press that the city of Los
Angeles has 1,200
building permits for homes for
structures destroyed in the fire. Um
which sounds incredible to me whenever I
hear it. And I know you've said that
there's some issue of transparency.
Could could you talk about that a little
bit?
>> Yes. Um our understanding is that total
» Yes. Um our understanding is that total
amount of permits is uh the effect the
permits issue on the affected area. We
do have the same number um the same um
line that we are capturing our numbers
for us. It's 491 total uh permits,
building permits have been issued on
that affected burn area which constitute
um damages, repairs, new single family
residents that we have issued. So
everybody is encapsulating all of the
total permits in one number.
>> Right. And I'm familiar with the fact
» Right. And I'm familiar with the fact
that we we disclose both. We we state
how many permits have been issued for
everything and anything that needs to be
done after the fire as well as we are
very straightforward about the fact that
there are only what's the number for
actual permits to build a a house that
was burned to the ground?
>> That is correct. Uh for us it was
» That is correct. Uh for us it was
>> 22
» 22
>> transparency. Yeah, we have 22.
» transparency. Yeah, we have 22.
>> Okay. Do we have any idea what the city
» Okay. Do we have any idea what the city
of Los Angeles has issued in terms of
that comparable permit that we're
talking about?
>> I have been I have been asking their
» I have been I have been asking their
building official. They haven't given me
that number. I do not have it. I uh
certainly can share with you that the
incorporated county area has only issued
nine permits.
>> Right. And I and I I think that what's
» Right. And I and I I think that what's
happening is this we the city of Malibu
and the unincorporated area are being um
disserved by the city of Los Angeles's
fabrication of what it's doing. Um, I
would actually like the city council to
authorize us to by any means necessary,
including an Freedom Information Act
request or a California Information Act
request to find out from the city of Los
Angeles what they truly are doing
because they're hurting the um the
morale of the residents who are working
very hard and our staff are working very
hard to get people building permits to
build their homes by lying basically
that they have 1,200 homes being
reconstructed, which is just it's just
completely untrue.
So could could we do what we need to do
to find out in including take legal
action if necessary to find out exactly
what the city of Los Angeles really has
issued for people to build a house back.
>> We certainly can initiate that if that's
» We certainly can initiate that if that's
the direction of council.
>> I don't know that we can do a formal
» I don't know that we can do a formal
resolution, but I think a sense of the
council is probably there. I I certainly
support it and I think you're very much
on target. They've got what 10 times the
number of uh burns burns in the palisade
that we do and we don't know how many uh
rebuilds they have. So we'd like to know
how we're doing.
>> We don't have an item on the agenda to
» We don't have an item on the agenda to
give a direction on that, but if there
is uh interest from the council, I'm
sure staff can go out and bring
information back to the the city council
on an item if necessary to authorize.
>> Well, it sounds like Yolanda has been
» Well, it sounds like Yolanda has been
working behind the scenes trying to get
that information. and it hasn't been
able to. So I think what mayor promstein
is suggesting is that we
>> ratchet it up to a formal request and so
» ratchet it up to a formal request and so
is that something that we can just
direct staff that we would like them to
put in a
>> I I what I'd ask for is consensus. could
» I I what I'd ask for is consensus. could
we bring this back as an item for next
meeting where we can give direction,
take a vote and give direction if we all
agree to actually do a um California
information request if necessary of all
the building permits and we can then go
through the building permits and find
out exactly what they're for so that the
public will have a truthful
understanding of what's going on.
>> Well, I'm in favor of of doing what you
» Well, I'm in favor of of doing what you
just said, but I think we can probably
do the uh public records request even
beforehand. I'm assuming that you
Everybody just help us get this
information. Yeah,
>> she's probably trying to do the
» she's probably trying to do the
[clears throat] same thing.
>> Well, you just need to get her from
» Well, you just need to get her from
they're in the same boat we have. I've
spoke with them.
>> Yeah. Okay. I
» Yeah. Okay. I
>> The problem is, you know, look, I I'm
» The problem is, you know, look, I I'm
I'm never one to be worried about
rocking the boat. I understand a lot of
politicians don't want to rock the boat
and accuse the city of Los Angeles of
lying or put them to the trouble of
telling the truth, but I don't care
about that. I want I want to know what's
going on.
>> It should be a fairly easy number to
» It should be a fairly easy number to
attain given Yeah.
>> They just won't tell [clears throat] it.
» They just won't tell [clears throat] it.
So if we have to, we might have to do a
uh a legal request. But so that's why if
if you if you're unable to learn the
answer informally by the time of our
next meeting, I'd like to be it on our
agenda to take whatever legal action we
need to take to find out formally.
>> I think you have a report on um the
» I think you have a report on um the
information we're able to bring and then
uh the ability for the council to take
further action or give direction to
staff.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Okay. All right.
» Okay. All right.
>> Thank you. Um, and you know, I want to
» Thank you. Um, and you know, I want to
commend you and the staff for everything
you are doing and trying to do to
increase the numbers in Malibu. Um, I
just think, you know, people need to
understand it took until about twothirds
of the way into the last year before
Yolanda was empowered basically to start
taking control because we still had the
two separate departments and we were
lacking um, stewardship at the uh, top.
And um I I'm impressed by the way things
have been moving since Yolanda has been
given that charge and including with the
um streamlining of things that are
completely outside the rebuild process
and which keeps coming back to us month
after month with new things. It's great.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> I Anybody Oh, Doug.
» I Anybody Oh, Doug.
>> Yeah, Doug has
» Yeah, Doug has
>> Yeah. Um, Yolanda, if you could put your
» Yeah. Um, Yolanda, if you could put your
chart back up there, I'd like for you to
kind of give us a a narrative of what
you see as being the the barriers or the
stumbling blocks for people to move
forward. I mean, I we've got roughly 700
homes that are destroyed, right? Roughly
that number because I keep seeing that
number going all over the place. I've
seen low 600s to up to 700, but we've
got a oh 200 or so planning review and
then we've got 43 and 22. What's what's
holding people back in each one of those
categories? The planning review and then
building plan check. What's keeping them
from getting their plan checks? I mean,
I'm hearing everything from insurance to
um desire. I mean, what's what's your
sense of what's going on?
>> Thank you for this question.
» Thank you for this question.
Um it's really hard to pinpoint exactly
what's going on, but what I'm hearing a
lot from the homeowners is um insurance,
right? um insurance and also the number
of requirements that the city has. Um,
meaning we are we are per the California
for the state of California to require a
set of plans that that has all the
structural calculations, all the title
24, all the green building code
requirements or your civil plans or your
technical plans, your seaw walls, your
on-site wed treatment systems, your um
FEMA regulations uh to make sure that
also in some instances we have our our
coastal reports. So, it's a layer after
layer of estate requirements that the
homeowners need to put together in order
to come in through building and safety.
So, acknowledging the number of
requirements that were not able to be
flexed because these are building and
safety requirements that is one of the
biggest thing. Uh also being a regional
disaster, the number of design
professionals that are working with the
different the different jurisdictions
and the different owners um is limited
and sometimes we need to wait for them
to respond or for them to complete the
information that is required. Uh so I
think one of them is is is that right
and then the financial portion of it
>> and that's in the 4322 4322 on the
» and that's in the 4322 4322 on the
building in safety.
>> Is there since we're on that that
» Is there since we're on that that
segment, is there anything that you
would like to see change that we could
do? I I realize the legal side it's got
to be the way it is, but is there
anything we can be doing?
>> Yes. Uh continue meeting one- on-one
» Yes. Uh continue meeting one- on-one
with the design professionals. That is
helping out. Uh, like I mentioned, I've
been coming in every Friday to meet with
the homeowners or the design
professionals, and we're working with
right now with five families to get them
approvals. Uh, during the holidays, we
had a few coming in and meet with us,
>> but I felt that a lot of our design
» but I felt that a lot of our design
professionals also took uh time off. Uh,
so I think we are regaining that
momentum again.
uh also to add through all of this the
storms even if we issue two more permits
because of the storms they they will not
be able to start right so um that is
what can we do more I think is the
one-on-one with the design professionals
and the families uh to get them through
a point where the plans are completed
and give them an a a permit that is the
number one thing that we need to do more
and what I want to see more is having
those 43 get a permit. Uh so what are
we're working right now this week is uh
staff is going through all of those uh
properties 43 that we that that we are
under review and highlighting the ones
that we have seen twice so we can set up
meetings with those families and those
design professionals to move those
projects ahead. Uh sometimes people are
think of a project has many things that
they need to work on. Uh we are um we're
meeting okay let's meet with your
architect let's get all those items for
the architect done okay it's done let's
meet with your civil let's meet let's
take all of that done okay that is done
so we're taking portion by portion so we
can move things along um in order to
help expedite it
as far as theund uh 209 that are under
planning submittals
uh we still have those almost 300 homes
that need to come
for uh for uh the planning department to
start reviewing it and we have not seen
that. Um we're going to continue doing
the um like our interim uh city manager
Duba mentioned the uh community meetings
because those are very critical uh
communication and our website and also
for us to continue working with the
design professionals. One thing that is
happening on Wednesday, uh the
geotechnical guidelines uh for fire
rebuilds are uh they're we're going to
have pro uh uh amendments to it to make
it uh more clear and simple. So those
are being uh presented on Wednesday. On
Thursday, we're having another meeting
with the design professionals to share
that information and also to ask how can
we help you move your project moving
forward. Um
there's a lot to do. I we uh there's a
lot a lot to do.
>> I know uh in our discussions of quick
» I know uh in our discussions of quick
conversations I know for you it's that
one agenda at a time. Each house each
family is one agenda. So and I echo what
Bruce said. My gosh, I don't know what
we'd be doing without you and I don't
know what we'd be doing without your
team. And uh I I see them in action. You
walk in the door, you see them talking
to people. It's a one-on-one
conversation. and I'm really proud that
you're doing that.
>> Thank you. And yeah, it is a whole city
» Thank you. And yeah, it is a whole city
effort and um we're committed and and I
know that there's still a lot of
challenges and continue working with the
community and every family to feel that
we are there for each one of the
families. That's the most critical thing
for all of us.
>> I can't speak for the entire council,
» I can't speak for the entire council,
but I you know for me, anything you
need, anything your team needs, we'll be
glad to try and get it for you. Okay.
>> Thank you, sir.
» Thank you, sir.
Can we get the chart back up again?
What is going on?
Um, okay. So, are those numbers
cumulative or they're all separate?
You'd have to add them all up to have
the total that somebody has filed some
kind of an application at this point or
is there overlap?
>> Uh, for the first line, right, for the
» Uh, for the first line, right, for the
planning phase,
>> Mhm. 62 under planning review. So 62
» Mhm. 62 under planning review. So 62
homes are going uh through the uh
planning entitlement phase which is your
are they building like for like do they
need a little bit more? Uh so those are
the ones uh 147 are separate. So those
147 already obtained the planning
approval.
>> Okay. So basically you add all of these
» Okay. So basically you add all of these
up and that's how many have at least
started the process
>> on the upper portion of it. Yes. So 62
» on the upper portion of it. Yes. So 62
plus 147, that's the 209 that I was
talking to you about.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> There's two parts to every rebuild. Your
» There's two parts to every rebuild. Your
planning phase and your building uh and
safety phase, which is your construction
plans,
>> right? I understand that. But so the 60
» right? I understand that. But so the 60
um five are part of the 209.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Okay. And
» Okay. And
look, it's it's it's my understanding
and we'll be talking about this later.
there. So, my understanding we we've
done pretty much what we can legally to
um to streamline the planning phase.
We've, you know, we we've the governor
through through his good grace has
adopted the executive orders and then
we've amended the municipal code. We've
pretty much streamlined as much as we
can the planning aspect of it. Um the
building aspect of it, I know you're
working hard to try to get people
through the building part, but it's a
state code and we have less flexibility,
right? We have no we have next to no
flexibility. Um are there more things we
have the power to do below the line on
the building part of this or are we just
constrained by the building code full
stop?
>> These state regulations are pretty much
» These state regulations are pretty much
black and white and so there's no
flexibility for that. Uh I think one of
the things that we need to continue
reminding the community is that the
governor did ex uh allow every home to
be rebuilt under the previous building
code. Uh knowing that we are going to
have a code change and there's a lot
more restrictions on the new code that
the governor says okay let's continue
building under the 2023 code
>> separate from fire.
» separate from fire.
>> Separate for fire. Yes. So that is one
» Separate for fire. Yes. So that is one
thing that uh sometimes I feel people
still have that question and so uh that
is also a benefit um because a lot of
design professionals are used to those
that code right now right that they have
been working with it for three years
they know what to expect they know the
type of the type of things uh
calculations they need to give us uh so
that is that is good
>> okay next question of the um 65 below
» okay next question of the um 65 below
the
Do we know how many of them are um
owners that lost their home versus
people who acquired the property?
>> All of them are homeowners that Yes.
» All of them are homeowners that Yes.
Those 22 that you have approval.
Absolutely. Those are your homeowners
that day one jump in and are really
involved on coming in and asking
questions. Also those 43.
>> Excellent. Okay. Thank you.
» Excellent. Okay. Thank you.
>> Yes. [snorts]
» Yes. [snorts]
>> I thank you again for all of this. Um I
» I thank you again for all of this. Um I
was curious do you guys have like a
timeline so
for the 43 in building plan check let's
say is there a
some sort of mechanism in which you're
able to track where everything is and
then illustrate that so it's like 15
days or where a little bit more nuanced
I'm looking for
>> yeah um the we have a database uh that
» yeah um the we have a database uh that
it will show the turnaround times
>> um I do have to admit that uh through
» um I do have to admit that uh through
the change of consultants in November
and in October uh we did have a big
hiccup because we needed to um on board
a new geotechnical coastal engineering
environmental health uh companies.
>> So that took a little bit of hiccup on
» So that took a little bit of hiccup on
getting everything up up to speed on
what we were committed to do the reveals
to.
>> Yeah. our first review uh we were
» Yeah. our first review uh we were
committed to do a 10 uh working days and
I can honestly tell you in front of uh
in this uh that due to those changes in
companies we were not able to stay with
the 10day turnaround time
>> and that's why it was so important for
» and that's why it was so important for
us to uh meet with the archite
architects and the families and start
working on the items that have been
completed to facilitate a faster
turnaround time.
>> Great.
» Great.
>> The second submitts is a five day
» The second submitts is a five day
turnaround time uh reviews.
>> Five day. So second submitted
» Five day. So second submitted
this review in five days.
>> That's amazing.
» That's amazing.
>> Yeah. And so but also think about it. We
» Yeah. And so but also think about it. We
we we
receive a project, we review it, and
then we give it corrections with 10
days. Then those corrections go back to
the design team. Sometimes this takes
two weeks, three weeks, it depends,
>> right? The city has a commitment and
» right? The city has a commitment and
then once it's out of the city's hands,
if it goes to the designer, it's out of
your hands and it's in [clears throat]
their hands and then the owner has to
deal with their design team, which could
take three months, but at least the city
is not being scapegoed for taking too
much time is what I'm trying to avoid.
>> Yeah. and and we still have a lot of
» Yeah. and and we still have a lot of
work to do on staying with those 10 days
turnaround time. I need to acknowledge
that and and with you because it has
been difficult to stay with those 10 10
turnaround times but that is the efforts
to continue uh working on that.
>> Great. So there is a goal for that now
» Great. So there is a goal for that now
that the hiccups have kind of been
sorted hopefully you know with the
change of consultants a 10day goal is
where we're working.
>> Yes. Yes.
» Yes. Yes.
>> That's terrific. And then I have a
» That's terrific. And then I have a
second question. Um over the holiday
unfort you know I got a bunch of emails
from um a gentleman about an update with
rebuild rights. I really need clarity on
I think and I don't even know how to
explain this but the original owner
go ahead
um being the authorized it's Abe Oman.
Does anybody know what I'm talking
about?
>> Yeah, I think the question I think was
» Yeah, I think the question I think was
um does the right for like forlike
rebuilds flow with the property? Is that
the question?
>> It it's more complex. I have this
» It it's more complex. I have this
something to talk about during council
member comments and actually ask for a
consensus for something on that.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Because I I think it's premature to do
» Because I I think it's premature to do
that at this point in time. We can if
you
>> Oh, I don't know what the proper time
» Oh, I don't know what the proper time
is. I just want to make sure I don't
forget because I end up forgetting and
then I'm like
>> you'll be around later
» you'll be around later
>> the meeting first to talk about it.
» the meeting first to talk about it.
>> I'll be here.
» I'll be here.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Okay. Great. We'll wait. I'm cool with
» Okay. Great. We'll wait. I'm cool with
that
>> because I think that's more substantive
» because I think that's more substantive
than just asking questions at this
point.
>> Perfect.
» Any more questions for Yolanda?
>> And just um I just want to clarify. So
» And just um I just want to clarify. So
that that 10day turnaround is not a
guarantee of an approval. That's a 10
days to identify things that don't
comply with the minimum code standards
for the building code.
>> That is correct. This is what we call
» That is correct. This is what we call
the first uh review in which uh usually
we issue corrections
>> and then on the second round that five
» and then on the second round that five
days you're hoping that it's you're able
to do it so much faster because the
design professional has addressed those
deficiencies
um to meet the minimum code standards
and you're you're doing a quality check
uh to confirm that.
>> Yes, that is correct. Okay, Doug.
» Yes, that is correct. Okay, Doug.
>> Um yeah, probably more of a
» Um yeah, probably more of a
clarification. I know early on when we
were talking about uh turnaround times
and so forth, there was a concern that
additional um identified items would
would appear every time they came
through the cycle. Um I know it's
happened to me when I was building my
house 25 years ago. How are we handling
that? How are we handling that?
>> We're trying to handle that with the
» We're trying to handle that with the
consultants um u having consistency on
what they're reviewing. We're also
trying to handle it when we when they're
resubmitting
um when we're meeting in person with
that with those design professionals.
We're able to capture why do they give
you the that correction that shouldn't
be a corrections. So those are being
addressed as quality control when staff
is meeting also with with the homeowners
and the design professionals. And also
that's why we have set up uh monthly
meetings with the design professionals.
this started since September uh to start
addressing all of those items, right?
What is that we need to do better as a
city? How can we help them uh get a
better understanding or or what is that
is being done that we should not be
doing? So, that is helping out also with
the design professional.
>> I guess I I I want to make sure that
» I guess I I I want to make sure that
we're on the record with this. I'm not
trying to hold you to 100%. But we're
not identifying new items in these uh
cycles of reviews. Is that correct? So
you get the first round and unless it's
a correction on something that you
corrected, we're we're coning it down.
>> That is what what it should be.
» That is what what it should be.
>> Right.
» Right.
>> Uh sometimes occurs that on the first
» Uh sometimes occurs that on the first
metal information was not given
completely. Let's said um and I have
seen this and I'm just can give you an
example. a homeowners came in uh they
wanted to put a pool uh they but they
wanted the pool to be in a separate
submetto. So on the first review with
the structural calculations for the pool
was not submitted. Then through a
conversation with the homeowner
um we figure out well it's best to have
the whole permit moving forward instead
of separating it. Uh so they submitted
the calculation the structural
calculations for the pool and the second
sumeto. So those are new corrections
because we never got to see it at the
beginning.
» I have one more set of questions.
>> So um I'm still I'm still interested in
» So um I'm still I'm still interested in
these apples to oranges comparisons that
we're getting. So, um, there was also a
press release this week by Cal Matters
that was, um,
it's puff as far as I'm concerned, but
it says that more than 2600 residential
permits have been issued between the
Palisades and Aladena. Um, which is
roughly one in every five of nearly
13,000
homes lost. That's that's a direct
quote. Um, two questions if you know the
answer. The first is, are they including
Malibu when they say Aladena and
Palisades? Are they just are they
talking about the fires? Are they
talking about the areas Aladena and
Palisades?
>> I'm not sure what uh source you are
» I'm not sure what uh source you are
mentioning that. Um usually yes. When
they um the press does do a uh um a
report on numbers, they try to include
Malibu under the Palis incident. Uh but
I'm not sure specifically on this.
>> Yeah, I'm not sure because it's it's an
» Yeah, I'm not sure because it's it's an
odd formulation. They don't say eaten
and al eaten and palisades fires. They
say aladina and palisades. Um, which
leads me to another question. They say
they they say residential permits. Do we
know what that means? Because I could be
looking at this and think that well
we've issued 147 permits, planning
permits. We haven't issued building
permits yet. Are do we know what they
mean by permit residential permits?
Um, not knowing the source is hard for
me to tell you, but when somebody says
residential permits, it's usually
residential building permits. Um, but I
again, I don't know the source of what
you're looking at.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> But that could go to just like we're
» But that could go to just like we're
reporting that we have issued 491
permits that include repairs and other
things, which is separate from 22 homes.
So, it kind of it sounds like depends on
the bucket that you're trying to fill.
You know, do you want to just say you've
issued
>> almost 500 permits, which we have, but
» almost 500 permits, which we have, but
that doesn't get to the heart of what
people really want, which are the
houses.
>> Every time I try to figure out what's
» Every time I try to figure out what's
going on elsewhere, it's just it's
opaque.
>> Yes.
Anything else, Steve? You have you've
been quiet.
>> Yolanda, thank you very much [laughter]
» Yolanda, thank you very much [laughter]
for what you've been doing. You're doing
a heck of a job.
>> Thank you, sir. Uh the only thing I
» Thank you, sir. Uh the only thing I
would just re you know this the process
of the design professionals taking some
time before they get back back to you in
terms of once you give them the the
material. My experience over the years
I've been doing this stuff. I mean I get
a call from a customer or resident who
says I'm being held up and we chase it
down. It's their design professional
who's holding up and are getting stuff
back to us. So the more you can make
that visible for the people who are
building their homes. I think it's
[laughter] gonna help us because they
don't know who to blame, right? I mean,
uh,
>> and my hope is that we don't blame each
» and my hope is that we don't blame each
other. My hope is that we work together
and that really is critical on my design
professions and even the contractors
that we are on that same page. There's
so much work for us to do ahead. And
some of the home the architects that got
an approval, uh, I'm asking them, you
know, we already have a template. use
this template for the next permit that
you're coming in. That way you don't get
a lot of corrections. But it does we
cannot do this by ourselves and
the families really need us. So I
Yes, it's it's a big task ahead of us.
>> Okay. All right. We're we're eating up
» Okay. All right. We're we're eating up
all that time. Um do you have any more?
Okay. Um I'm guessing Sergeant Sodelin,
>> when is the point in the meeting when we
» when is the point in the meeting when we
do council consensus to move an agenda
item forward? Um to request ADA to go in
the beginning of the
>> Oh. Um well, we adopted the we can when
» Oh. Um well, we adopted the we can when
we finish up this and
>> perfect.
» perfect.
>> Let's get this done. See where we how
» Let's get this done. See where we how
close we are to 6:30 and then we can
talk about reordering an item.
>> Thanks.
» Thanks.
Hi.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> What's been going on the last few weeks?
» What's been going on the last few weeks?
>> Not a lot, which is good. Just a lot of
» Not a lot, which is good. Just a lot of
rain. Happy New Year, city council. We
are in 2026, which means I have
December's crime statistics, which will
give us the uh year end uh total and we
can compare that to the previous years.
So in December there was a total of 16
reported part one crimes and if we
remember part one crimes are uh
homicides, rapes, aggravated assaults,
robbery, burglary, lararseny, grand
theft auto and arson. So some of the ser
most serious crimes. So there was only
16 reported and that brings the total
for 2025 to 261
for the entire year. This compares with
440 for the previous year 2024. So
that's a 40.7%
decrease. Now you could say that uh the
Palisades fire had something to do with
that and that's certainly yes. But the
5-year change the 5-year uh change from
2020 the average is a 35% decrease. So
it's in the same ballpark. So uh we are
certainly moving in the right direction.
So I'm very happy to see that. Um we
[clears throat] also have the uh traffic
uh collision information for the entire
year and so that follows the same trend.
So there was year to date uh for 2025
there was 176 total collisions in the
city. Um but the year prior there was
327 and so that's a 46% decrease which
is great to see. Um more significantly
injury collisions dropped 41%. So there
was 59 for 2025 compared with 100 for
the year prior. Um
DUI collisions were also down. There was
a total of three last year. This
compares with 11 from the year prior. So
all in all people are seem to be slowing
down. Obviously the construction zone
has something to do with that. But uh it
shows that slower speeds mean fewer
collisions and fewer people being
injured. So
>> shocking shocking to to think that but
» shocking shocking to to think that but
that is the case. So uh moving forward
for 2026. So the sheriff's department uh
has a couple different goals. Um the
first one we're going to keep up with
PCH safety. Um in terms of fatal
collisions, there was only one fatal
collision last year and that was not on
PCH. That was on Decker Canyon. So,
there was zero fatal collisions on PCH
last year, which is what we are hoping
for every year. So, we're going to keep
on uh pressing on PCH safety. So, with
that, speed cameras uh are hopefully
going to be installed this year. Uh
there's a roundabout project that the
city and the Cal Transit Sheriff's
Department are collaborating on. Um we
are also planning a to do a GUI
checkpoint uh in the near future. Uh,
and we're going to continue with uh
enforcement on PCH uh our motors and the
city is um graciously providing extra
funding for additional traffic
enforcement. So, we are going to
continue that and continue uh to enforce
the traffic laws and keep everybody safe
on PCH.
Um, another
point that we are going to focus on in
2026 is public safety during the
recovery. And by that I mean uh
homeowners properties. Uh we want people
to rebuild and be secure in their
property leaving construction equipment
which is very very expensive
construction construction material. Um
we want that to be secure and we want
people to not have to worry about
another tragedy on top of what they
already went through. Uh with that our
camera registry we want to push that out
again because that will be very
beneficial.
uh to synchron synchronize with our
real-time watch center. People can
integrate their cameras and that way we
can have real-time access if they so
choose or we'll be able to do follow-up
investigation. So, uh our camera
registry is vital for that. Um
we're also going to focus on the
homeless population that Malibu has and
continue collaborating with our host
team and our the outreach teams for
housing for the homeless population. and
we're going to uh continue enforcement
of all applicable laws uh as it relates
to the homeless. So, we are still on a
downtrend on the homeless population and
we want that to continue and hopefully
2026 will be much better in 2025.
So, I am available if anyone has
questions.
>> Anyone have any questions for the
» Anyone have any questions for the
sergeant?
>> I do.
» I do.
>> Thank you. Okay, go ahead.
» Thank you. Okay, go ahead.
>> Thank you. Um do you have a substation
» Thank you. Um do you have a substation
update?
So the latest update is the city council
approved the radio tower which is one of
the major hurdles to the substation. Uh
the county can now start the certificate
of occupancy and accepting ownership of
that. uh the lead time that I had heard
from our uh internal services division
on getting that tower uh installed with
all the proper equipment is uh 10 to 12
months lead time. So that's timeline
we're looking at and hopefully uh this
time next year we'll have better clarity
on when we can start moving in.
>> Thank you. Um, I was also wondering if
» Thank you. Um, I was also wondering if
um you had an update on the machete man
that I think I heard about over the
weekend.
>> Machete man.
» Machete man.
>> There was a man we with a machete at
» There was a man we with a machete at
Ralphs or Malibu Road. You didn't hear
about that? It was on my citizen app
that you're there.
>> So, I've been on bereavement leave so I
» So, I've been on bereavement leave so I
don't have Yeah, I don't have the latest
information,
>> but
» but
>> I will look into that for you.
» I will look into that for you.
>> Thank you. Yeah, it seems like that's
» Thank you. Yeah, it seems like that's
the weapon of choice that I keep hearing
about here. I hope he's brush clearing
with his machete, but um do you also al
have any like in uh information on
parking citations around the East
Winding Way area for the last two weeks?
I know that the city has their own
parking. I wasn't sure if the sheriff's
also have like some data on that.
>> We do. Um,
» We do. Um,
so I don't have specifically for that
area, but um, parking violations and
citations in general, uh, we issued
44,000
and change last year.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
44,000
>> just the deputies or accumulated between
» just the deputies or accumulated between
all
>> that is a good question. I I don't know
» that is a good question. I I don't know
if this includes the city
>> parking enforcement, but the total on
» parking enforcement, but the total on
here is 44,439
>> in the city limits avail.
» That's a lot. Um
>> that's why we hired parking enforcement
» that's why we hired parking enforcement
to help.
>> Yeah. Do we get like a report from the
» Yeah. Do we get like a report from the
parking enforcement like Dian?
>> I don't do Do you want Susan to
» I don't do Do you want Susan to
>> Oh, maybe I'll ask I'll put it in my
» Oh, maybe I'll ask I'll put it in my
council comments. I'll ask you about
that after. Um, so 44,000 tickets in the
city of Malibu for 2025.
>> It seems like a lot, but when you put in
» It seems like a lot, but when you put in
perspective, I mean, Malibu sees
millions of people
>> totally
» totally
>> in the summertime.
» in the summertime.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> So, it's a tip of the iceberg of the
» So, it's a tip of the iceberg of the
actual amount of vehicles that come
through the city. So,
>> right. Um, I was also curious why do we
» right. Um, I was also curious why do we
get how many DUI checkpoints a year? Is
it one, two, four, and then? I believe
uh through the OTS grant there's two
that are funded.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Okay.
Oh, and you've been doing work with your
right of entries, your ROE's,
>> right? Let of agency.
» right? Let of agency.
>> Well, yeah, the letter of agency.
» Well, yeah, the letter of agency.
Exactly. Correct.
>> Because I know that if you're trying to
» Because I know that if you're trying to
help with crime on people's properties,
they also have to have that letter. Is
that correct?
>> It would be very beneficial. Yes. We we
» It would be very beneficial. Yes. We we
saw a massive influx of them submitted
to us when we originally did the uh
>> I signed mine.
» I signed mine.
>> Yeah, the public outreach on it.
» Yeah, the public outreach on it.
>> Okay, that's it. Thank you.
» Okay, that's it. Thank you.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
>> Uh by the way, on those letter of
» Uh by the way, on those letter of
agencies, they do expire. Is that
correct?
>> So, you got to do it every year.
» So, you got to do it every year.
>> I believe they're every two years.
» I believe they're every two years.
>> Every two years. Yes. Okay. Just a
» Every two years. Yes. Okay. Just a
reminder for that.
>> You left out what I thought was the most
» You left out what I thought was the most
significant thing. your two deputies
that decide to go swimming on December
19th. Uh, Deputy Matkin and Gregorian.
>> Gregorian, correct?
» Gregorian, correct?
>> Two heroes. If there ever was two
» Two heroes. If there ever was two
heroes, um, the video of that was
astounding. I hope there's recognition
in the future for them.
>> There will be.
» There will be.
>> Can we tell hear the story of what
» Can we tell hear the story of what
occurred?
>> Why don't you tell it?
» Why don't you tell it?
>> Sure. So, um, I don't have the exact
» Sure. So, um, I don't have the exact
date, but I know it was, uh, several
weeks ago. Um, paragliders were
disoriented in the fog and crashed in
the ocean uh several hundred feet off
the shore. And the deputies responded
immediately saw them in peril stuck in
their their cords from the paragliders
or from the apparatus. and they without
hesitation took off all their gear, took
their boots off and went in in full
uniform and swam out and cut the
paracords off from around them. And
according to the deputies that they were
uh in shock and they were trying to pull
the deputies under to try and get out of
the water and deputies did a great job
and rescued them and they are real
heroes.
So, and uh we told the sheriff about it
when he was here last week and he was
very very happy to meet them in in
person. So, I'm sure there will be some
recognition coming their way.
>> One of the guys was here last week.
» One of the guys was here last week.
>> He [clears throat] was guy with the big
» He [clears throat] was guy with the big
mustache. Y
>> Oh, that was him.
» Oh, that was him.
>> And he's actually one of the special
» And he's actually one of the special
assignment deputies for Malibu.
>> Oh, awesome.
» Oh, awesome.
>> And that water was about 60 low 60
» And that water was about 60 low 60
degrees temperature
>> and they were in their duty uniforms.
» and they were in their duty uniforms.
>> Yep. Um, as a somebody that took
» Yep. Um, as a somebody that took
lifeguard training, I can only imagine
how those people struggled to try and
push the deputies down so I could get
up. It's it's an amazing story and they
truly are heroes.
>> So,
» So,
>> what area amounted?
» what area amounted?
>> I'm not sure actually. I don't
» I'm not sure actually. I don't
>> thought it was up by you. I mean by a
» thought it was up by you. I mean by a
point June headlin
I heard
>> Steve
» Steve
>> you're good.
» you're good.
>> Anybody else?
» Anybody else?
>> Thank you and thank you to all the first
» Thank you and thank you to all the first
responders out there. I appreciate all
the hard work and let's hear to a
>> happy new year.
» happy new year.
>> A good new year.
» A good new year.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Hi. Just wanted to really quickly follow
» Hi. Just wanted to really quickly follow
up on Halen's question about the parking
force. I just want to let you know that
we are right now planning to bring back
a a comprehensive report on how the
whole parking enforcement program has
gone for the last year and a half
because we'll be looking at renewing the
contract. So, I think if you can wait a
little bit, we'll be ready to give you a
full report and give you all the details
you want at that time.
>> That would be super. Are there like
» That would be super. Are there like
specific location specific like
hotspots? Do you think that'll be
>> We can have that information. Yes.
» We can have that information. Yes.
>> Fantastic. Thank you so much.
Okay. So, we filled up all the way to
6:30.
Um, before we begin our agenda, does
anybody want a restroom break?
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> I would like to ask to move item 8A to
» I would like to ask to move item 8A to
the beginning of our meeting.
>> Uh, so do you want to do public comment
» Uh, so do you want to do public comment
first or do you want to do that and then
come back to 4 A? I think public comment
but then as far as we go into our
program for the evening 8A is the
beginning.
>> So do 4A and then move 8A before 5A.
» So do 4A and then move 8A before 5A.
>> What's 5A
» What's 5A
>> there? So we have public comment is item
» there? So we have public comment is item
4 A. We have council member comments is
item 4B. And then on the agenda, the
first item for discussion is item 5A,
the building standards code. So, would
you like to hear 8A after public
comment, after council comments, or
after the building code?
>> After council comment?
» After council comment?
>> After council comments.
» After council comments.
>> Okay. So, do 4 A and 4 B, then 8A, then
» Okay. So, do 4 A and 4 B, then 8A, then
the remainder of the agenda.
>> Yeah. Okay. Anybody want to second that?
» Yeah. Okay. Anybody want to second that?
>> I'll second that.
» I'll second that.
>> All in favor?
» All in favor?
>> I I
» I I
>> I.
» I.
>> Okay. So, 4 A. Um, do we have any raised
» Okay. So, 4 A. Um, do we have any raised
hands for general public comment?
There are four raised hands.
>> Okay. So, let's give them 30 seconds and
» Okay. So, let's give them 30 seconds and
then hold it at um and I have all my 4A
comments in. So, no more additional 4A
comments. Ann, you're starting us off.
Followed by Michelle Shane, followed by
Mrs. Marissa Coughlin.
Hello, this is Ann Kamarasque. There's a
lot of floors in my world.
44,000 tickets, 444 estate news. Here we
are. And so, uh, this is a picture of a
radio at the Tower of Power of Santa
Monica. That's a handheld radio putting
out approximately four to five watts,
probably four watts. And I was able to
transmit all the way from Pasar Robless
down to the Mexican border and to Las
Vegas with that radio. Both sides of the
hill. And I did copy uh Mr. Stewart,
Councilman Stewart. And Halen, you know
all about it. So I don't understand why
we don't make this a priority over these
other well ill thought out projects.
This one works. and we've been working
very hard. Uh can I please have a next
slide?
This is a license and if you look
closely it says for the prevention of
it's for the firewatch for high fire
danger areas issued by the federal
communications commission. This license
is a gift to the city of Malibu, not the
government of Malibu, a nonprofit within
Malibu. Next, please.
This is where you can listen to any
radio transmission around the globe and
the universe from Malibu. It's Malibu
public safety on the scanner. And this
is available 24/7. So any communication
you make on this radio can be heard here
unencrypted in the clear. Next, please.
This is a list of frequencies used by
another community 50 miles away from
here.
This is their firewatch. They have never
burned unlike Malibu and the Palisades.
Why? Because they care.
So, next, please.
That's the last one. Oh, back to me,
please. So, uh me.
No,
» we can see you're there.
>> Hello, Ber. This is a radio. This is it.
» Hello, Ber. This is a radio. This is it.
I just communicated this morning on a
similar radio from my bedroom, which is
what where do I live anyway? Uh,
Paradise Cove area, whatever. I don't
know what it is, but up there, I
transmitted on my other radio 50 miles
from here to the community 50 miles from
here on a handheld radio. So, it's kind
of why we're advocating to put something
up on Catalina. And uh, with all due
respect to the sheriff,
A handheld radio works just fine at the
Santa Monica College. To wait a year for
that is absurd. To have your tower
installed, you know, I support the
tower, but not where it's at, and it
kind of doesn't look too safe to me.
[snorts] 10 bolts holding it down.
Perhaps it should be revisited. But
thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Appreciate it. I'd like Michelle needs
» Appreciate it. I'd like Michelle needs
to be changed.
>> Followed by Marissa, followed by Brian
» Followed by Marissa, followed by Brian
Merrick.
Happy new year.
>> Happy new year.
» Happy new year.
>> Good evening, city council.
» Good evening, city council.
This city council has mandated a state
of emergency on PCH for over a year.
Tonight, I want to discuss how we can
actually end it.
The solution is straightforward. If you
speed on PCH, you lose your license. And
that's how we stop speeding.
On our PCH, law enforcement has issued
5,100
citations so far in 2025,
a 59% increase from 2023.
Across California in 2024,
18,000 drivers exceeded 100 miles an
hour.
They're choosing their thrills over our
lives.
Fines don't deter them only losing their
license do.
You're rolling your eyes and say this is
obvious. Come on, Michelle. We all know
this. How is this different?
We now have a blueprint.
The state's new fast pilot project uses
administrative action to send high-speed
tickets straight to the DMV for
immediate license review. Bypassing the
courts entirely. That's the key.
Administrative action.
No waiting for court dates, no delays,
swift certain consequences.
Here's my call.
Here's my call to action. Let's use our
influence in Sacramento to expand fast
for Malibu through administrative
action. If you go 25 miles per hour over
the speed limit on PCH or double the
speed limit, you'll be sub subject to
immediate DMV review. And if you speed
on PCH, you lose your license.
In 1955,
Connecticut did exactly this with
outcomes with automatic suspension.
Speeding dropped 53%
in one year.
We have the lobbyists. We have Senator
Ben Allen. We have the global spotlight.
Let's stop just renewing an emergency
and lead the state out of one. If you
speed on PCH, you lose your license. And
that's the law we need to fight for.
>> Thank you, Marissa. Followed by Brian,
» Thank you, Marissa. Followed by Brian,
followed by Kevin Keegan.
» Happy New Year, members of the council.
Some good news. I'm going to add two
planning verifications approved today
for the fire array bills. and I was
successful in that. Um, something that
did occur to me after all the years of
community members here um, fighting for
the separation of the school district,
if there's anything that the council
could consider um,
implementing and expediting the rebuilds
only because that funds our school
district and we're going to have without
the tax base, we're going to have some
issues with that and some funding for
the council as well. Uh I'd like to uh
one of the issues that I'm dealing with
with some of the fiber mills. I was
fortunate I was invited to a meeting
with about 20 of the homeowners who live
in the like Oxnard and moved around and
they do have concerns and they have
concerns about some of the FEMA
regulations because they're either going
to have to have a breakaway garage or an
elevator to get to their front door.
Some of these people are in their 80s
and 90s and they just won't rebuild if
they have to do that. Uh the Palisades
fire did not Palisades did not lose any
houses on the beach. They were all on
inland. So that's the big difference
between our process and theirs. Um the u
oh the yeah the two BBs I told you about
the sports signs. And this is totally
off base. There was a sports sign for
two of our championships and it used to
be on by the bluff park and when they
built those homes on the south uh west
east corner, they took the sign down and
those of us that put those original the
original sign up would like to either
put it so it can be seen on PCH and
Malibu Canyon either on the park side or
in the uh easement setback the city
easement for the utilities there. So
I'll bring that to the planning
department such but I just want the
council to know about that. Um there
there is a lot of still misinformation
going around about what to do with the
fire rebuilds, how to do it, and um I'm
going to talk to uh Director Bundy about
some of the things that were shared with
me in the meeting. And I think it's
things both she and Tyler Eaton can
handle, but I wanted to bring that to
the council's attention. And I'll
continue when I get more things. Thank
you.
>> Okay, Brian, followed by Kevin Keegan,
» Okay, Brian, followed by Kevin Keegan,
followed by Darren Graves.
Hello everybody. Um, appreciate the
opportunity. I'm going to try and fit in
three minutes what our experience has
been so far working through the process
to get the permit. And we are one of the
first on the beach to get the permit.
So, we're kind of like a guinea pig and
I'm going to tell you what went right
and what went wrong. So, um, or at least
perceived. Now, some of these things
have changed because of what Bun Yolanda
had said um about the uh changing of the
guard, but the PV process for the most
part, it worked really smoothly. Um we
had a 1930s house with zero plans, zero
anything. So, we were starting from
scratch. We literally started on January
8th, hired our architect, and moved
forward. So, um, if things are presented
in a clear manner in a thorough
demonstration, they're they're able to
make their thing, you know, they're able
to make their determinations as to what
was there and what what's good for us.
So, it worked real well. It bogged down
in coastal engineering with someone
named Miss Doyle who was very
problematic. Um, at and we ended up
being for uh 38 business days in coastal
plan before we ever got a response from
any submitt. And this was during PV. So
um and she to our face told us that she
would have an answer by the afternoon
only to go days without answering.
Finally I sought help from some council
and Yolanda and it it changed. Um so
then we move into the R RDP where once
again it was fairly quick you know as
long as you have your information
together and you get it out to them. I
mean I think we had very few corrections
but again this time it was environmental
health and coastal engineering which I
think is the same person miss Doyle that
was 30 business days and again had to
seek help from Yolanda and the council
to get to get them to respond to us. So
I don't know which number I am on that
thing because we don't we have a
building permit but we don't have a
permit for the septic or the seaw wall.
So I don't think we're fully permitted.
So we're maybe one of those other
numbers. Um, we do have a bill for the
septic, a permit bill. So, maybe we're
done with septic now. Um, but we don't
know. Um, the seaw wall, the seaw wall
is crazy because we started out working
with our neighbor and they were all for
it and then they sold to the New Zealand
toy makers. So, we're out of luck and
we're also an end property where we're
the last house that burns. So, we
literally have to build a box. We're
being told that uh by our coastal um
design guy it's 8,000 to 10,000 a foot
for a seaw wall and we got 360 ft
because we have to build a box. So now
we're we're sitting and from what I
understand maybe Rob can answer this but
we're in where um uh the municipal code
calls for a variance for a seaw wall
that's up against PCH and CALR is
seeking that. So, we're hung up in
public works and we've been there since
December 4th when we submitted. Um, we
resisted these toy guys, but um, you
know, unfortunately insurance isn't
going to come close to covering what
it's going to cost us to rebuild. Lloyds
of London given us 11,000 for a seaw
wall, not foot, 11,000. So, um, you
know, our seaw wall is going to be 3.2
million. Thank you, Brian.
>> So, yeah. But, I mean, it kind of fits
» So, yeah. But, I mean, it kind of fits
in, but it's definitely going to change
the demographics.
Kevin, uh, followed by Darren, followed
by Scott Jer.
[clears throat]
I'm Kevin Keegan. Technology
advancement, individual rights, and
public health are important issues for
the Malibu community that I believe need
thoughtful attention in 2026. For
example, a front page headline in the
Malibu Times on Christmas Day shared,
quote, "Study finds lasting health
impacts from Palisades fire." Close
quote. With a sub headline that
explained, quote, "New research reveals
prolonged health u heart, lung, and
systemic health effects for Malibu
residents." Close quote. Back on
November 10th, I pointed out that the
city missed an opportunity to emphasize
public health in the city's current
strategic plan. In the wake of a
pandemic and in historic wildfires, it
is a potential mistake to overlook
public health as that Christmas Day
headline suggests. Furthermore,
a shortcoming in the city's strategic
plan is the lack of a serious technology
investment or point of view being
offered by the council. As I've said
here on December 8th, the future has
arrived. AI, robots, autonomous
vehicles, and more are all advancing
rapidly. With some for foresight and
initiative, Malibu can preserve its
rural character and rehabilitate our
local economy by embracing emerging
technologies of our future. Just as
important, by taking action in 2026, the
city of Malibu can help strengthen its
cyber defenses and our individual
rights, such as the right to privacy,
which I believe is a founding value of
Malibu's community and culture. A place
to begin is to have a serious public
discussion about what is reasonable. For
example, what is reasonable regarding
what decision an algorithm gets to make
versus what decisions our council, city
staff, businesses, and community members
get to make? What is reasonable
regarding collection and protection of a
citizen's personal data? What is
reasonable regarding the number of
cameras recording a city citizen's daily
whereabouts? Surveillance, tracking,
monitoring, and profiling are
infiltrating society and communities
without serious public debate. To put a
fine point on it, cameras are
proliferating at breakneck pace in cars,
kitchens, front doors, phones, drones,
and more. More more Moreover, in my
opinion, AI and surveillance
capabilities are better and more
powerful than anyone in this room fully
understands. Simultaneously, new law
enforcement techniques like geo fencing
take advantage of legal gray areas that
erode individual citizens human rights,
including our fourth amendment
protections. We need serious advocates
who understand what is happening and are
willing to lead with courage. The future
has arrived and if we do not do not
answer those questions ourselves then
others will answer the questions for us.
2026 offers a critical window of
opportunity in Malibu for debate and
action. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank [clears throat] you Darren
» Thank [clears throat] you Darren
followed by Scott followed by Marilame.
Uh good evening and happy new year uh
honorable mayor, city council members,
interim city manager. Uh
congratulations.
Um so I wanted to start off by thanking
you once again for all the strides you
made last year um helping the rebuilding
community. I have a slide that I want to
share with you and it is in regards to
what um Brian, I think his name is, was
talking about. So this is uh from the
approved planning verification for my
family's property. It is a drawing that
describes three things. Uh the upper
left drawing is the existing septic
system. The two drawings in the middle
on the upper line are affordable septic
replacement systems and the drawing on
the far right on the upper side is the
OW or the AOTS and shoreline protective
device which was recommended by Mrs.
Doyle of Cotton Shireers starting in
February of last year. So per the seven
or the $10,000 linear foot cost uh to
build that shoreline protective device,
it would have cost my family upwards of
$800,000 just for the shoreline
protective device. So I wanted to extend
a very big thank you to everybody who
made the effort to allow us to follow
the provisions of the lamp and release
the December 8th memo. Um, this has a
huge effect on the beachfront homeowners
who are rebuilding and everybody should
have the ability if they don't add
plumbing fixtures to save 800 grand or
more. This is one of the smallest
properties, so everybody else would have
to pay a lot more. Um, so thank you.
Also, in regards to I guess making
things easier for the city staff, um I
would suggest moving back towards the
electronic plan review uh process
because such a process would eliminate
the communication hiccups which are
still present. I say that because in my
planning verification which I submitted
on December 1st, I got one comment from
Bureau Veritoss. It took them 10 days to
issue the comment. I addressed it within
one business day. Then it took them four
days to have one question about the
comment. They didn't ask me anything,
but they emailed darrend
doiciledesigns.com
the email, which was a question. Well, I
don't work there, so I didn't get the
email until 3 days later and then I
addressed it and I got an approval the
next day. Um, so hiccups like that would
be eliminated by electronic plan review.
That's why I would suggest moving back
towards that model if you could. Thank
you,
>> Derek. I'm gonna want a clarification on
» Derek. I'm gonna want a clarification on
the comment you made. So, just make sure
we talk. Okay. [laughter]
>> Uh Scott
» Uh Scott
and our final in person is Mel May.
» Thank you. I was just checking because
uh really this would come from Sawa but
uh she's in Dubai. Um and happy new
year. Congratulations Rob. Um,
[clears throat]
so Saul was in contact with our assessor
LA County Dennis Pring
who has been trying to revise
how much these rebuild disasters the
victims get taxed very much favorable to
us. He tried to get uh legislation
that didn't go through. So, he's made an
executive decision to try to cut how
much we're going to assess these burned
out lots. And that's going to be very
favorable to us as residents, those who
can't live back in. I mean, there's
nothing worse. You're paying this huge
tax on a place that's a disaster that
you can't live in. And then you start
adding in all the cost of, oh, I've got
to pay the mortgage and I've got to pay
this astronomical tax that doesn't make
sense anymore. So, you know, that's kind
of a good note in a very difficult
situation. and we wanted, you know, the
city and you guys to know about that.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, Merryill.
» Hello and good evening. Thank you for
your time. Um, I wanted to bring up a
few safety things which you probably all
are aware of because you get my emails,
but I wanted to publicly come here. The
situation at Corral Canyon is
disastrous.
the center dividers, channelizers. Uh I
think there's one up about four from the
end, 15 to 20 down. That is a very bad
percentage. The last time I was
successful getting those channelizers
replaced was about on the 29th when I
had to appeal suggesting that maybe
Santa Claus and the elves come and help.
When I made that email, it was fixed in
three days. Again, it is the worst
condition it has ever been at right now.
Mr. Silverstein, you have a creative
mind with legal perspective. I don't
know if there's any way to hold CALR or
the contractor accountable for a
horrendous safety condition which exists
down there right now.
Maybe there's a penalty. Maybe if they
don't fix it within a certain amount of
time, we can take it and do it. But
everybody that travels through there
right now, I I I'm amazed that we
haven't had a head-on collision in a
fatality. I mean, everybody speeds the
rough maybe the road is so rough. It
might be a strategy to have a rough road
to get people to go slower. I mean,
there were some holes that were gigantic
the other day. I had several people
complain to me about it. Okay, crosswalk
awareness. So, that's one. Crosswalk
awareness. I almost got hit twice
crossing at Zumearez in the crosswalk
when the light was on. people turning
out of Zoomerz, not seeing me. I'm
standing in the crosswalk raising my
hands. My neighbor got hit three weeks
before that in the hospital for a while
now going through rehab. We've made some
headway with our crosswalks in towns.
I've also submitted some emails about
some enhancements for that with
pictures. The Zuma underpass, when
that's closed, it makes PCH more
dangerous. People back up to Paradise
Cove in the summertime when we can't use
that underpass. I don't know how many
geographical acres there are above that
Zoomer underpass where water comes
through there. Little sand and debris
goes onto the concrete and then we can't
clear it, putting everybody at risk on
PCH. There is some progress on that, I
understand, but I think there needs to
be better um water storage tanks,
allowing people to use water storage
tanks so that we have more water
storage. I know that we were working on
that. I don't know if the supervisors
have signed off on it yet. potholes,
patches, cracks, please. That has to be
better. Um, I appeal to everybody
residents that come here or that live
here, when you see a problem on PCH,
safety-wise, potholes, traffic hazards,
reported to public works. I'm sorry,
public works, but they'll report it to
CALR.
You can also report it to CALR.
um home hardening things. Please do
brush clearance and incorporate home
hardening into your so that we don't
have to rebuild homes in the future.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Do we still have four raised hands?
» Do we still have four raised hands?
>> Yes. First is Nick Corey.
» Yes. First is Nick Corey.
>> Nick, are you there?
» Nick, are you there?
>> Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Okay.
» Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me? Okay.
>> Yes, please go ahead.
» Yes, please go ahead.
>> Wonderful. Thank you. Uh so, good
» Wonderful. Thank you. Uh so, good
evening everyone. Um, you I'd really
like to take this opportunity to address
my good buddy Steve Yuring.
Stevie, it has been 543 days since your
property was cited for building without
a permit.
543.
That's almost 78 weeks, my man.
For most people in Malibu, a violation
like that triggers threatening letters
from the city attorney, mounting legal
fees, repeated inspections, and a long
chilling effect on their lives and
homes.
This message is usually loud and clear.
Comply immediately or else. But not for
you, my friend, because it must be nice
being a city council member. Must be
nice being a former NTC presidente and
it must be nice living under a different
set of rules. You can build without
permits. You can put up illegal fencing.
You can place storage sheds right on the
property line with whatever you want
inside of them. And somehow enforcement
never seems to arrive.
Meanwhile, you spend your time making
sure the rest of Malibu doesn't get what
it wants or needs. You delay projects.
You obstruct solutions.
You scrutinize everyone else while your
own violations sit untouched for nearly
a year and a half. Let me let me go back
and remind you. 543
days.
That doesn't happen by accident, Steve.
It happens because the system is being
bent to protect insiders.
It happens because connections matter
more than compliance. And it happens
because accountability in this city
appears to depend on who you are, not
what you've done. The result is two very
different Malibus.
One where ordinary residents face
immediate threats, legal costs, and
fear.
And another where powerful people can
ignore the rules indefinitely, confident
that nothing will happen.
543
days without resolution.
78 weeks without consequences.
This makes a mockery of fair
enforcement. So yes, Steve, it really is
good to be you. Thanks.
» Next speaker,
[clears throat]
>> Gary Harkness.
» Gary Harkness.
Gary, are you there?
>> Yeah, I'm here. Thank you. Um, I just
» Yeah, I'm here. Thank you. Um, I just
want to make a comment about um what I
believe the uh MTC would do if uh
Michelle Shane's idea were uh taken up
and they would probably fight it just
like they did the PCH safety
improvements.
But um
just generally I want to talk about the
fact that this isn't an attack on
Malibu's history or on residents who
have volunteered their time out of real
concern for this community. The question
that I have is much more simpler than
that and that is whether the Malibu
Township Council is a legitimate public
civic organization today. And I would
argue it isn't. The MTC was created in
1947,
uh, long before Malibu was a city. At
that time, it served a real purpose.
There was no local government, no
elected council, and no local voice.
Township council helped fill that gap,
and in doing so played an important role
in Malibu's early history. But that role
ended in 1991 when Malibu incorporated.
We now have an elected city council,
public commissions, open meeting laws,
financial disclosures, and
accountability to every voter in the
city. Those are the institutions meant
to govern Malibu. The MTC, however, did
not step aside. It continued on as a
private organization, one that is not
elected, not representative of full
community, not subject to public
transparency laws, and not accountable
to voters. Membership is selective and
participation depends on paying dues. By
definition, that is not a public civic
body. Yet, the MTC regularly portrays
itself as speaking for Malibu as a whole
while filing appeals, initiating
lawsuits, and forcing costly delays to
projects approved through public
process. Those costs are paid by the
city and its residents, not by the
organization imposing them. That creates
a serious imbalance. A small private
group is able to stall or block public
decisions without having to answer to
the public without having to run for
office or operate in the open. That
isn't how democratic decision-making is
supposed to work. Advocacy is not the
issue. Any group has the right to
organize, lobby, and even litigate. But
advocacy groups need to be honest about
what and who they are. The MTC is not a
governing body, and it does not
represent Malibu as a whole. If we care
about Mal Malibu's future, which I think
we all do, we should be strengthening
our elected institutions, not allowing
private organizations to operate as a
second layer of authority without public
accountability. Thank you so much. I
also want to say, Mayor, thank you.
You've been doing a really great job
running this meeting since you've taken
the gavl and I appreciate it.
Okay, our next speaker,
» CC Lee.
>> CeCe, are you there?
» Hey everybody.
Hi everybody. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
» Yes, we can hear you. Go ahead.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
I want to I want to begin by
acknowledging that the city of Malibu
conducted a thor a thorough and
professional evaluation of the two
Norfolk Island pine trees at Cross Creek
uh road. The city engaged in certified
experts documenting its findings held
public meeting. I do not dispute the
significant time, effort, and resources
were dedicated to assessing these trees.
Nor do I deny the safety considerations
were raised. However, my concern is not
with the thoughtfulness of the process.
It's the direction, balance, and timing.
You crackies. At every stage, the city's
effort appeared to have been focused on
building a case for why the tree should
be removed rather than devoting equal
effort to exploring how the tree, the
longestablished habitat that supported
could be preserved. There was no
meaningful discussion of treatment
options, structural mitigation,
selective pruning, or long-term
management strategies that could have
reduced the risk while keeping these
trees standing. Instead, the trees
themselves were broadly labeled as
unsafe. First of all, if anyone see a
Norfolk pine tree branch, they're really
lightweight. They're like a feather. I
have a house in Texas where I have golf
balls swinging harder than the the
branches would ever fall. First of all,
they're not an oak tree. This is
troubling because by logic, virtually
every mature tree in Malibu could be
deemed as liable. When are we liable for
people's luck? It's more you're more
likely to die of lightning striking than
a tree branch falling you. And I, you
know, I apologize. I have hearts for
those people. But an oak tree is very
much different than a norol pine which
touches the gates of heaven. All trees
have been all trees have dead branches.
All trees require maintenance. The
standard response in the urban forestry
is not wholesale removal but risk
management, pruning, monitoring and
targeting mitigations in cases rather
than removing specific hazards. The city
treated the trees as a legal exposure to
eliminate it altogether. Equally
concerning is a lack of effort to
preserve or transition the wildlife
habitat that existed in these trees for
nearly for years. No planning was
presented to relocate or phase the
existence nesting activity. No treatment
stabilization or any of this proposed.
What I'm saying is let's get this tree
back. There's plenty off the 405 in the
101. It's a nor pine. It's the trees the
birds like. If you've ever tent camped,
you don't want the trees to move. We
want these trees back there because it
gives these kids a 20 second break from
their cell phone. We've already taken
all the joys and pleasures out of every
other existence of their lives and
forced them on technology that they
can't even eat. But we're over here
saying that it's okay to put a bay leaf
back into a native society. None of that
place is native. Okay? You're not going
to win with this one. We would like the
birds back in underneath the underneath
the same North Folk pine trees. Let's
add a waterfall because I have the exact
same structure at my place with the
waterfall. It would have cleaned the
poo. And let's put the trees back for
those amazing birds that are immigrants
to our city. And we want those back. We
do not want to become the land of the
pigeons and rats and mosquitoes. And
please ask everybody to turn off their
lights. It's basic common knowledge and
how a mosquito thing works. Please,
please, let's enforce these dark sky
ordinances.
>> Thank you very much. And our final
» Thank you very much. And our final
online speaker,
>> Joe Drummond.
» Joe Drummond.
>> Joe, are you there?
» Hi. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can.
» Yes, we can.
>> Mayor and council members and interim
» Mayor and council members and interim
city manager Dau. I'm speaking this
morning from India following the painful
anniversary of the Palisades fire, a
fire that destroyed my home and the
homes of 170 of my Big Rock neighbors
along with nearly 600 members of our
broader Malibu community. We hope this
year brings healing and progress for us
all. In our neighborhood, we also lost
two lives, Hack Wong and Betty Omira.
Their deaths are a solemn reminder that
this is not just about buildings. It's
about people, safety, and the cost of a
failure. One year later, recovery has
not kept pace with loss. I appreciate
Yolanda's update on rebuilding. So far,
only 22 rebuild permits have been
issued. One of those is ours, and we are
grateful, but we cannot start until the
rain cease. Hundreds of families remain
displaced, placing paying mortgages,
taxes, insurance, and rent while living
in limbo. 3.2 million for a seaw wall is
also ridiculous. That is not recovery
speed, and it must change. I'm glad item
A is finally before you tonight and
prioritize finally. Thank you. Because
rebuilding must and can move faster. The
city has both the legal authority and
the legal obligation to ensure
[clears throat] fire survivors can
return to their homes in a timely
manner. The governor's emergency orders
make this clear. Wildfire rebuilding
must be fast-tracked and streamlined,
not slowed by unnecessary barriers. That
obligation also extends to new property
owners. New owners must be authorized
agents in mapped hazard areas to access
the same postfire rebuild pathway except
for fee wavers. It is critical for fire
victims in their 70s and 80s who cannot
endure the rebuild process to be able to
sell their lots. If new owners cannot
use the same rebuild pathway, those
families may be unable to sell at all,
effectively creating a taking and a
significant financial burden for the
city. Concerns about corporate takeovers
or short-term rentals should not be used
to block recovery. The president has
recently directed Congress to curb
corporate acquisition of single family
homes, which should dissuade these
theaters. The state should have done
this. Many of us watched the lay let it
burn they let us burn rally in Pacific
Palisades this week. The message was
unmistakable. This is not just a fire.
It was a systems failure. And unless we
fix those systems, we will repeat it.
That means updating water infrastructure
so hyd hydrants don't run dry during
firestorms. Undergrounding utilities and
telecoms withce so hazardous poles and
exposed wires are removed and
neighborhoods aren't constantly torn up
or roads blocked during rebuilding.
Ensuring county fire keeps fire
motorways clear. And requiring the MRCA
to manage brush adjacent to communities
instead of allowing it to fuel fires
that destroy homes and native habitat.
perhaps enlisting the homeless to use
their machetes up there as as Halen
suggested. That made me smile for the
first time this year. Honestly, thank
you. Please let tonight mark a real
commitment to recovery speed, public
safety, and getting families home in
honor of those we lost and those are who
are still waiting. Thank you so much.
» And then that concludes our Zoom. And I
do have one speaker slip that got
paper clipped to something else. So,
Norm, you can round us out.
» Good evening, honorable city council
members. Uh, I'll be short. Um,
the issues associated with the reigns
um
have not gone away yet. Uh, have not
passed. Um, I was happy to see the
emergency extended because what happens
when it rains from a geotechnical point
of view is the water percolates down and
sooner or later it hits a potential
slide plane. When it hits that slide
plane, then you've increased the driving
force with the water and you have
decreased the resistance to to the slide
occurring.
There are many large slides that occur
three, four, five months after heavy
rains.
That's the first thing. The second thing
is I've often seen confusion between
building permits and construction
permits. People consider it the same.
But in fact, other people think when
they get all the approvals from the
planning department and from the geology
department and from all the other
departments, they think they've got
building permits. But they don't because
building permits are basically
construction permits and all they have
in their hands is an approval from all
the various departments in the city.
That's it. Thank you very much for
listening.
>> Thank you, Dorm. So that'll close public
» Thank you, Dorm. So that'll close public
comment. We're back up. We're going to
do council member comments very early in
the evening. Who wants to start?
Don't all jump.
I have more I guess questions and com.
Yeah, please start. Okay, thank you. I
will. All right. Well, um
so many um
so I was curious if the city has um
well, thanks for the public. I'll start
with the public's um I do wonder about
an K's radios.
Have we explored this model of radio?
Those radios are everywhere. In fact, uh
the CR team has a a radio that does
basically the same thing.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> That there's nothing unusual about those
» That there's nothing unusual about those
radios. And I looked at the license that
it is designed for La Habra is where I
think it was really meant to be.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> And I assume that she has a license
» And I assume that she has a license
ownership of the license, but they're
very common.
>> Got it. I might get one. Just have one
» Got it. I might get one. Just have one
at my house.
>> It's not that easy.
» It's not that easy.
>> It's not?
» It's not?
>> No. Oh, darn. Nothing is easy. Um,
» No. Oh, darn. Nothing is easy. Um,
Darren, did we So, did we move away from
electronic plan review?
I'm just curious because in his con in
his comment, he asked to go back to
electronic plan review, but I wasn't
sure if we moved away from electronic
plan review. Say it again.
Sorry.
Good evening city council. Uh we have
not moved away from uh electronic
review. Um most of it uh the submettos
are through an electronic portal. Um I
think the difficulties comes when we uh
do not have an automated system and
things are being done manually. I see.
Uh we also have the ability to do plant
check through a software that is called
blue beam. Um so we are also working on
uh utilizing that software to a greater
um
>> area so when a plan is submitted
» area so when a plan is submitted
everybody can see that set of plans and
that's what we have. We we don't have
that.
>> I see. So, so Blue Beam, was that what
» I see. So, so Blue Beam, was that what
was in the U Baker Tilly report as far
as the suggested technology that the
city because I wonder if we're putting
our energy into Blue Beam, which is
inadequate or
less than if we were to put that energy
into a new type of system, that would be
more
>> Blue Beam is a uh plan check uh software
» Blue Beam is a uh plan check uh software
system uh that most of the jurisdictions
are using. Um, additional to Blue Beam,
there's a permitting automated software
system that the city does not have.
>> Oh, should we have that? Should we get
» Oh, should we have that? Should we get
that? I'd be interested in looking into
whatever that is,
>> council member. Yeah, we're looking into
» council member. Yeah, we're looking into
that. And one of the things about Blue
Beam for most of these programs that do
the permitting software is they work
hand in hand with each other. So that's
something that uh yeah we're looking
into and kind of we'll provide
>> what is that name of the program that
» what is that name of the program that
you're looking into.
>> It's there's there's a number of
» It's there's there's a number of
programs uh and vendors that that have
permitting software that have there and
so we're um I think it was before all
the fires and everything else too. we
were kind of moving towards kind of
implementing some type of permitting
software and then we've had a
>> so we're it's it's still something that
» so we're it's it's still something that
we're kind of looking to and I see
Christopher can say some more yes
>> Chris maybe you could give us enlighten
» Chris maybe you could give us enlighten
us um as our resident expert on
>> yes
» yes
>> sure good good evening
» sure good good evening
>> adoption of new software
» adoption of new software
>> so uh um we I'm in the process as you
» so uh um we I'm in the process as you
know I've only been here about eight
weeks now. So, I'm in the process of
evaluating where our technology projects
are at. Um, the city did undertake an
RFP process, I believe, two to three
about two years between two and three
years ago that um identified Tyler
Technologies as the preferred solution.
>> Yeah,
» Yeah,
>> that proposal remains valid for another
» that proposal remains valid for another
few months from the the company. And so
I have re um engaged a project team that
includes our IT team um as well as
Yolanda's team to begin evaluating um
validating that Tyler is still the right
fit for us to be able to move forward.
And hopefully in the next uh before that
that um proposal expires, if it if it's
fits for us, we will initiate a project
with them. So we will be coming to
council with a contract proposal um
provided that is the you know we still
believe that is the best path forward
for us.
>> So that's going to that's the phase for
» So that's going to that's the phase for
the next few weeks.
>> Great. Thank you. I look forward to that
» Great. Thank you. I look forward to that
update. Um and then I was yeah I so I
helped with the Jeff praying the
assessor. I think it would be important
to Scott and Sala's point for us to like
look into how we can help support the
assessor's office with that tax. I don't
know. Do we get council consensus to
look into that for the next meeting?
>> So, are you talking legislatively help
» So, are you talking legislatively help
him out or
>> the lobby? Yeah, we lobby. We help
» the lobby? Yeah, we lobby. We help
strategically legislative
put pressure on where we can. Well,
let's go back to the Woolseie fire when
um what we did there. We made sure that
everyone's uh tax basis transferred to
their new home. Um that took legislative
action. I believe that's what uh the
assessor is doing. It's not a problem to
immediately reassess the property right
now um for the the damage done in the
fire. And that's one of the reasons why
the city only had a 1% increase in
property tax this year.
>> He normally would have had a 2% increase
» He normally would have had a 2% increase
just if nobody had done anything.
>> But the um as I understand it from and I
» But the um as I understand it from and I
had a conversation with him about this.
If you look at a typical uh tax bill,
it's got two components. It's got the
land and the improvements. And if the
house burned, they immediately took the
improvements off and backdated that to
the fire.
>> So that's already been done. So only the
» So that's already been done. So only the
land value is still there. And if you
look at Proposition 13 values, those are
very reduced as well. The real question
is about the going forward, how long
does the uh uh Proposition 13 values
stay with the new home or the
replacement home. And that's uh got more
to do with the 10% extra and so forth if
we like. I think they'd be glad to come
in from the county and give us a update
on that. Yeah.
>> But I think it's well underway for
» But I think it's well underway for
everybody. It's aladina palis eaten and
it's very common process now for the
fires unfortunately.
>> Okay, thank you for that. Um Mel's
» Okay, thank you for that. Um Mel's
comments about Carl Canyon which I had
questions on um an update. I think it
would be great if we could get updates
on I guess big projects that affect
everybody like the Corral Canyon corner
of PCH because it is a mess. I see that
work there has been halted. I don't I
would like to know why when they're
going to restart it and what the
timeline is if you have that information
in Trim City Manager
>> Dub
when they're going to restart.
>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll get that
» Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'll get that
information.
>> Okay, cool.
» Okay, cool.
>> There was a stop work order on that uh
» There was a stop work order on that uh
that work uh due to some archeological
findings.
Yeah, I would like to know when the
start work order is going to be in
effect after it's been about three
months, I think.
>> Uh I think uh when we were there was a
» Uh I think uh when we were there was a
>> I've forgotten where I heard it, but it
» I've forgotten where I heard it, but it
was Lee Haber.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Said that uh should be starting very
» Said that uh should be starting very
soon on that again.
>> And then is there like an overall
» And then is there like an overall
timeline like we have to live with this
for the next two years, nine months?
>> Two years ago it was supposed to be
» Two years ago it was supposed to be
finished or something.
>> Two years.
» Two years.
>> Yeah. Once again, we'll provide kind of
» Yeah. Once again, we'll provide kind of
kind of an over overall update on all
those
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> projects. Yeah.
» projects. Yeah.
>> Thank you. And the per are there such
» Thank you. And the per are there such
things as permanent channelizers or is
that not something that we want because
we want them to be removable like as far
as a safety mechanism because it seems
like these channelizers that we live
with and the medians are constantly
coming off and then they're in the road
and it becomes this update uh
maintenance issue. there any other
solution to that
>> for for those uh uh temporary
» for for those uh uh temporary
construction ones? There's that's what's
kind of needed if or but there they do
make different ones that would probably
be more u can last a little longer.
Those ones that are out there are
typically you put them out there that
they're not meant to be for an extended
period of time what we're seeing now.
So, I think they need to look at revisit
that for any type of long-term solution
for that type of channelizers.
>> Okay. I like the idea of looking into
» Okay. I like the idea of looking into
somehow where the city can have um
oversight.
I think Merryill asked Bruce if um there
was some legal
something in which the city could take
over if there's negligence or and we can
kind of assert
our power.
>> You know, funny you should ask that
» You know, funny you should ask that
because you asked earlier about what
benefit do we get from the declaration
of local emergency highway.
>> Bruce, I'm weaving. I've advocated for
» Bruce, I'm weaving. I've advocated for
the past year or more that we actually
do have the ability under that
declaration to take matters into our own
hands, but we've been advised otherwise.
>> Are we is there no nothing that we can
» Are we is there no nothing that we can
do as far as taking matters into our
hands? Calrans has jurisdiction over PCH
and
we can work with them is the better
practice to improve things on PCH. If we
want to try to make changes on PCH, uh
we would likely run into issues with
them. There is power under our
declaration to take some actions to
address emergency situations, but um you
will be taking on a lot of risk if
you're trying to make improvements or do
work on CALR directly. this risk.
>> Just said this goes back to I think
» Just said this goes back to I think
before you were elected and you know we
had debate up here multiple times about
the fact that we could just take matters
in broad hands and if it turns out we're
wrong you know let let Calrans go to the
courts and and deal with the public
relations of trying to stop us from
doing things that make our city safe but
was never able to get a majority of city
council to agree to take any action. Oh,
interesting. It came down to that to the
majority. So, um the Zoomer's crosswalk
is dangerous as we know. Somebody got
hit there a few weeks ago. Um but I
don't know the solution. So, we see that
there's these kind of dangerous
situations in Malibu over and over and
over again and this isn't going away.
So, what is the solution? Do we have a
solution to something that we know is I
mean, when does it become negligent on
our part? because we know that it's
dangerous. So if like the city of Malibu
is basically up here on tape saying that
this is a dangerous situation, at what
point are we taking on that risk just
inadvertently?
>> The so what I would suggest is if if
» The so what I would suggest is if if
anybody sees any dangerous situation on
PCH a crosswalk, let let myself know or
let public works uh staff know. Uh we
have weekly meetings with Calrans on
this and this and and uh that can be
documented on what could be done in
those situations. So it's a it's a it's
Cal Transit and the city have have been
real kind of meeting like I said weekly
and it's been very good collaborative
kind of work and so the more information
we have and the more kind of insights we
we hear from the public and and council
we can kind of reate that information to
them and once it's put on their
attention it does put pressure on them
to go resolve those situations
for them
>> and then it gives it gives us the
» and then it gives it gives us the
ability to kind of follow up and request
more information and see if there's
action taken from them.
>> Well, I mean, are there other mechanisms
» Well, I mean, are there other mechanisms
or warning lights or signs or something
we can put in crosswalks? Um, you know,
what do other cities do when they've got
highways [clears throat] going through
their city and they're noticing, you
know, I know like down in Palisades,
they added the extra even we've added
some places where we have more flashing
lights and things like that. Are there
other uh technologies that we can add to
our intersections to make crosswalks
more apparent to drivers?
>> Remember the roundabouts. That's one of
» Remember the roundabouts. That's one of
the things Cal Transit's going to do to
bunker walkways to the roundabouts.
They're going to have we hit the button,
the lights end up go across. So, it's
there. It's there. It can be done. It's
got to find somebody to do it.
>> It it's just it's Yeah, there's there's
» It it's just it's Yeah, there's there's
a lot of different options in in the
tool belt for those situations. And it's
just uh looking at those and getting
with Calransit to do something that can
be done there. There's there's a number
of things you can do. There's there's um
just just like council member mentioned,
there's flashing flashing lights and if
people cross, there's flashing can can
go across and there's there's
>> there's a there's a several different
» there's a there's a several different
options they can they can do that.
>> It's a signalized intersection anyway.
» It's a signalized intersection anyway.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like being in Hawaii
» Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like being in Hawaii
and they have flags on each side of the
street and the pedestrians pick up a
flag and walk across the street with the
flag. I mean, do we have to go that
simple just to get attention? Is
>> I saw some place on YouTube they put
» I saw some place on YouTube they put
bricks on the side of the road and it
seemed to have an impact. So, I don't
know.
I would be very much interested in
looking into some of those options.
Lighting, flag, anything that kind of
helps. This seems to be have gone on
longer than I've been here. I mean,
maybe it's time to look into different
options for crosswalks, especially the
one at Zumeres.
Um, since there was two accidents there,
I guess.
>> Yeah. So, we'll bring it up with Calrans
» Yeah. So, we'll bring it up with Calrans
with that.
>> Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Moving on. So
» Thank you. Okay. Sorry. Moving on. So
Brian Eric um Doyle problem sorry that
sounds terrible congratulate him
congratulations. Um so when he talks
about septic and seaw walls and PCH
shoring up right does is there an answer
to that or is that like do we know if he
has to pay for septic which he's doing?
What I'm hearing is then he has to pay
for a seaw wall which it sounds like now
it's going into the Pacific Coast
Highway shoring up. So, is there like a
clear roadmap for beachfronts with
regards to who's shoring up the highway
or if they're because the last I heard
it was kind of vague and I would love an
update on if CALR says we'll shore up
the highway and the residents don't have
to.
>> Yeah. Um uh at this time uh septic
» Yeah. Um uh at this time uh septic
systems and seaw walls are are the
responsibility of the homeowner.
Got it. Um the existing walls that are
right next to PCH, uh CLR has been
working with their engineers to assess
each one of them.
>> Um we have information that there is uh
» Um we have information that there is uh
about three three properties that they
own that [clears throat] that that
portion that wall. Um and they are going
to be uh shoring uh and and specifically
there's three properties
>> um as far as
» um as far as
CR paying for the retaining wall that is
on the um
property owners property.
>> Uh CR is stating is hasn't stayed that
» Uh CR is stating is hasn't stayed that
they're going to be paying for it.
>> Got it. Thank you. Um,
» Got it. Thank you. Um,
okay.
Oh, Michelle Shane, that sounds like a
great idea. I Maryanne and I will be in
Sacramento. We can work on that if we
have direction, too. Um, I was wondering
if the city of Malibu has a coastal
commission meeting representative. So,
is there somebody whose responsibility
to keep their eye on the coastal
commission agenda as far as things that
come before them like the uh parking
that's now coming to Leo Coreo from
their last meeting?
Yes, the community development
department uh is in charge of keeping an
eye on that. We also have recurrent
meetings with the staff from the uh
coastal commission. Um the last meeting
we had, it was in December. We're
setting up another meeting uh at the
beginning of March to introduce our new
city manager.
>> Oh, fantastic. Did you guys hear about
» Oh, fantastic. Did you guys hear about
the Leo Creo parking? Because Leo Creo
is in the city of Malibu. It's not. So,
you wouldn't even have heard about it.
>> Doesn't matter.
» Doesn't matter.
>> That's county.
» That's county.
>> County. Okay, perfect. I'm glad to hear
» County. Okay, perfect. I'm glad to hear
that you guys are on that. Um I wanted
to thank you all for um the extra hour
for the seniors in the multi-purpose
room. They're very happy and I really am
grateful and appreciative. They're like,
"Wow, two hours. I don't know if we
could stay here that long." I know it's
three. Well, you could cut it down. It's
an experiment. It's kind of like if
nobody stays then, you know. And chair
yoga was a su success next door
simultaneously. I was wondering, are you
guys um removing and replacing the
carpets? Did I hear a rumor?
Well, I think from some of the water
damage, wasn't there a requirement to
replace
the water damaged?
>> I'm sure it's under a certain amount, so
» I'm sure it's under a certain amount, so
we don't really need to know about it.
>> Uh, yes. Uh, thank you, council member,
» Uh, yes. Uh, thank you, council member,
for the question. Um, there is what we
did as a patch job is we had some extra
carpet tile that we replaced. So, um,
that's working out pretty well until the
the whole project will come forward and
we'll we will replace that carpet in in
the multi-purpose room and senior
center.
>> And will they will everybody go back to
» And will they will everybody go back to
the bluffs for that period of time or it
will be like an overnight thing and
we'll never know what happened.
>> We will try our best to do it on the
» We will try our best to do it on the
weekend so it doesn't disrupt
programming.
>> Great. Um, thank you. I was wondering,
» Great. Um, thank you. I was wondering,
it came up today about the green waddles
that are everywhere. Are those just for
So they're um I could be calling them
not waddle. They might not be waddles,
but they're neon green and they're on
PCH and they're on hillsides and they're
also in the medians. So I was wondering
if that's for temporary purposes for the
rain or are we planting something and
those are
more long term?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Those are those are um
» Yeah. Yeah. Those are those are um
protective devices that CALR place
within the median to prevent erosion.
And if they did some cleanup work along
the slope over there and and the curb
and the shoulder area and so to prevent
any more erosion, that's what they they
place in there to to help that erosion.
>> Got it.
» Got it.
>> What's the difference between the green
» What's the difference between the green
ones and the used to be brown ones?
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> The color.
» The color.
>> That's it.
» That's it.
>> No, I mean they're they're basically the
» No, I mean they're they're basically the
same kind of thing. It's just it's just
a different color. H
>> that's it. I mean, you go on.
» that's it. I mean, you go on.
>> Well, I was just gonna ask about plastic
» Well, I was just gonna ask about plastic
sandbags. Go
>> because I know there was an issue with
» because I know there was an issue with
um I believe there was
>> for the emergency rains and everything
» for the emergency rains and everything
um questions about some plastic sandbags
that were at a giveaway spot. I'm
assuming it was the county since it was
on their land that the giveaway was. So,
are we just making sure that all partner
agencies know that plastic sandbags are
not allowed and even in emergency
situations, we should do our best to
have burlap or other available?
>> Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That was
» Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. That was
something that just kind of came up and
we got with our county and they we're
going to correct that.
>> Yeah. When I heard about I called the
» Yeah. When I heard about I called the
county that same day and they recognized
that they were not supposed to give us
plastic bags. So hopefully we won't see
those again.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Um do we have an actual timeline for the
» Um do we have an actual timeline for the
skate park?
» Not yet. We're we're still kind of
looking at all of the lock all the the
uh the ponding and the mud and debris in
there to kind of see when when they can
really get back in there and and finish
up all that area.
Can I offer to rent some drying
equipment and some other things to so we
can get that board as quickly as
possible?
>> Stand out there with a band.
» Stand out there with a band.
>> Hair blowers.
» Hair blowers.
>> I I mean, the good thing is um with with
» I I mean, the good thing is um with with
this wind and and the weather this week,
too, it's supposed to be warmer, so it's
going to it's going to help that process
quicker. So, we'll see how this goes and
get the contractor to start going quick.
>> Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Kristen. I have
» Yeah. Okay. Sorry, Kristen. I have
another question for you. Um, there's
two or three burnt trees on the Bluffs
Park. They've been there on and off. I
mean, they've just kind of creepy
looking. You know which ones I'm talking
about?
>> I believe so. Yes.
» I believe so. Yes.
>> Are they our property or MRCA?
» Are they our property or MRCA?
>> They are MRCA property.
» They are MRCA property.
>> So, I believe that we're able to brush
» So, I believe that we're able to brush
clear that because it's 200 feet from a
structure. We're I think that we are
allowed to take those out with
permission maybe. But we should probably
think about doing that. We can work with
MRCA to figure out a solution. Um, are
you referring to the trees on PCH?
>> They're like on PCH right off I don't
» They're like on PCH right off I don't
know behind the community building.
They're like creepy looking. Um, burnt
just a reminder of the three fires that
we had. Um, it's like right behind the
community centers, so I believe we're
within the footage of a structure.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Um, that would be super. And I wanted to
» Um, that would be super. And I wanted to
thank the the beach cleanup crew for the
community community brigade who cleaned
the beach yesterday and um I would like
to join that in the future and bring my
kids. It was very sad to see how much
debris is still out there. The mangled
rusty metal bed frames. Um it's very
sad. And that is all my questions really
and comments.
Next
>> gentlemen.
» gentlemen.
>> All too.
» All too.
>> I'll do it. Um, [clears throat] first
» I'll do it. Um, [clears throat] first
off, I want to thank Candace Bond for
her service. Um, you know, she's not
here tonight to say thank you in person.
Hopefully, she's watching it or she'll
get it uh indirectly, but uh she was a
real gift from the from the community
for the community and we'll always be
grateful to her for that. And um you
know, Rob, thank you for filling in
until we get the next city manager uh on
board and looking forward to having him
March 2nd. Um in terms of things that it
did, uh we've had a very eventful week
this last week. We had the remembrance
program on Wednesday, uh here at city
hall, and city staff, I think, did an
excellent job with that. It was tough to
remember, um where we all were. It was
difficult to remember where we were the
same time a year ago. And uh it was deja
vu for some of us as we walked into the
multi-purpose room for um snacks and
treats and realized that was where the
EOC was and it was it was uh going full
steam at the same time uh a year ago. Um
I'll make a comment I made before. We
can rebuild, but we can never forget our
race of damage done to so many lives.
And um unfortunately Malibu's had a
string of uh bad luck on fires. If you
go back to the Woosey fire, basically
the entire city has been subject to some
kind of a flame issue in the last seven
or eight years. And um we got to do what
we can to keep the fires out of Malibu.
And when they are here, and I go back to
Chief Moron's comment, your house has to
be able to defend itself. And there's no
way to have a fire truck in front of
every house or one on every street. So,
we got to do what we can to make sure
that they're safe. Uh, I already
mentioned about the two deputies uh that
were heroes. Um, couple quick things.
Speed cameras. Rob, do we have a update
on when we're going to get those uh RFPs
out?
>> So, yeah, we So, thanks for thanks for
» So, yeah, we So, thanks for thanks for
reminding me. Yeah, we uh this last week
that we did do interviews with I believe
it was four or five different vendors
and um uh staff is kind of compiling all
that that information and um we are uh
going to be making a selection here and
and bringing out to city council soon on
a vendor. So that should be coming here
I I want to say within February or so.
>> Okay. And what's the timeline to put
» Okay. And what's the timeline to put
them in once we select that?
>> So once that's done too, right now we're
» So once that's done too, right now we're
we we are looking to trying to get um
the the big critical item is actual
polls for the for the cameras and for
the speed feedback signs and and we're
trying to get a date on when those going
to come in. We're we're hoping this this
spring. Um and and we're checking with
Calrans to see if they have any within
their stock so they can just trade us
and and get them even sooner. So I'm so
I'm pushing that this next couple of
weeks and trying to get an answer on the
poll situation because that's that's the
really the the critical path.
>> Okay. I know uh in a report from CHP
» Okay. I know uh in a report from CHP
that we get, they pull maybe one over
100 mph speeder every two or three
months, but when we get the speed
cameras in, we'll know who's speeding
and where. We'll know who's been naughty
or nice, so to speak, and uh that'll
that'll help us uh I think tell the
story on the fast system as well. I'm
looking at Michelle and u I think that
that data will be beneficial. So looking
forward to getting those cameras in to
see what we can do. uh on the radio. I
didn't mean to be dismissive of u uh
ENK, but
radios are peripherally peripheral and
prolific all over uh Southern
California. In fact, that's one of the
issues. The frequencies are jam-packed.
There aren't any spare frequencies. And
uh the one that she's talking about is
dedicated to the La Ham La Habra um I
think arson watch equivalent. And uh the
fact that she's got one of the radios,
that's great. I know she used to be in
Ahabra, but um we've got plenty of
radios here. The issue is not uh radios.
It's about the ability to have strong
signals on the tower for the sheriff's
department. Um the search team has got
its own radio system. Uh the Rick's
radio system is what the county uses for
the entire county with interchange with
other uh like the fire department and
the sheriff's department. Um the state
parks and so forth. Everybody's got an
interconnected system. You just need to
have the strong towers where they can
all work. So it's it's not a case of uh
trying to find another radio system. And
um if you're a ham radio operator, you
can use those radios all you want to,
but you got to get a license. in
technician classes. Take you one day to
get it. And by the way, most of the
search team has ham radio licenses in
addition to the uh city radio. Okay,
that's all I got.
>> Steve.
» Steve.
>> Yeah. Okay. First, let me wish everybody
» Yeah. Okay. First, let me wish everybody
happy new year. Uh I guess I didn't see
anybody getting arrested, so I guess
everybody was fairly calm during that
time frame. Uh, I want to thank public
works and I know it was Robert Tatiana
who led the charge to keep the roads
open and deal with all the rain. That
was a heck of a job and we do appreciate
it. I mean, made life a heck of a lot
better. Um,
there have been a number of articles
regarding people doing soil testing. Uh,
and in some cases they found out that
there were some debris in the soil that
they
didn't want to have there. Uh, and I
just I got two notes over the course of
the last couple weeks. There are two
programs that are free. If anybody wants
to do soil testing, you can get that
done for free either through USC.
They've got a program called clean uh
just Google that and they give you
details on that one. And then LA public
work, LA public health also has a soil
testing program uh that's free. I mean,
so you put your soil in a little plastic
bag and you send it to them and I think
it's like seven days they'll get back to
you and tell you what's there. So, if
you're interested, there's some places
you can go to get that done.
Uh,
I want to just note I I attended this
this uh
palisades remembers event we had here in
city hall. Uh, and I'll tell you one of
the at least from my perspective. Uh, I
mean, I talked to a number of the
residents who were here and it was I was
just glad to see that their spirits were
still up. I mean, you know, they're
still planning to rebuild. They're
they're keeping their spirits about
them. They're working hard at it. So, at
least I mean, I went home that night and
felt better than I I felt reading all
these articles about stuff that wasn't
happening. So, uh, it was just good to
hear. And then finally,
I was going to comment on our two
anonymous callers that we get every, you
know, this has been going on for a year
and a half now. Uh, ever since we voted
down the, uh,
motel, they were trying to, you know,
that brothers and, uh, Doug Bur are
trying to build over on PCH. Uh, and I
don't I don't apologize for voting
against that hotel. That was a bad idea.
Uh, and I'm not going to, you know,
just for your information,
the city has been in contact with my
property
and I don't have a problem. So, and I'm
not, you know, I'm not going to go
through the details. It's none of their
business, but we we have done that. Uh,
with that, back to you, mayor
>> Chris.
» Chris.
>> Okay. So, you know, the sergeant said
» Okay. So, you know, the sergeant said
earlier [clears throat]
with hope 2026 be better than 2025.
If that's not the case, we're all in
trouble. So, here's for a good year. Um,
so have a couple couple minor comments
and I'll get to um the more significant
one. Um, there have been a lot of
questions, Rob, about these various
items Mel raised. Um, Zuma underpass. It
seems like it was open and fixed for a
while and now it's not again. What
What's the prognosis? What's going to go
on there? I I I think it's an issue
about the sand removal and and I think
the the county and beaches and beaches
and harbor and Calrans are kind of
working through through all those kind
of issues about removing.
>> Is it going to be another year again
» Is it going to be another year again
before it gets done? And
>> no, I think it it's something that we're
» no, I think it it's something that we're
going to be pushing I'm going to be
pushing hard on them to try to try to
get that resolved. I think the issue
previously was that it they removed it
once a and they needed a a continuing
permit to actually do it from previous
years because it it's it's going to
happen over and over again and they got
to make sure that's kind of they have
the correct permit to to do that
correctly over the years.
>> All right. Thanks. Um you know and um
» All right. Thanks. Um you know and um
there's been some comments about an K's
comment about the radios. I it's one
thing I was to say cuz I I I think it
was unfair the statement that the Habra
Heights has not burned and I think she
said apparently they care. Uh I looked
at their very their fire hazard severity
map after she made that statement and
with the exception of a few blocks of a
multi- you know many many mile area um
that that that town does is not only not
a well first of all we're we're entirely
a very high fire hazard severity zone.
every inch of Malibu. Um, not one inch
of that area is a very high fire hazard
severity zone. With the exception of
those few blocks, none of that area is a
high fire hazard severity zone, a
moderate fire severity zone. No, no
severity zone of any sort. It's it's
just a clean slate. You know, it's like
areas of the valley here where they're
just concrete jungles. I'm not saying
that's a concrete jungle, but it's it's
not a higher it's not a fire zone. So,
it was just very unfair for someone to
suggest that um some other jurisdiction
cares and that the proof of that is that
they have radios and that's why they
don't burn. That's that's nonsense. Um
so for the past couple months there's
been this issue of this was alluded to
earlier by Halen the whether the U
rebuild rights travel with the land and
we all know that with respect to
planning they do that under our
municipal code and and and even under
the um coastal act when it applies when
you have a um catastrophe and you're
rebuilding it doesn't matter whether
it's the person who owned the property
at the time um it could it can be a
buyer um what has come to our attention
is that um the building code does
provide that in a lands an active
landslide area um unless it's the um
owner at the time of the casualty or
their quote was it authorized
representative whatever that means um
there is not the ability to rebuild
other than to go through some very
difficult process maybe even not at all.
So, um Trevor or um Yolanda or anyone
else that has knowledge about this um
what is the answer? And if and if the
answer is we just don't have an answer
yet, that's fine. But I we need to get
this clarified
>> clarification. Is that just for
» clarification. Is that just for
landslides or is it okay just for
>> landslides? Is it having to do with like
» landslides? Is it having to do with like
for like fire rebuilds?
>> It it applies to any rebuild for even
» It it applies to any rebuild for even
for catastrophe in a land active
landslide area. So, it overrides all the
stuff in our municipal code and the
coastal act and it it cuts off a buyer
of property from taking advantage of the
rebuild ability.
>> So, it's not the active
» So, it's not the active
>> it's not a landslide on that particular
» it's not a landslide on that particular
property, it's a landslide area.
>> Okay. Maybe Yolanda can shed some light
» Okay. Maybe Yolanda can shed some light
on that. [snorts]
>> Yes. Good evening. Uh this comes as a
» Yes. Good evening. Uh this comes as a
section of the uh county building code
uh 110
4.2.6. six. Um, and it states that um
properties that are lost on the uh an in
an active landslide are able to rebuild
[applause]
with uh several conditions. Uh the first
condition is that it needs to be a like
for like same area, no additional
fixtures, no additional bedrooms. And
then uh another statement states and I
don't have that quote in front of me um
that the permits the building permits
can be issued to the property owner
their heirs or a authorized agent.
>> Yeah. Okay.
» Yeah. Okay.
>> And so that is how it's written. Um, and
» And so that is how it's written. Um, and
after the fires, we went back to the
county trying to get an understanding of
where this came from. Um, when this was
added to the county code, uh, it was
added, uh, I understand on the n in the
'90s after, um, an incident that
happened.
Besides that, I haven't been able to get
a lot of information on why it was
written this way.
So, the question from the community is
since it's written that only the
homeowner uh their heirs or the
authorized agent uh can we can issue the
building permits, can they sell the
land? And so that is the question.
um talking it over with uh Trevor,
we started looking at
first it was a concentration on helping
rebuild everybody that had lost the
property there. And so we concentrated
on those homeowners that wanted to do
like for like. Now the question comes uh
what if how can I sell my property if
I'm not able to rebuild? Um we're trying
to find a definition on what an
authorized agent um can signify for this
property owners. But moreover, we are
also seeking
um the assistant of the county since
this is a section of the county code
trying to have an understanding of why
that was written and also if there is a
way to change it and allow the property
owners to sell the property. Um, so
that's where we are right now.
>> Thank you for that, Yolanda. That and
» Thank you for that, Yolanda. That and
that's consistent with my understanding.
Um, so
I I had thought I had heard that we were
a little further in into it than that,
but that's that's actually makes sense
to me. So, what I'd like to do is I'd
like to ask for a consensus to bring
back an item for the council to take
some affirmative action that would give
you greater ammunition in dealing with
the county, whoever, because I came to
the conclusion myself after studying the
problem that um it does require some
kind of a legislative fix. I don't know
whether the governor can fix it through
an executive order. I doubt it actually.
I think it does require some kind of a
legislative fix. I'll be surprised if a
proper interpretation of the way it's
written now would permit a subsequent
owner to um take advantage of the
provision. So I I think it needs to be
addressed. I think I understand the
concept was I mean if you think about it
in an active landslide people probably
shouldn't build full stop. um even if
the house has been um destroyed, nobody
though had in mind that there'd be a
catastrophe of this nature where entire
neighborhoods were wiped out. And um it
may be that an extraordinary situation
of like this requires an extraordinary
exception to the statute that they have
in place. So, um, I'd like to bring this
back as an item where we can maybe
fashion a letter of support or or do
something or maybe authorize us to
affirmatively work for our lobbyists,
but we need to do something not to
define a an authorized agent as as
someone who buys it because I think
that's a silly way to address it. It's
kind of like the only way you can do it
under the existing statute, but actually
get the county to agree to engraft an
exception for the Palisades fire and
possibly for other wildfires. Um, so can
we get a
>> Mayor the staff would support that we
» Mayor the staff would support that we
would to bring back an item to discuss
it. You know, I think we could bring
more information and options here for
the council.
>> Yeah, and I I fully support this. Um,
» Yeah, and I I fully support this. Um,
and you know, I've reached out to the
county supervisor already to initiate
conversations about this because I do
think it's something at the county level
that we need to work, you know, one
looking back through all the um the
original reason why they put it into
their code and then also they've amended
it several times. So, what is the intent
of what it is it's supposed to be? So, I
fully support that. I'm actively, you
know, reaching out to the um
supervisor's office to also have those
conversations because I think it is
something that it's time that we get a
better definition and why it's there and
and to um put the places in so that
properties can be subsequently sold um
regardless of whether the house is
rebuilt or not.
>> Yes. Thank you, mayor. And just to uh
» Yes. Thank you, mayor. And just to uh
give credit to the mayor, uh she put us
in contact with Dylan Sin. uh he is the
regional planning deputy uh with Lindsey
Horvat. Uh he is trying to set up a
meeting with the building official from
the county so we can have this
conversation um and see how we can
handle this for our property owners.
>> If I could ask a quick question, I
» If I could ask a quick question, I
understand the point that's been posed
so far about uh in an active landslide,
but what constitutes an active
landslide? What what is this saying that
everything in Malibu is in this or is it
just big rock or what? It's big rock.
>> No. And so we're not talking about all
» No. And so we're not talking about all
those 597 properties. They don't fall
under this. They only uh the only
properties are possibly the ones that
are on big rock and not all of them. Uh
what constitute an active landslide. the
state of California they have the
mapping um assigned and and and and
designated what is an active landslide
and this is where this information come
from. So uh we're talking about big rock
170 uh 70 some properties we lost on
that area
not everybody is selling the property.
Uh so it's for those that are would like
to sell the property giving them an uh
the ability to sell the property.
>> I would think in the palisades there are
» I would think in the palisades there are
some areas that are in that active
lands. I know the map now that you
mentioned which one it is. I've seen
that map. Um but I would think it also
affects palisades.
>> Yes, that is correct.
» Yes, that is correct.
>> Yes. There's several areas I I I mean I
» Yes. There's several areas I I I mean I
can I can provide next time that we come
to that to council with what um with our
conversations with the county uh we can
provide a list of what areas within our
burn area are the ones affected uh by
this section of the code.
>> Yeah. This the simple solution actually
» Yeah. This the simple solution actually
it may be too broad for the county but
the simple solution would just be say
heirs successors and assigns and and
that would fix it completely. Harris is
>> I'm definitely in favor of bringing it
» I'm definitely in favor of bringing it
back.
>> The other issue is, as I understand it
» The other issue is, as I understand it
though, even that that provision also
unlike the like for like plus 10%,
there's no plus 10%. Is that accurate?
>> At the beginning of the rebuild back in
» At the beginning of the rebuild back in
uh February of this year, that was the
first question from uh a lot of our uh
property owners on that on the uh
landslide areas. Um
the building code as you know chapter
one stays as is that is as the
interpretation of the building official.
Back in February um I was able to write
a interpretation for that like for like
to be consistent with our planning um or
zoning ordinance. So we did authorize
that no more area also constitute that
like for life plus 10 to be
>> aligned. No more means no more than
» aligned. No more means no more than
110%.
>> Yes. Yes.
» Yes. Yes.
>> Good for you. Thank you.
» Good for you. Thank you.
>> All right. Those are my comments.
» All right. Those are my comments.
>> Do we have this coming back officially?
» Do we have this coming back officially?
>> Sounds like it.
» Sounds like it.
>> Okay. It sounds like consensus on that.
» Okay. It sounds like consensus on that.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> I guess I'm up. Um Rob,
» I guess I'm up. Um Rob,
sewer update for those PCH properties.
Um what is the latest and when's it
going to be before council? when are we
going to make a decision on that?
[laughter]
>> So, um, yeah, we're planning on bringing
» So, um, yeah, we're planning on bringing
it back on the first meeting in
February. I'm crossing my fingers that
there's a couple things that we're kind
of working on, but I that's kind of
where we're kind of landing. I I think
we're in good shape to kind of at least
have a discussion, let you know where we
are with that, but um, so that's that's
that's where we are with the PCA sewer.
>> Great. Yeah, that definitely just to let
» Great. Yeah, that definitely just to let
everybody know we're keeping their foot
on the gas on that one so that people
can know whether or not that's a a real
possibility or if repair andor uh reuse
of their existing septic and and all
that's [clears throat] going to be their
option. Um so every time we have
Sergeant Sodeland is here. Is it
possible to ask CHP? I know they um give
an update to the public safety
commission on their work. Um would it be
possible to maybe ask if they could
attend
um one of our council meetings and give
us an an update of the work that they're
doing um on a you know even just once a
month basis so we can hear from them on
the the work that they're doing since
they've been here now what two years.
[laughter]
>> Okay great thank you very much. Um, and
» Okay great thank you very much. Um, and
then the other thing that's come up
that, you know, kind of going off on
some of the stuff that Bruce was asking
for, um,
it seems like historically we we've just
been kind of living with the, uh,
geological information in Big Rock and
it's been, I think, quite some time
since we've had a comprehensive
um, report done on the activity of the
landslide. the
um [sighs] dewatering wells. Um
could we initiate a a report of you know
what is the status of that landslide
now? Is it active? Is it dormant? Have
the dewatering wells worked? um just get
a so we just have an updated
comprehensive overview and not just
going on 30 or 40 years worth of
information.
>> So uh so we have our our landsite
» So uh so we have our our landsite
assessment consultant that actually does
all the monitoring and um and operations
of of Big Rock. They can go over the
data. they can go over kind of what
they've done and we can kind of go over
really kind of all the work um our staff
has been done to replace
probably majority of the equipment
that's out there from the from the from
the Palisades fire. So we can provide an
update if if that works with that or you
looking for
>> I think I'm looking for a little bit
» I think I'm looking for a little bit
more comprehensive. I think that's a
portion of it. Um, but and I don't
expect this to be done in a quick I mean
I think this is something that we're
going to have to do an RFP for and you
know do a comprehensive thing but I
think that there's a lot of questions
out there as to just how active that
landslide is. Is it you know is it still
mapped with the state of California and
should it still be mapped? Are there
things that should be so we just get
more information about
>> Yeah. So I I will get with director
» Yeah. So I I will get with director
Bundy and I will kind of look to
strategize on how we can provide that
information and see how steps we can do
for that too. But the easiest thing is
to get an update from our uh consultant
that's actually doing the monitoring and
operating of the big rock deatering and
we can we can provide that.
>> Is that y and associates? Ye no ye
» Is that y and associates? Ye no ye
>> it's like
» it's like
>> what's yay
» what's yay
>> yay yay and associates because I went to
» yay yay and associates because I went to
a meeting recently. Well, not recently,
but it might have been like a few months
ago where they did a presentation and
talked about the dewatering and the
successes and I think it was public
works. Um, but it might be good to have
that here cuz
>> I would also like
» I would also like
>> But how does that work within the whole
» But how does that work within the whole
comprehensive? So, when the geologists
are looking at a house that's being
built or in this case the rebuild of
over a hundred homes,
>> it it's it's a little bit more
» it it's it's a little bit more
complicated than that. That's something
that Yolanda and I will have to look
into and kind of strategize on how it
how we can present that information and
have a path forward on get you that what
you're looking for.
>> So, do we do do the other council
» So, do we do do the other council
members agree that that's something I
think that the city should initiate so
that we just have a more upto-date
>> I'd like that picture of what especially
» I'd like that picture of what especially
if we're going to be discussing this
council um authorized in a landslide
area. I need to understand what is an
active landslide. I've heard over and
over that it's not an active landslide.
What I heard from Yolanda though, and
maybe I misunderstood, was it this isn't
really a factbased question. There's a
map. It's the legal definition of the
landslide area for purposes of the code
is what the state tells us. So unless
the state is convinced to change its
maps, we're stuck with that designation
just like the very high fire hazard
severity zone.
>> Is that accurate?
» Is that accurate?
>> Yeah, that is correct. the uh the state
» Yeah, that is correct. the uh the state
of California has their own geologists
that do all the mapping for the state of
California on the all the geohazardous
uh areas and that's how it functions. I
will have to go back and and and see how
can the map be changed if it what is the
possibilities or
>> well you you shouldn't need to do that.
» well you you shouldn't need to do that.
That's probably something our council
can do. That's a legal question of can
the map be changed and if so under what
circumstances? I just think I've heard
for the past year that it's not a
>> it's not a landslide area and the
» it's not a landslide area and the
residents seem to be very passionate
about that and so I've been going with
it because I just assume that we all did
our due diligence. But if I'm hearing
now that we are questioning it, maybe
it's good to have those answers.
>> I said it's, you know, this is not an
» I said it's, you know, this is not an
unusual situation in the law. We it
really isn't whether factually we agree
or disagree with it. It's whether it's
mapped as such. So, we [clears throat]
need to deal with the state and get them
to not map it as such if it's really not
properly mapped.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> But to your point, I think if you go
» But to your point, I think if you go
back, this is where we have conflict
about what constitutes a slide area
because you go back two years ago and
the same homeowners in Big Rock were
saying it was an active slide area.
>> Right.
» Right.
>> Now, they say it's not, but yet the
» Now, they say it's not, but yet the
state maps say something else. So, we've
got to we've got we got to see what
we're dealing with here.
>> They were making the argument for
» They were making the argument for
purposes of local zoning decisions,
which we have discretion over. this is a
state law issue. We need to get we need
to have the state map examined.
So, I mean at the very least maybe we
need to have a little bit more education
of how this is determined, what the
steps are and um
>> yeah um we can um if council agrees with
» yeah um we can um if council agrees with
this, we can have our new geotechnical
firm uh do a presentation for council on
how the maps are uh established uh and
show you
um how those how those came about and
try to get information on how if those
maps can be changed
>> and then along with the other local
» and then along with the other local
information from the dewatering.
>> Yeah. Let's just Yeah. Let Yolana and I
» Yeah. Let's just Yeah. Let Yolana and I
kind of get together and we'll
strategize on how we can do.
>> Yeah. So, so even it's just an
» Yeah. So, so even it's just an
educational workshop so that ourselves
and the community can better understand
>> how this is designated and what goes
» how this is designated and what goes
into this decision and if it's still
applicable or you know if a slide could
be mitigated into no longer being a
hazard I guess is kind of I don't know.
Okay, I've said enough. All right,
that concludes.
>> I have two more points if Do you have
» I have two more points if Do you have
Sorry. Um I'd like to propose a council
item for who can attend the zone captain
meetings so that we can put this to rest
for the future. Um because I believe
that there's a Brown Act issue if more
than two attend. So how should we go
about that?
» Consult our city attorney. You can just
set an item and then we can have a
discussion at the at the
with the whole council and you guys can
decide who's going to attend.
>> Great. Well, I think that you know is
» Great. Well, I think that you know is
there a question? Is it a Brown Act?
>> Yes, it's a those are city meetings.
» Yes, it's a those are city meetings.
They they cannot have more than two
council members present.
>> Okay. [clears throat]
» Okay.
>> Just for what it's worth, I mean, I was
» Just for what it's worth, I mean, I was
going
>> I was going and and
» I was going and and
then H jumped in. So, I'm going to let
her go. You got them. I I'll pass. I go
to the
>> We could also do a rotation.
» We could also do a rotation.
>> I got other things I can do.
» I got other things I can do.
>> I think consistency is really important
» I think consistency is really important
on those things.
>> Okay. Well, thanks then.
» Okay. Well, thanks then.
>> I will.
» I will.
>> Do we have to memorialize that or put
» Do we have to memorialize that or put
that in writing or
>> is there consensus from the council that
» is there consensus from the council that
you'd wish to bring back an item?
>> Not if we've just decided, which I feel
» Not if we've just decided, which I feel
like we have, unless we have to vote on
it. But
>> um
» um
>> sounds to me like the it always is the
» sounds to me like the it always is the
case that two people can go and the
issue was just resolved by Steve.
>> I agree. I think it's I [clears throat]
» I agree. I think it's I [clears throat]
I feel good about that.
>> Yeah, there's no council action but if
» Yeah, there's no council action but if
if council member hearing is not
attending then there isn't an issue, no
need to bring it back.
>> And the captains are uh meetings are
» And the captains are uh meetings are
happening every Wednesday uh from 3 to
4, sometimes from 3:00 to 5:00. So, now
that we have the decision from council,
we will make sure to uh invite uh
council member Conrad and Mayor uh
Riggins.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Can't we just can't we just uh separate?
» Can't we just can't we just uh separate?
It's a public meeting. I thought we were
able to to audience.
>> If you're going to have three council
» If you're going to have three council
members participating in that, we would
need to go notice it as a special
meeting.
>> Even though we're spread out in the
» Even though we're spread out in the
>> they're not talking and not even
» they're not talking and not even
discussing anything with each other.
It doesn't fall under a ceremonial
exception. It's not a um community
meeting put on by a third party
organization.
>> It's not another notice commission
» It's not another notice commission
meeting which would fall under the Brown
Act as well.
>> So there's anytime you have three
» So there's anytime you have three
council members present discussing city
business, it's a meeting under the Brown
Act unless an exception applies and
there's not an exception that apply to
this. This is a city organized um uh
meeting.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Um one last thing, do we have consensus?
» Um one last thing, do we have consensus?
Should we put on the next agenda the
mobile home park? I mean, there's been a
lot of back and forth with some of the
mobile the residents that live in the
mobile home park because there's a
meeting on Thursday at 1:30, but if
there's something that they've decided,
we can talk about it at the next meeting
for council.
>> Well, can't the the head of that
» Well, can't the the head of that
commission just come and give us a
report?
>> Yeah. So yeah, we have an item coming in
» Yeah. So yeah, we have an item coming in
the first meeting in February for for
that for a revised or ordinance.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> So that's coming.
» So that's coming.
>> Great. Thank you.
» Great. Thank you.
>> That's it.
» That's it.
>> Okay. Does that conclude council
» Okay. Does that conclude council
comments?
>> Do we want a break before we dive into
» Do we want a break before we dive into
AA?
>> Okay. So we're going to take Let's be
» Okay. So we're going to take Let's be
back here at 8:25, please.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Well, yeah.
» Well, yeah.
>> Always go over. Let's actually be back
» Always go over. Let's actually be back
here at 8:25.
Okay, we're back. Um,
from our amended agenda, we're on to
item 8A.
So,
who's giving the presentation?
>> Bruce A. Hala. Okay,
» Bruce A. Hala. Okay,
>> Bruce.
» Bruce.
>> Sure. [laughter]
» Sure. [laughter]
Wish I had actually done a PowerPoint.
Okay, so
I'm hoping the council have all read
this. I know that the residents have.
Um, this is a proposal to adopt a city
council resolution
that will formalize
many of the policies that I think we've
informally already um, put into place as
well as put some um, additional meat on
their bones. Um, so I'll just walk
through them. I mean it starts off with
a just a general statement of policy
which is which I think we all agree on
which that we declare and by the way
this will not just be for the fires that
have occurred. This will be a policy of
the city of Malibu going forward unless
and until a future if we adopt it unless
and until a future city council were to
change it uh for dealing with um
casualties mass natural casualties of
this type. So it says, "We declare it to
be the policy of the city of Malibu to
facilitate the expeditious, efficient,
and economical rebuild of all structures
in the city destroyed or materially
damaged by wildfire, earthquake which is
yet to come, flood, landslide, mudslide
or similar disaster.
key now in substantially the same loca
in in substantially the same location as
the destroyed or damaged structure and
in a like forlike manner that does not
exceed 10% of the area height or bulk of
the structure destroyed or materially
damaged. So this is this is basically um
memorializing as a city council policy
that we want when there are disasters of
this nature to see rebuilds in a lake
like forlike manner. um and we want to
encourage them to be able to be done in
an efficient, expeditious and economical
manner.
So then we get into what what are we
going to do pursuant to that policy if
we adopt it. First of all, we're going
to ensure that nobody that works for the
city directly or or as an outsider is
going to impose any requirements that
aren't in the law. So, um, and and a
great example of that is you remember we
we spent a lot of time dealing with what
is going to be the base elevation on the
beach. And we did a lot of um back and
forth with staff and experts and we came
to the understanding that the only
applicable law outside of uh the only
applicable law was it had to be FEMA
plus one. I guess one could argue that
wasn't even the law, but that that was
the only applicable restriction that was
other than something we would make up.
There was no other federal, state,
county, or city law in place that would
dictate the height. But we needed to
adopt a policy of what the height was
going to be, what the base level
elevations could be. Well, had we
employed this policy from day one, and
this will be, if we have this policy on
day one going forward, we wouldn't have
had to have any of that discussion. the
staff would have simply looked at what
the law is, come to the recognition that
the only applicable law was FEMA plus
one and applied it and the city council
would not have had to have been involved
in that. The community wouldn't have had
to be involved in that and a lot of time
would have been saved. I'm not smart
enough to know what all the other
situations are going to be. None of us
are, I suspect, going forward that are
going to come up and someone's going to
say, "Well, what are we going to do in
this circumstance?" The answer we're
saying should be very clear. forget what
you might want to see done. Let's look
to the law. Let's look to the federal
law because that governs here whether we
like it or not, the state law, the
county law, and our existing municipal
code and don't don't impose any
restriction or requirement whatsoever
that's not already embedded in those
laws. Now, we also have the ability
obviously to look at our own municipal
code and say, well, let's liberalize
that. We can't liberalize it beyond the
requirements of a superior law, but we
can liberalize it where where it's more
strict. But any event, this says don't
apply any rule that's not already in
place. Don't don't go looking for more
restrictions.
Um, there's a provision in here that I'
I've heard a lot of comments about in in
in two different directions. It says in
so doing any doubt respecting and by the
way again only for like forlike
rebuilds, not for new build, not for a
non-disaster build and not for a rebuild
that's not in tune with like for like.
If somebody wants to build something
that's 150% of what was there, this
doesn't apply to them whatsoever.
So when we're doing that, any doubt
respecting the application of a legal
requirement or the manner of its
application, respecting a like forlike
disaster rebuild shall be resolved in
favor of the city's policy to facilitate
this expeditious rebuild. And to that
end, this is the one I' I've heard a lot
of comments in both directions. Whenever
there's a difference of opinion on an
issue that the director of community
development department defined as the
CDD director and we know that at this
moment in time that's Yolanda uh
recognizes to be a difference of opinion
upon which reasonable professional civil
engineers might differ. The city staff
shall defer to the stamped and certified
decision of the civil engineer. There's
other language in there. Now let's make
clear what that means. It doesn't mean
as some residents have said in
advocating for this, whatever my design
professional says, I'm now going to get
that and the city's going to have to
defer to it because your design
professional may be advocating for
something which the CDD director doesn't
believe is within the reasonable
reasonable range of alternatives that
are available under the building code.
What it does mean is that where there's
a range of alternatives that are
available, all of which satisfy the
applicable code, it's usually got to do
with safety, where there's a range of
things that could be done to satisfy the
safety requirement.
Some design engineers are going to say
we want to do the absolute strongest
thing possible. In fact, some are going
to say more than what's required. Others
are going to say, I want to do the the
owner of the property may say, I want to
do the absolute minimum that I'm
required to do to meet the law.
And what this is s saying is when it
comes to the staff, as long as in the
opinion of the director and and
obviously it'll also be lower level
people who will first look at the
question. As long as it's something
which does fall within that range, we're
not going to debate with the resident or
their or their design professionals as
to whether they ought to be doing
something better or more safe. as long
as it's as long as it's at the level
that is the minimum required by the law.
Again, this is consistent with the first
thing. We're not going to impose any
rule greater than the law. So, the FEMA
thing would be a great example. I think
some people have advocated at one point
FEMA plus one isn't really good enough.
There should be some greater um
allocation for sea level rise. We
wouldn't be thinking about those things.
It's just a question of what is a
reasonable application of the law.
Um the next thing is that we're
encouraging that every reasonable and
legally permissible effort be pursued to
liberalize the process for securing
building code approvals for again for
like for like disaster rebuilds.
Um
you know this is not an indication of
doing anything that's not both
reasonable and legal. So these are
policies. These are these are to to make
clear that we want to see homes rebuilt.
We want to see them be rebuilt like for
like as best we can and we want to make
it as painless as possible to do it.
Recognizing obviously we can't solve
insurance issues. We can't solve state
laws that are more ownorous than we
might want them to be. We're stuck with
them.
Um
this this says that we will where we
where that we find an issue that is
impacting our residents that we don't
have the ability to overcome. We will
advocate to the state that it look into
the issue and see what can be done to
help relax the requirement. The answer
may be there is nothing that could be
done. But again, we will do what we can
do to try to get the requirement relaxed
so that if it's relaxed, more people can
do more.
There's a lot of other particular things
which I think I'll just leave it to
others to comment on. Um, item four,
which I think is an important one, is um
that when dealing with the like forlike
disaster rebuilds, um, it's imperative
that our staff members are focused on
finding ways to get to Yes.
And importantly, this states, by the
same token, when we're not dealing with
disaster rebuilds, we need the staff to
still be focused on the mission
statement and the vision statement. The
reason for this paragraph is it's been
said to me and I agree with it by the
staff. How do we justify going out of
our way to bend over backwards to get
this done over here and then when
someone else comes to us and wants the
same accommodation, not provide that?
How do we how do we decide who's
entitled to an accommodation and who's
not? The answer is right here in a city
council policy. if it's adopted, if it's
a disaster rebuild and it's a which
means it's a lake like for lake and it
came out of a disaster, we're going to
use all of these tools in our toolbox
that we can to make it as easy as
possible. And this says when someone
who's doing a regular 5,000 square foot
build on Point Doom and they want the
same accommodation and they're saying
why am I not getting it? The answer is
right here because this policy of the
city council is that you're not getting
that. you're this is for the rebuilds.
It's not to say that you're not going to
get fair treatment if you're building
something large or new, but you're just
not going to get the special treatment
that we are creating for disaster
rebuilds.
Um, other than that, most of the things
in here are things that Yolanda has
already told us she has put into place
or is putting in place. And this is
again kind of codifying from a st from a
city council standpoint that these
things we agree with them. And one might
ask why why do we need to do this? Why
why bother putting this in writing?
Well, first of all, it it shows that we
support what's being done. Secondly,
you know, we would like to think
Yolanda's going to be with us for the
indefinite future, but who knows what
can happen. Yolanda, something could
happen to Yolanda. We want to make sure
whoever's in that position knows this is
the city council's policy. This is what
their marching orders are. And more
important, down the line, you know, 5
years from now, we're going to have
another disaster.
And when we do, we don't have to sit
down here and recreate the wheel again.
It's already here. It'll be in a policy.
Maybe there'll be new issues that'll
come up and we'll have to and the city
council then will have to decide what to
do with the new issues, but there'll be
a policy. They can pull it out of the
drawer. They read it. They know exactly
how to deal with these issues. They
weren't oneoffs for the Palisades fire.
They were things we learned about how to
make this process better. And we are now
putting our improtor on them and saying
henceforth when there's a casualty of
this nature, this is the way to approach
it. So, I'm sure I'm going to hear from
other council members what's wrong with
these things because that's just the way
this works. But I think a lot of this is
a no-brainer. I know the residents for
the most part want this and one of our
roles as city council members is to try
to do as best we can what our
constituents want. Um so this is an
effort to do that. Um to do it in a way
that doesn't put um undue pressure on
the staff in a way which I actually
think makes it easier for the staff
because it gives them further clear
direction as to how to do things. And um
Helen, you want to add anything?
>> Nope. That was sent same ditto.
» Nope. That was sent same ditto.
>> I think we can open it up to public
» I think we can open it up to public
comment and council comments.
>> Well, we can answer any questions there
» Well, we can answer any questions there
might be first from the council. But you
know the other thing is you know this
also was written as a result of sitting
here and at other meetings for the last
year listening to residents comments um
hearing debate on the council hearing
from the staff. So, it's it it it's all
an effort to um consolidate everything
that we've been doing for the past year.
What we've learned makes sense. It
doesn't address the things I think that
we didn't think make sense and it in
with hope.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> This or some version of it will get
» This or some version of it will get
approved.
>> I think that we've done a great job as
» I think that we've done a great job as
council. I think the staff has done a
great job. Like we've been through a
disaster and it's been a year and the
residents, we've listened and it's been
hours and hours and hours and hours of
information really and this is a
culmination of it. And like Bruce said,
God forbid we have an earthquake in a
year or eight months or something. It's
sort of just a playbook of what we've
done u memorializing this. So it's not
all wasted. So I mean I've gone through
hundreds of hours of ex- councsil
members meetings through Woolseie to see
what they've done. Things like this are
just important for the future to be able
to um to just kind of pull up and say
this is how Palisades was dealt with.
And I certainly do not want this to come
across as a criticism of anybody on
staff or in general. It just seems like
we're council people and we make
policies and this is a policy and it and
it and we've talked about it. So, we
just want to memorialize it. Um,
>> and if it weren't for the Brown Act, we
» and if it weren't for the Brown Act, we
would have sat down together in a
conference room and hammered it out, but
we aren't allowed to do that.
>> That would have been really fun if we
» That would have been really fun if we
could have done this [clears throat]
together,
>> but instead this is the process in which
» but instead this is the process in which
we have to do it in under these lights.
Um, that's it. I mean, I think I'd like
to define a flat pad that came up. Um,
maybe like being in building and safety,
you know,
what a flat pad is. That's something
that I need to clarify for my own.
Um, we've talked about case managers
over and over and over again. Um, that's
in number five.
Um,
continuous support, advocacy, problem
resolution. These are all things that
you they're doing anyway. It's just kind
of
putting it in permanence.
Okay. Um, any council members have
clarifying questions before we go to
public comment?
>> How many online speakers do we have?
» How many online speakers do we have?
>> There's one raised hand. Two raised
» There's one raised hand. Two raised
hands.
>> Give it 30 seconds.
» Give it 30 seconds.
Okay. Um, Kevin Keegan followed by Danny
and
Leah's here and Luis is here. Okay. Um,
and then after Danny, it's Darren.
» I am Kevin Keegan.
This uh disaster rebuild policy
resolution proposed tonight is a step
toward addressing the city council
specific action items Mayor Pro Tim
Silverstein described in his article
published by the Malibu Times in July of
last year. While overdue, I thank
council members Silverstein and Conrad
sincerely for focusing attention on what
the city council with its unique powers
can do to accelerate the disaster
rebuild process in Malibu. The two
council members are offering a
pro-rebuild path forward. Meanwhile, the
city's staff are doing all they can
within their current capabilities.
What's missing is focused policy action
like this resolution. I have a few
general comments and questions. This
policy resolution is forwardinking,
highlighting future threats of quote
wildfire, earthquake, flood, landslide,
mudslide, or similar disaster close
quote. This council has an opportunity
to better position residents to be able
to rebuild expeditially whenever
disaster strikes. Where appropriate to
help address liability concerns,
consider including a mandatory
assumption of risk and release signature
step if residents choose to engage in an
expedited disaster rebuild process. For
item number two in the proposed
resolution, I ask for consideration in
that paragraph of replacing the word
words must and should with the word
shall. Item number six in this proposed
resolution offers a real opportunity for
residents who are rebuilding.
Specifically, item six states, quote,
"There must also be a measurable time
period between submission of a completed
PV plan check or building permit
application and approval or denial
thereof." Close quote. What many Malibu
property owners want are estimated time
frames for rebuild projects. A time-free
zone around rebuilds hinders the
process. Giving property owners a
reasonable level of predictability
around what the time commitment for
disaster rebuild process will entail
would offer current residents helpful
incentives to stay and rebuild. Lastly,
item number eight is important because
it states, quote, "The city shall
establish targets, goals, and metrics
for reviews that are published and
tracked to identify areas of continuous
improvement." Close quote. I also ask,
can that statement in number eight be
revised to include approvals along with
reviews? So, it would read, the city
shall establish targets, goals, and
metrics for reviews and approvals. Those
are my comments and questions on this
resolution tonight. Please make those
edits and approve this policy resolution
for disaster rebuilds in Malibu. Thank
you. Thank you Danny followed by Darren
followed by Arno.
>> You have five minutes.
» You have five minutes.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
This is historical policym to meet an
historical moment. It is a bold and
visionary plan for the present as well
as it must be said the future. We lost
700 homes. We're going to lose more.
That is the reality of living in this
special place.
We choose how we respond to these
events. And it has to be said, we must
do better.
22 permits in a year. It is unfathomable
failure.
The low bar set by the Woosey fire has
somehow been outdone. It's as if we're
playing limbo with our own failures. How
low can we go?
A couple of points. Please don't let the
word self-certification
be heard tonight.
That's not what this is. This is not
self-certification. Self-certification
is homeowners going off on their own
until the inspectors show up. This is
homeowners and their professionals
submitting plans, an inherent peerreview
process, and debating reasonable
professional opinions. There's nothing
being done blind here or undercover.
Please don't let the word liability risk
words liability risk come out of your
mouth. Other jurisdictions are doing
this and they're doing more. Half the
homes in Malibu today have assumptions
of risk recorded against them because 20
years ago somebody wanted to remodel and
they were told by Malibu that you're in
a seismically hazardous area. Yeah, I
know. We're in Southern California.
So these waiverss of liability are
something that Malibu has always been
comfortable employing. Let's do it again
if we have to. In fact, I have one. Let
me read it. Recitals.
Property owner desires to take certain
actions. Property owner desires to
assume all risk relating to and arising
from the issuance of a building permit
for said addition, repair,
rehabilitation, or remodel work,
including risks relating to the city's
negligent issuance of such a building
per permit. Going on. Assumption of
risk. Property owner hereby assumes all
risk of damages to the property blah
blah blah out of the city issuing the
building permit. Release. Property owner
hereby releases and discharges city its
officers, employees and agents from any
and all claims for losses, damages or
liabilities.
We have these. So please, Trevor, don't
tell anybody that this can't be done or
it's even hard to do. It's in your
computer.
This resolution will provide a framework
for our recovery. you know in your
hearts that it is needed. If this city
has a hope of resuscitation, if our
businesses have a hope of surviving, we
have to get these houses back online
expeditiously,
efficiently, economically.
I'm staring at photos in the hallway
tonight of my neighbor's houses burning
down.
We have to help. We have to do all we
can. And I'm sorry you haven't.
Now is your chance. Please vote for
this. If you do not vote for this, this
most impactful of policy resolutions,
then you are directly complicit in what
continues to be a disastrous recovery.
This will be your legacy. And for some
of you, you will be running against it
in November.
22 permits in a year. You're playing
from behind. Now is the time to play
catchup. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Darren. Followed by Arno,
» Thank you, Darren. Followed by Arno,
followed by Scott Der.
» Uh, good evening once again and thank
you um for taking the time to listen,
but also thank you for putting this
together. Um it's it was a pleasure to
read that this was coming up onto the
council agenda again and um please vote
in favor of it. Uh earlier there was
some discussion about what is the lag
between planning verification and
building plan check and um my family
we're in that lag and the lag is due to
the timeline to design something. It
does take time. So this resolution of
efficient, expeditious and economical
provisions to help everybody reduce that
timeline is very much appreciated. Um we
submitted for our PV on December 1st,
got it on December 23rd. Our submittal
date for our building plan check is June
of this year and that's because of
geotechnical considerations, coastal
engineering considerations, structural
engineering considerations, MEP design
considerations, and the time it takes to
put together a planning application and
a plan check set. I'm also anticipating
an approval in October of 2026 and that
takes into consideration two rounds of
back checks if needed. I say that I know
it sounds crazy, but I've been
responsible and I've obtained u
approvals for change orders that are
upwards of 30,000 square feet within 2
days in hospitals and healthcare centers
in California. So if that's possible
then a 12,200 foot house on the beach
should be possible within 3 months. this
resolution is a right step in that
direction. Um [clears throat] I would
like to ask one thing and it's just
um to approve it and also to require uh
design professional engagement in the
process. This resolution defends the
intent of the code if there's ever a
discrepancy between Yolanda Tyler a plan
checker and the design professionals.
Well, it's the design design
professional's job to reference the
code, defend their design in relation to
the code, and that should be what we are
building. So, item one of this
resolution defends that notion, and so
I'm in full support of it. So, thank you
once again for your consideration.
>> Thank you, Arno. You have four minutes,
» Thank you, Arno. You have four minutes,
followed by Scott Dietrich, followed by
Janet Faulk.
Good evening to everyone. Have I could
you push that yet?
>> Could you give them four minutes,
» Could you give them four minutes,
please? Thank you.
>> Thank you. Once in a while, I learn
» Thank you. Once in a while, I learn
[sighs]
new English words. I learned one last
week. To shoe something through, like to
shoe chickens into a chicken coop. Shoo.
You know, real quick.
A lot of items, some only formalities,
took months to implement. Wouldn't it be
nice to have a plan in the drawer that
we could pull out when a disaster
happens and snap our fingers and do all
those things immediately for future
disaster survivors.
We had formalities that we knew we would
implement like for example the fee waver
program that took us nine months to
implement.
There's a host of other things that were
discussed in council meetings and
eventually approved like fee wavers,
MEP, AOWTS for beachfront, wave uprush,
fixture accounts, implementing zones and
zone captains, review time, fuel
modification, landscaping, and the list
goes on. Each item was passed like a
kidney stone.
This is not an invitation to go into the
weeds and dissect each of those items
for the purpose of derailing the key
point. I just mention them here for
everyone to remember that we did not
just spend time on educating the
rebuilders.
But that significant changes were made,
many of which need to be preserved. And
the key point is we need to be faster
next time.
We need to be prepared on a different
level. This is not an accusation that
those decisions took an undue amount of
time. A city had to be run.
There were other top priorities like
people dying on PCH.
Things had to be fleshed out and we
learned as we went. And we can blame the
people who made those decisions and we
can have compassion,
but it doesn't change the fact that it
did take a long time. We couldn't drop
everything and do only rebuilds. We
won't next time.
We need to prepare.
I want you to remember that voting yes
on this item doesn't approve a specific
list of things that will then railroad
future councils and the future city of
Malibu into do things that will be to
their disadvantage.
So what this
plan that we have in our draw will
effectively look like in detail will be
subject to being fleshed out and decided
upon deliberately, intelligently
and with discretion.
But each and every one of you by voting
on this agenda item will show colors,
show if you are reelectable or not.
because you will say yes to 8A because
you understand Malibu and have you have
genuinely comprehended
what went wrong
in this year
or you vote no because you have not
comprehended what happened last year and
do not understand Malibu
and what it means to respond
appropriately
to a disaster.
I trust you do understand.
Let's chew this through.
» For Malibu
and for the future elderly
and the future children
that will lose everything.
Thank you.
Scott followed by Janet followed by
Abroy.
» Good evening again.
» Bless you.
>> On
January 8th,
we were in shock. That shock carried on
through much of the year.
We're now over it. We've heard
so much input
on why we need this type of measure
policy decision by you guys.
I'm not a geotechnical engineer,
but I know something about mathematics.
22 permits
in one year
translates into 27 years to rebuild 600
homes.
We can't wait that long. Our staff,
Yolanda, Tyler, and the rest are busting
their butts.
You guys are working overtime. And I had
to laugh at that one guy who wanted to
criticize Steve saying, "You guys are
having fun up there." Uh, maybe not.
I'm a zone captain in Rambla Pacificico.
One of my neighbors
at 3294 Rambla is 82 years old. He got
immediately
into planning
and trying to move it forward. Now, some
of his delay was due to his geotechnical
engineer cuz I was talking to Yolanda
and I don't have that paperwork. But
there's too much that carries on and
goes on and goes on and it does relate
to GEO.
With this proposal,
I think it frees up
Yolanda to push things through. It's
going to make it easier,
not more difficult
because there's certain things that need
to be done. Now, what I do have is a bit
of common sense.
>> [snorts]
» [snorts]
>> And if a house has been there for 40
» And if a house has been there for 40
years [snorts]
and the slab's still good and there's no
cracks and it's certified by a
geotechnical engineer, you should be
able to assume
that it can be rebuilt like for like,
not even like for like plus 10. That's
kind of a simple assumption that I think
we could utilize.
So I do urge you pass this. It's a
wonderful step forward and it really
emphasizes that you guys are behind
rebuilding and quickly. Thank you.
>> Thanks Scott Janet followed by Abe
» followed by Brian Mayer.
Good evening to all of you. These
remarks are targeted toward putting the
requests in 8A into a sort of a positive
historical perspective on our own very
special city.
And to do that, I take you back to 1993,
1994 to the old Tanga fire that burned
369 homes, of which 268
were in a brand new city of Malibu.
and the Malibu City Council and the
planning personnel all worked hard and
helped our family build a highly re
resilient house that would in fact today
withstand the onslaught that came with
the 2025 fire.
And this was not a quick and easy
rebuild like the very first fire permit
after the 1993 fire. This was for a
literal like for like uh very simple
home, same foundation, the top of Big
Rock. Just a couple months to get that
permit. Instead, we put in a new
foundation. We moved ground level square
footage up to the second floor. We added
lots of fire resistant materials and a
variety of other things. All rebuilt on
the same footprint and within 10% of the
original size.
Now, without the support of the council
members at that time, that includes some
names you'll be familiar with, Walt
Keller, John Harlo, Carolyn Van Horn,
Joan House, Jeff Kramer,
as well as the city manager, Carman, and
planning director, Bernard. We were able
to be number permit number 32.
Okay. exactly one year
after the fire took our home. That was
November 3rd, 1994.
And do you know who was one of the
planners who worked with our architect
and our contractor?
Yep.
Council member and now mayor, Maryanne
Rigggins.
So, yes, you
>> I wasn't here in 93.
» I wasn't here in 93.
[laughter]
in 94. We have evidence that you stamped
it actually.
>> It's not me, I swear. [laughter]
» It's not me, I swear. [laughter]
>> Okay. All right. Well, you must have
» Okay. All right. Well, you must have
been there mentally
until 2005.
>> You're really a [laughter] good story.
» You're really a [laughter] good story.
>> I I know. I'm sorry. Don't cut our time
» I I know. I'm sorry. Don't cut our time
on that one.
» So, shall I take you out then? Huh?
>> Yes, please.
» Yes, please.
>> Okay, we'll take you out.
» Okay, we'll take you out.
>> As much credit as I'd love to take, I
» As much credit as I'd love to take, I
can't.
>> But we do believe you can do it,
» But we do believe you can do it,
Maryanne. Right.
and uh we know it can be done and um
council members and the planners you
know need the the the discretion and the
tools to do their job and that we know
you can do that. So, we are personally
forever grateful for all the help that
we receive from the council and from
planning uh and uh we we hope that the
current council can be sort of like
Walt, John, Carolyn, Joan, and Jeff and
get this move this forward because we
know you can do it.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Uh Abroy and Brian Merrick
and uh Mr.
All right. Well, happy new year,
council. It's good to see you. Um, I'm
going to make uh three points in favor
of uh the resolution.
Uh, you heard Scott mentioned GEO. If
you sort of take a big picture view,
unquestionably, particularly for the
landside homes, GEO is the number one
gating item. And I'm not saying this
from a city standpoint. And I'm actually
saying this from an overall perspective,
which is the homeowner is taking
it takes weeks and months for the
homeowner's GEO staff to get the report
back to them. Then it takes several
weeks for the city to review it and then
it's followed by several weeks of
deliberations over the recommendations.
So if there is anything which I know ADA
will effectively streamline that process
to an extent and there were other
discussion which is going to be helpful
as well which we heard earlier this
evening go needs to be the number one
priority in in terms of accelerating the
rebuilds. The second point and Danny
touched upon this as well is we heard
chatter that this is about removing
oversight or letting the homeowners run
wild. Um it's far from that. There is no
circumventing of any sort of due
diligence. In fact, it's the opposite.
When there is lensure at stake, people
tend to get more conservative and uh the
design teams tend to make
recommendations that are more
conservative. And this we have heard
firsthand from the city of LA as well.
The third point which is perhaps the
most interesting one is the chatter
leading up to this meeting is that
apparently ADA is a developers dream. It
is exactly the opposite of that.
Developers would welcome complexities
that would push the homeowners and the
rebuilders into the arms of the
developers because they have the
wherewithal, they have the knowledge.
They have the budget. They have the
resources and they have the
understanding to tackle all of this. the
homeowners and the rebuilders don't. So,
this is exactly the opposite of being a
developer's dream. In fact, the
developers would want you to reject ADA.
Thank you.
>> Thank you,
» Thank you,
>> Brian, Merrick. And then, um, Marissa,
» thanks again. Um I just here a little
bit to finish up on what I started
earlier which is you know for your
benefit to a certain extent but I'm in
favor of this because um I do believe if
this has been around we wouldn't you
know I think the city of Malibu
uh really fails a lot of the time
throughout its history by not planning
for things in the future. So I like the
idea that we're thinking about that. Um,
I just want to note that while we're
about to get our permit, I hope we're
almost 800,000 into this with all the
fees and everything that we're doing to
try and rebuild this beach house and
it's only 3,800 square ft. Um, so some
of the things that we ran into that
maybe you need to look upon would be,
uh, the fire department for two or three
weeks, I think it may have been solved,
but the fire department, you know,
requested a fuel modification plan for
our beach house. Okay. So, those are
just reasonable things, right? Um, and
finally, it got overturned. Uh, I don't
think Halen's question was totally
answered by the CALR thing. I did talk
to Rob. You should ask Rob again about
what we talked about as far as municipal
code of the city of Malibu requiring a
variance from CALR for all new seaw
walls. We're not really new seaw walls.
We're trying to replace an something
that was there before. And that's what's
holding us up currently from what I
understand. This is from my architects.
Um so based on this uh uh like what is
the definition of a wildfire? Is it a
declared disaster by the state or
federal? I mean or is it a wildfire just
like hey it started in the canyons and
it burned one house like who gets the
benefit from this? So what are the
definitions of that? Um is there a limit
on how many houses must be destroyed for
that to kick in? Right. Um and then how
much of a structure is does this apply
to like a guest house? What what what
exactly are we talking about as far as
that goes? And how much of that
structure can be destroyed before it
kicks in? What if only 50% or what if
25% of it was was destroyed? Do you get
the benefits of this? I um I tend to
agree with what I've heard up here from
these other people for the most part.
So, um you know, I just want to make
sure that there aren't weird little
loopholes for people, but otherwise, I
think pre-planning is a good idea. Thank
you,
>> Marissa. You're the final in person and
» Marissa. You're the final in person and
then we'll go to our online speakers.
» Hello. Um I my concern is with some
people who I'm representing now having
trouble based on the VE zone uh
elevations doing uh the BF plus one foot
because they're going to either have a
detached garage separate and then
they'll have to have an elevator to take
them to their front door or something.
And some of the property owners have
lived here for a long time and they're
senior citizens. One of them has a wife
in a wheelchair and he would have to
accommodate her getting it. The ADA,
there's no ADA compliance in the in the
rebuild formula. Uh I tried to look
around that, but I'm I went back to the
Stanford Act as amended in 2013 and
that's under and that controls FEMA and
our and correct me if I'm just not
remembering that our disaster was not
federally declared.
Am I incorrect?
I'm yes or no.
>> It was
» It was
>> it was okay. So even given that if
» it was okay. So even given that if
there's a a way to do a [snorts]
workaround because if they don't have
insurance FEMA or anything to replace
it, they're all, you know, underinsured,
many of them are underinsured. The ones
that have the VE zone of like 27 or
something are going to have trouble even
rebuilding and the cost to do that is
going to be a lot more for them. So I
think if we can find an an avenue and I
can go over with any of you individually
or something else to reflect on on how
we're implementing it because it's okay
to say footprint plus 10 but if you
can't even put it in the same place and
you have have to put it higher than the
previous house because you have to meet
the base flood elevation plus a foot for
your finished floor structural
crossmember. Then that's a problem for a
lot of these people. I've been running
into it. I've got four projects right
now that are having this problem. Most
of them are down by Tanga. And also
another thing I think that that if
Calrans wants to and this addresses the
septic issue too. If CALR wants their
highway to stop sliding into these
things, they should pay for the
retaining walls that protect their
highway. And and then that also impacts
the way that a bulkhead is designed to
protect a septic system.
Okay, Bruce is confused, but I can I
don't want to give you too much detail
because nobody understands it. I could
talk to you individually, but I think
that there are some avenues that that
might be helpful to them if they're
having trouble putting it in the same
footprint and not have to have a
breakaway garage or separate access.
Okay, Bruce is dying to ask me
something. I can just tell. Do you want
to ask
>> part
» part
I I appreciate the information and
knowledge you bring to these meetings on
these matters but I'm really having a
difficult time tying any of these
comments to the item that's on the
agenda tonight as opposed to other
things that we've been dealing with for
the past year. So is there a point that
I'm missing?
>> No.
» No.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> No, you're not missing anything. I just
» No, you're not missing anything. I just
I was just wanted to get that in because
other times when I've spoken I haven't
had the opportunity to get it in and
this has all transpired prior to those
since those other times.
>> This is a little sensation
» This is a little sensation
snuck right in here being the last
person.
>> I got it.
» I got it.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Um do we still have two hands?
» Okay. Um do we still have two hands?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Joe Drummond.
» Joe, are you there?
>> Yes. Council members, this item matters
» Yes. Council members, this item matters
because it addresses the single biggest
cause of fire rebuild delay, not because
it weakens safety standards. For
rebuilds on previously developed stable
lots and mitigated landslide areas, full
geotechnical investigation should not be
required. In Big Rock, we receive
landslide monitoring reports every
single year, which consistently show no
measurable movement for at least three
decades. Regardless, prescriptive
building codes already allow
construction in landside areas when
conservative design standards are met.
This is the law today here and
internationally. So, the mere presence
of a map landslide zone should not be
used to justify months of additional
studies where long-term stability is
already documented. Under current
practice, geotechnical alone takes eight
months or more, even for like for-like
rebuilds of homes that lawfully and
safely supported existing homes through
storms, earthquakes, and prior fires for
decades. Many built before 1970. After
Wolsey and Palisade, one of the best
actions the city took was removing
cottonsh from bu rebuild review. By
wielding their power over rebuilds,
projects were repeatedly stalled by
unnecessary and escalating requirements.
By contrast, when Yolanda Bundy
intervened, projects moved forward
appropriately. In my own case, a 64
square foot deck built before the fire,
she allowed staff to rely on a standard
engineering practice and deferred to my
licensed structural engineer. That deck
was negligible in size and risk like our
rebuilds and it remains standing today.
So there is precedent here. Meanwhile,
my 84year-old neighbor on Seabort, the
first permit issued in Big Rock was
required to install 19 quesons under an
uninhabited garage. Any practicing
geologist or engineer would tell you
that is overkill. Conservative
calculations would demonstrate this
immediately. This is about process
failure, not safety. Using conservative
engineering assumptions informed by
areawide geotechnical data and observed
historical site performance is standard
practice and fully protective of public
safety. Correcting this single
requirement could reduce total rebuild
permitting timelines to roughly three
months instead of 9 months to two years
and allow Yolanda or city attorney and
council to be seen as champions of
recovery. The current approach is
financial devastation. Families are
forced to carry mounting monthly
expenses and fees while navigating a
fragmented plan check process marked by
late surprise reviews that render
advertised 10-day timelines meaningless.
We support Miss Bundy's decision to hire
the Santa Rosa Geotechnical Review
Consultants. This must support recovery,
not incentivize complexity. You may hear
this item enables self-certification or
undermines staff. It does neither.
Engineers already carry legal
responsibility. Staff still review
plans. Inspectors and geologists remain
on site during construction. The city
retains full enforcement authority. The
governor's emergency orders require
cities to streamline wildfire
rebuilding. We are asking council to
direct staff to allow conservative
prescriptive engineering assumptions for
rebuilds up to 10%. Rely on area wide
geotechnical data and long-term
historical performance. Assign one
accountable plan check lead with full
disclosure of requirements and reviews
on intake. Enforce clear binding review
timelines consistent with state
mandates. The city is legally
responsible for enabling. We're probably
not prolonging the discussion.
>> Thank you, Joe. Please.
» Thank you, Joe. Please.
>> Next speaker,
» Next speaker,
>> Tina Seagull.
» Tina Seagull.
>> Tina, are you there?
» Tina, are you there?
>> I'm here. Can you hear me?
» I'm here. Can you hear me?
>> Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
» Yes, we can. Please go ahead.
>> Okay. First of all, mayor and council
» Okay. First of all, mayor and council
member, thank you for taking time to
hear what I have to say. My name is Tina
Seagull. Our family have been Malibu
homeowners for over 50 years. 50 years
ago, two families pulled their resources
to buy their dream home for $200,000 or
less. They weren't millionaires, just
two families who dreamed of owning a
home on the most beautiful beach in
California, Lacosta. Over 50 years of
four generations creating the best
memories any family could ever imagine.
birthday parties, fishing with grandpa,
swimming all day, baptisms, grunion
runningings, taking our blue and red
wraps all the way to toys and sports,
hickory burgers, and watching Endless
Summer for the millionth time at Mount
Vu Cinema. One year ago, we watched all
those memories go up in flames, all but
three homes gone, 60ome homes destroyed.
Walking onto that property, my property
last week, wall after wall after wall
covered in graffiti, I just wept. I was
one of the first to hand in person all
the documents we were asked to submit
with great hope of a speedy process due
to promises, fees would be waved, and
the process would be streamlined. Sadly,
those promises were not upheld. My plans
submitted long ago, rejected twice
already, still await the first step of a
permit. I'm so tired of answering the
question, how's the rebuild going?
Please adopt this resolution. Please let
us rebuild quickly so we can go back
home. Thank you.
>> Thank you. That'll conclude our public
» Thank you. That'll conclude our public
comments.
Hey, who wants to go first?
» Roshamba,
you know, listening to the comments, I
got I guess a one one
major impression. No matter what we do,
it's not going to be good enough. No
matter what we do, I mean, yeah, we
listen to again, we had this topic on
the agenda, this this and we were all
over the place. Uh, and that's going to
make it more difficult.
I guess I got two thoughts.
one
the
as Bruce described it and I still think
falls under the category of
self-certification of the uh
applicants engineer can developer
whatever the heck it is trying to come
up with a range of what is is available
or not available and whether how how
they get the city planner to agree that
that range is is exists
and how they're going to how they're
going to pick and choose from that I
don't understand yet. I mean, I just
think that prevent presents more
complexity to the whole building issue.
The second thing I think we just got to
realize just because I put a piece of
paper together that says, you know,
we're going to this is going to get done
in four days, doesn't mean it's going to
happen that way. I don't know how many
of you have worked inside of a
corporation trying to get things done
and you got to go back. I mean, we
started off with nothing, right? I mean,
this this was a we went from zero to
however many miles an hour we're going
through right now. It took us a while to
get there. You don't do that overnight.
And I'm just afraid if we sit down and
say, "Okay, we're going to get it done
in 4 days or 5 days, and that's going to
be the absolute limit of what we're
going to do."
We're going to make people because
you're not always going to get there. I
mean, I think everybody's trying and I
think if I've if I've seen anything take
place, we you know, we talked about it
earlier in the meeting. I think Yolanda
has made huge strides in making this
thing work better. Uh and I think there
are more strides to come. I think she's
got a huge task of trying to train all
these consultants you got in there. You
got to keep those guys on track. That
just that's not easy. I mean, we had we
had to bring in a whole new staff of
people to try and get all this stuff
done. and that has certainly slowed
things down. And I don't think this
resolution is going to make a difference
in that. So, I've got some concerns
about what this is actually going to
accomplish for us or how it's going to
meet the the comments I heard two folks
giving us. Right. I mean, I don't know
if it's going to get you what you want.
Uh I may have more to say or let
somebody else go for a while.
» Okay. Um,
first off, I hear this hear the cries
for making things work better.
And if you look back on what the city
has done, and I'm not trying to take uh
say we have we could have done things
better. We changed the municipal code.
We got the governor to change rules for
sequo and uh coastal commission that are
permanent. These are built into the
Malibu Municipal Code. Now, we've made
major changes to get to where we are.
And don't forget this city. When when I
got voted in to this office, the city's
philosophy was do everything you can to
not have a building be added to this
inventory. And that's part of what's
actually written into this. You know,
there's two different rules. Rebuilds
are one thing. Uh new construction is
another. So yeah, we had a system set up
that was designed to slow walk
everything as opposed to expedite
anything. We made some pretty good
changes to that and a lot of these are
permanent changes. So yeah, it's it's a
different world than we had a year ago
tonight, but we still need things to be
improved and Yolanda has done a lot of
things to make things better. We hadn't
even implemented the Baker Tilly report
which was a critical part about how we
could make our planning and building and
safety process better that would even
even considered. So there's a lot of a
lot of baggage that need to be cleared
out of the way. Now, I'm not saying this
isn't a step in the right direction, but
I got a lot of problems with this. And
I've also heard some words that people
have said in the uh public comments that
are designed to say, if you take this
route, you're wrong. Well, let's see if
we really are wrong. And let me take you
through a couple of things. First off, I
got a question to Bruce and Halen. Why
didn't you have the city staff uh
associate with you on this? It's one
thing to have the council which has to
do this in public, but why is this not
as it says in here, the attached
resolution in this report was provided
by Mayor Pro Tim Silverstein and council
member Conrad. This report does not
contain analysis or recommendations
prepared by the staff. We have some of
the best people in town and in the area
and we didn't talk to them. How come?
Halen
>> because we're elected officials and we
» because we're elected officials and we
are these are policies.
>> We spoke to them.
» We spoke to them and we're this is our
this is inside of our purview from what
I've understood. We're council. This is
we make policy. This is policy. We did
speak to them. I spoke to them.
>> How that? So yeah, the the answer is
» How that? So yeah, the the answer is
first of all, it's it's not an accurate
um premise that there was no
conversation. So it's it's kind of like
when did you stop beating your wife type
question and I know it wasn't
intentional. Um but the fact is we did
have conversations. I'm going to come
back to them, but we've been operating
without a city manager for a year. When
this fire came, we didn't have our
permanent city manager. he had gone aw.
We did bring in a very competent
interim, but it was an interim who was
who was here more to um keep the peace
and make sure the lights stayed on and
and and and provide an empathetic view
to the residents cuz she was a resident,
but she was not a city manager who had
the ability to deal with these kinds of
policy issues, big picture issues. So,
we didn't have a city manager. Um, even
the subordinate staff at the senior
level was gone. They ditched us after
the fire. In fact, [clears throat] they
ditched us because they didn't like the
fact that the city council was making
policy decisions that were um that that
ultimately redounded to everybody's
benefit. They were upset with the fact
that they thought we were outside of our
lane, but we weren't. We were actually
completely in our lane. Um, Yolanda is
stretched ridiculously thin. She's
concentrating on running the [snorts]
program, not designing the program.
She's even working on that, too. But
she's stretched extremely thin. So is
Tyler. And it's not our job to speak
with the um subordinate staff. We don't
we actually aren't even allowed to. So
we came to all we had all these town
hall meetings. We had multiple special
city council meetings. There was all
kinds of input from the staff, from the
residents, from other city council
members. And as a result of taking all
of that in, we took the laboring ore of
actually writing something up because we
didn't have a staff that had the
bandwidth or in the case of the senior
management, the experience to do it. We
stepped up to the plate and we did what
needed to be done. We then did meet with
Tyler and Yolanda and we heard their
comments. They weren't happy with
everything we did. But you know what? As
much as we love them and want them to um
do the great job they're doing, it is,
as Halen just said, our job to establish
the policies and the rules, and it's
their job to implement them. And we try
we actually made a lot of changes to the
language to accommodate concerns that
were raised by Yolanda and Tyler about
some things that maybe we had gone
further than they we had gone even
further than they much we' gone further
than they would like in some areas that
we kept it but in other areas where we
were receptive to the comments and we
made changes and now we can hash it out
but I don't think it's a basis for
rejecting this that um well said it's
not a basis for rejecting that we deal
with the staff because we actually did
and you know if if the question is why
didn't you deal with the lower level
staff again you know as well as I do
we're not even allowed to do that
>> right
» right
>> but but we did
» but but we did
>> we are not in ordinary times
» we are not in ordinary times
>> right and the way that I see it this is
» right and the way that I see it this is
policy and we're policy makers and
people have I mean they've elected us
we're in a position we're not
implementers
we are looking at problems and we are
supposed to solve them and we're
supposed to put them into policy
And then we go to the staff who's
extremely competent and they implement
it. And this is us doing our job in my
opinion. And I would be very proud of a
council that would be doing this if I
was on that side of the audience.
» Other questions?
>> Well, I have other questions. Uh, I hear
» Well, I have other questions. Uh, I hear
you, but I will I would take a
disagreement on this because one of the
things that you learn in leading large
numbers of people is you have to build a
consensus. People have to be willing to
follow you, not just take your orders.
And that's the difference between policy
100% versus consensus building. And I
would I'm not going to put them on the
spot, but I'd love to know whether or
not Yolanda and the rest of the staff
thinks this is a something that ought to
be implemented or not or how which parts
they disagree with. But we're not going
to do that tonight.
>> Well, just a comment that you know, you
» Well, just a comment that you know, you
know, all my career, we both had very
successful careers in different areas
and a lot of people that have been very
successful in both those areas do it
based on the belief that consensus
building is critical. And a lot of
others do it on the basis that they
actually understand what needs to be
done and they get it done whether other
people agree or not. Uh and there are
plenty of failures in both ways and
there are plenty of successes in both
ways. One of those ways over the other
is not necessarily better. The result is
what matters.
>> That's right. And that's that's one of
» That's right. And that's that's one of
the things you want to try and ensure.
And I think building a consensus is
better. But that's all right. We'll get
past that. Um I am a little taken back
by the uh comment recommended action at
the request of the mayor pro Tim and
Silverstein and council member Conrad
discuss and provide direction on the
attached resolution.
>> But this is because the staff didn't put
» But this is because the staff didn't put
this together. Look, let's go back to
how this city council works and what our
resolutions are and how we work. We all
have the ability to make propose council
member proposals.
The staff also puts things on the
agenda. When they put them on the
agenda, they prepare a report.
>> When we prepare something, they don't
» When we prepare something, they don't
create a report for us. In fact, this,
you know, this is one of the reasons I
ran for city council 5 years ago for the
first time. I was offended by the fact
that the staff was micromanaging the
city council. And I don't mean the staff
at the staff as in like Yolanda's level.
I mean the then city manager. They were
micro she was micromanaging the city
council. City council couldn't get
anything on an agenda that it wanted
unless it went through the boss, but
that was not the right boss. So, we
don't get the staff won't prepare report
for us when we do something like this.
The only way we can get a staff report
is if we take six months to go through
this consensus building activity and
have it changed in all kinds of ways and
have them then prepare a report. That's
their recommendation. Okay? But that's
this is not a staff recommendation. This
is a city council member recommendation.
It's from two out of five.
>> And [snorts and clears throat] I think
» And [snorts and clears throat] I think
that
we're entitled to the respect of having
it reviewed on the merits and the mere
fact that we presented it as opposed to
the staff presenting it is not in and of
itself a meaningful objection.
>> Now, my my question was really what are
» Now, my my question was really what are
you asking this council to do?
>> Adopt this resolution, right?
» Adopt this resolution, right?
>> It says direction. I was just trying to
» It says direction. I was just trying to
figure out because it says direction on
the attached resolution.
Yeah, the direction would be approve the
resolution. You know, look, we didn't
write this. We didn't even write this
this okay, this front report. We didn't
have any approval of this front report.
I would have written it differently.
>> All right. Um,
» All right. Um,
I don't have a problem with much of
what's in here, but I do have a problem
with your number one and number two
paragraphs. And one of the comments I
want to read back uh I've heard several
times about the geology
people have been reaching out to Santa
Rosa um to get their input and there's
really two different versions of their
input uh from Santa Rosa and I want to
read the part about geology. Uh this is
from the chief building official in fact
last week uh I guess it's uh Jimmy Bliss
and he says and this is addressed to uh
Joe Drummond and a variety of other
people and I'm included on this along
with I think some of the city the
council members and here's the quote the
California building and residential
codes do not allow the building official
to wave requirements in general only to
interpret them. see the California
residential code. So and so many of the
properties destroyed by our fires were
up in the hills and the combination of
fire and subsequent demolition grading
operations significantly changed many of
the soil properties conditions in those
areas. In the hills here, it is quite
common for the slope and state of the
soil to require a geotechnical report
anyways and the reports typically
recommend peer and great beam
foundations on a case-byase basis where
we were sometimes able to accept mostly
in the flatter regions affected by the
fires older geotechnical reports for
those properties of subdivisions. The
only time the building official can
allow work to proceed without a
geological report is when they have
sufficient evidence knowledge of a
specific site to determine the proposed
design is okay without it. Anywhere
affected by, in their case, bay mud,
sandy soils, landslide areas, expansive
soils, compressible soils, or areas on
significant slopes would not typically
fall in this category. Geotechnical
reports are an important part of
ensuring your future homes and
businesses are built in a safe manner.
Um, I'd also highlight the fact that,
you know, you're not doing this just for
the home that's being built, but for
everybody around it. To be downs slope
of a failing hillside. Just a second.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yeah. Just downs slope of a failing
» Yeah. Just downs slope of a failing
hillside where a house is going to fall
on your house. That's not the that's not
just a concern of the home builder of
the home that's failing, but it's
everybody around it, not to mention the
values of properties,
especially when it could have been uh
avoided by having the proper
construction.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I I I concur 100% with
» Yeah. Yeah. I I I concur 100% with
everything you just said, and I've said
it myself in the past, and there's
absolutely nothing in the language here,
if you read it word for word, that says
anything to the contrary.
>> All right. I disagree, I disagree. Um,
» All right. I disagree, I disagree. Um,
>> so let's talk about the language.
» so let's talk about the language.
>> Well, let's talk about structure here.
» Well, let's talk about structure here.
You got two different ideas. And I know
the comment was made. Let's don't make
this self-certification. Well, wait a
minute. What is this? When you look at
number one, it says to that end,
whenever there's a difference of opinion
on an issue that the director of
community development department
recognizes to be different of opinion
upon which reasonable professional civil
engineers might differ, the city staff
shall defer to the stamped and certified
decision of the civil engineer employed
by the applicant so long as the engineer
is a California licensed civil engineer
experienced in a particular practice
that's implicated by this controversy
and so forth.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
Now what that does is say in
self-certification
the homeowner or builder is responsible
and takes the liability for hold on for
the for a self-certification. In fact
it's recorded as such on the title. Now
uh on the title report what you've done
though here is to say that if you give
me a u
engineering report say geology or
structural and we don't agree with it
your applicant wins.
>> No hold on it's what that's the way I'm
» No hold on it's what that's the way I'm
reading it. But hold on and if that's
the case we're going to issue a building
permit and now the city takes the
responsibility.
>> Okay. So, so it doesn't No, but this is
» Okay. So, so it doesn't No, but this is
the point. It doesn't say that. But to
the extent you're concerned that it
suggests that, that's the point of this
discussion now is we should tweak the
words to get to the point where we all
reach an agreement on what it should
mean.
>> But [snorts] let let me just give you an
» But [snorts] let let me just give you an
analogy because I was thinking about
this in response to Steve's comment too
earlier
>> where he said that um it looks like a
» where he said that um it looks like a
version of self-certification. And I I
am not sufficiently versed in building
code issues to be able to give a
specific example in the building code.
Maybe Yolanda can let me let me just but
I'll give you an analogy in the law
which I think works pretty well. When um
there's a jury decision or or at a bench
trial, a judge's decision, and somebody
appeals, the question on appeal is not
is the party who lost
right in the arguments about why they
shouldn't have lost. The question isn't
should the party have who won should
they have won. The question is, is there
a basis in the record to support the
decision that the jury or the judge
reached?
What this is intended to do, and and
that's [clears throat] a pretty that's a
more liberal standard than this, by the
way. What this is intended to do is say
when the appellet judge here, Yolanda or
whoever's in Yolanda's seat at the time,
looks at a range of alternatives and the
and the one that is being advocated by
the homeowner is within one of those
alternatives that she believes is fair
and appropriate and fits the the
requirements. Then notwithstanding the
fact that she might personally have
reached a different decision had she
been on the jury, she'll affirm the
decision that's being presented to her
because it falls within a range of
reasonable approaches. It doesn't say
that if it isn't within that range in
her judgment that she will approve it.
It says that if it's in that range, so
so long as it hits the range, even if
it's at the bottom end, and she likes to
be more cautious than that, and she
would rather them be 20% better than the
minimum requirement, she won't impose
that requirement on them because they've
hit the minimum that they're required
to. So, she's saying, "If I were on the
jury, I might not have I might not have
ruled for that party, but I understand
why that party won. It's a fair and just
result, and I'm going to therefore go
with it." Okay, Bruce, we're not done
court of law, but let me give you let me
give you a 100% example of why this is
fatal. And I also will tell you why this
is a developer's dream.
>> A developer that wants to do a lake for
» A developer that wants to do a lake for
lake rebuild.
>> You bet.
» You bet.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> let's take my house built in 1998 to
» let's take my house built in 1998 to
2000. I have a very wellrespected
architect engineer came up and said,
"For my house, it's going to have a And
the contractors out here don't know
this. A post-tension slab
came to the city and they said, "Not so
fast. You're on a hillside slope. You
need 23 quesons.
The extra cost in 2000 was about
$100,000. Today that's $500,000. That's
within the range you just described. A
post-tension slab by a a contractor
that's experienced in Malibu versus what
the city required.
Now, 20 years later, the hillside down
the street from me failed. $7 million to
fix the project and
my house, one of the comforts I had was
I'm on 23 quesons. The house had it been
on just a post-tension slab might have
moved more and we would have a different
problem. But here's the advant here's
what happens. And let's take our guys in
New Zealand just to pick on them for a
minute. who some of the people that are
that are uh promoting some of this may
actually have a relationship with them.
They're going to have this property
these units constructed in China
and you can have a California engineer
in China certify whatever they're doing
structural design and so forth. How's
the city going to uh override that with
your language that says that there's a
range of possibilities within uh their
determination, professional
determination? And the answer is well,
you might lose your license.
>> No, the city's not overriding anything.
» No, the city's not overriding anything.
City's not overriding anything. The city
is in the first instance evaluating the
proposal.
>> Let me and this is where you get a
» Let me and this is where you get a
question. Who is right? So you got the
engineer in China who is certified by
California is licensed and he says or
she says I think this structural design
works. It works for us in other places.
It's within the range of possibilities
>> aso as opposed to having the city decide
» aso as opposed to having the city decide
what's what's competent or not. Now hold
on Bruce. If you've got 16 lots and you
can build them for a half a million
dollars cheaper, the developer just
picks up $8 million worth of profit.
>> You're creating a straw man.
» You're creating a straw man.
>> No, I'm not creating a straw man. I'm
» No, I'm not creating a straw man. I'm
giving you an example of where this is
going to go. And the reason why I say
this, if you had self-certification,
the homeowner, developer would have to
be responsible for it. And this is the
reason why the major home builders in
the United States, at least in San Diego
and Phoenix, have said, "We're not
touching self-certification because
we're responsible for it." But when you
take the approach you have here, the
city becomes responsible for it. I think
you'd be a lot better off if we didn't
have any part of this right here in
number two and let the city staff make
the decision because it's our permit
that's on it, our name. And by the way,
one of the things that that isn't
mentioned here, who's got the liability
insurance for a bad decision by the
outside engineer? Okay,
>> the answer. Hold on. Did you know that
» the answer. Hold on. Did you know that
California doesn't require liability
insurance for any engineers?
>> I'm going to submit to you that you're
» I'm going to submit to you that you're
misreading this.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> And I think a lot of people are. First
» And I think a lot of people are. First
of all, the pro the language in here
about stamped and certified decision of
the civil engineer employed by an
applicant so long as such civil engineer
as a California licensed civil engineer
experienced in a particular practice
that is implicated by the item in
controversy
is not an indication of who has to be
relied upon. It's actually a requirement
before you even get to the question of
whether you consider what they're
proposing. So in other words, if someone
who doesn't have these qualifications
presents something, this doesn't apply
at all. This does not but but this this
does not say that when someone has those
qualifications, the city is obliged to
do as they say, which which I think is
your what you're assuming and I think
what Steve was assuming too in the way
he was describing it. What this says is
that first of all, if it's not someone
who meets those qualifications, they're
irrelevant. They just, you know, they're
shown the door. If they do meet those
qualifications and they present a plan
and the city reviews the plan and the
city is satisfied that the plan meets
the legal requirements, then
notwithstanding the fact that there may
be some better way to do it that is more
conservative than the applicable legal
requirement, the city won't impose that
additional legal requirement. This is
another This is an example of how to
apply the rule that's being set forth
which says don't impose any rules that
aren't in the law. So, it's a straw man
to say that this means we're going to
have to do it because they say it's
within a reasonable range. The
determiner of whether it is or is not
within the range is the city. So the
city has already made a decision that it
is in fact in the range and it's saying
that's the end of the analysis.
>> Who in the city makes that decision?
» Who in the city makes that decision?
>> Yeah. Who's going to do that? Who
» Yeah. Who's going to do that? Who
>> makes you got to have that?
» makes you got to have that?
>> The director of the community
» The director of the community
development department. It says it
explicitly. Now, that person, whoever it
is at the time, right now it's Yolanda,
can certainly in the first instance have
other members of the staff make the
recommendation or even the decision if
she wants to defer it to them. She's not
cuz she's the building the um official
>> the building official. So, she is making
» the building official. So, she is making
these decisions as it is right now. All
this is is saying again in two different
sentences in a paragraph, we're only
going to require what the law requires.
We're not. And again, and I'm confident
Yolanda is doing exactly that. No.
>> And this is Yolanda's doing exactly
» And this is Yolanda's doing exactly
that. She's not requiring anything that
the law doesn't require because it's not
her job to invent new rules. It's her
job to apply the law. And she's applying
the law as she understands it. Again,
this is a future-looking document. This
is to make sure that the next city
council with the next disaster doesn't
have to take 9 months to get to this
point and that the next community
development director when this happens
10 years from now doesn't have to spend
9 months to get to this point and maybe
that person won't have the same approach
Yolanda has and will want to maybe that
Lauren Doyle would be the community
director or a person I don't mean Lauren
a person like that and this is saying
don't do what you were doing do what the
law requires. So it's it's just I I
don't understand how you're getting this
point that um we have to follow
somebody. We don't [snorts] this makes
very clear over and over again the law
governs and the decision of the
community development direct depart
development department director is going
to decide what the law is.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> And can I just jump in because I think
» And can I just jump in because I think
we're going to end up going around
circles here.
>> And by the way, one last thing. If if
» And by the way, one last thing. If if
the pro I wouldn't I wouldn't support
this, but if your problem is with that
sentence, you don't throw the ba the
baby out with the bath water.
>> If you have a problem with a particular
» If you have a problem with a particular
sentence, we talk about taking the
sentence out or changing the sentence,
but there's still a whole bunch of other
stuff in here that I'm not hearing
criticism of.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Oh, well, we haven't gotten to that yet,
» Oh, well, we haven't gotten to that yet,
so just hang on.
Well, let me just one say one thing here
because I think I think when you have
Steve, myself, and Doug all reading this
and we're all reading it a certain way
that maybe it's not written in a way
that you intend that it's not coming
across
how you're intending it to be. What I
think that we if we were to look at
this, one of the things that we need to
be doing is that just further
stipulating that minimum code
requirements when it comes to the
building code is what is accepted across
the board. If somebody wants to propose
higher construction standards than a
minimum code, they're welcome to do
that. But the building code is very
clear as it is the minimum code
standards and the design professionals
that are out there
also are in this choosing to recommend
higher code standards but the minimum
code is all they need to be. So I I
think that you know we're reading this I
think in a similar manner. So I don't
think it's intending to say what you
think it is. So at the very minimum, we
need to go through number one and really
clarify what the intention is and how it
can be improved to actually say minimum
code standards is what
>> can be applied.
» can be applied.
>> I just want to bring up one thing. When
» I just want to bring up one thing. When
you talk about having the building
official make a decision, what you
really are back to the same system we
have today where the applicant submits
their proposed engineering for
structural or geology or whatever and
then the city has employed people to
review it. And if the city's reviewers
say that you need to do this and this
because of their local knowledge of the
hillsides or the structural issues,
who wins in that argument? And the
answer should be since we're issuing the
building permit and we're the ones
taking the liability for the decision,
it should be our city staff that makes
the call.
>> It's exactly deferred to somebody that
» It's exactly deferred to somebody that
that has nothing to lose.
>> Once again, it's exactly what it says.
» Once again, it's exactly what it says.
And secondly, I I take issue repeatedly
when residents say this or or I should
say when the people that appear before
us in in land use matters appear say
this and I take issue when you say it
and I don't think you do it
intentionally. We don't have liability
just because somebody does something
that ends up years later being a
problem. Um the standards for liability
for when a city or any other when a
municipality approves a permit are
extremely narrow and they're not at all
just because it was wrong or shouldn't
have been approved that you have
liability. It's a it's it's a uh red
herring and it really shouldn't come
into the conversation. We should be
deciding what makes sense, not being
concerned about fake liability
suing us after the girls got killed on
PCH.
>> They're not getting a judgment, are
» They're not getting a judgment, are
they?
>> They're suing. Well, hold on a second.
» They're suing. Well, hold on a second.
Here's the other thing. If you go to
Agura Hills over by the wildlife
crossing, that whole hillside fell away
with houses and the city of Agura Hills
got uh responsibility for uh the
planning process that they didn't do
properly. So, you can say all you want
to about it being red herring, but
that's not the way it works in real
life.
>> I've heard now um so much conflicting
» I've heard now um so much conflicting
information. I've heard that we're not
liable as the city that they we are
liable if something goes wrong. What is
the fact of the matter? Are we if you
have a certified
is the building department liable
because I have waiverss of indemnity. I
have heard so many different things now.
Well, every permit requires the
applicants to indemnify and defend the
the city. That's a requirement. The city
also has a number of immunities that are
um you know require that that uh protect
the city and negligence related to the
issuance of permits. So, there's a lot
of protections for cities um that are
built in there, but it's not impossible
for a city to to get sued or to lose. Um
but it's it's a difficult uh it's
difficult for a city to um face
liability over the approval of a permit.
>> And are there waiverss in which people
» And are there waiverss in which people
sign
>> when they're building?
» when they're building?
>> It's uh they sign an indemnity um
» It's uh they sign an indemnity um
provision is as a requirement to
identify and defend the city. um other
other types of dependencing on the
permit there are other things
assumptions of risk
>> um or other types of documents that are
» um or other types of documents that are
required to be signed as well
>> but you know I mean Doug made the point
» but you know I mean Doug made the point
and I agree with him I've said it before
the mere fact that the um applicant
indemnifies the city doesn't first if if
a third party gets harmed that is not
very meaningful because easily the
liability if there were one could exceed
the wherewithal of the um applicant to
satisfy a judgment
And then somebody would be looking to
the city as well. And I don't ever make
decisions on whether there will or won't
be potential liability. I mean, you
know, I've been a lawyer for [snorts] 40
years and when I represent my clients,
that's what I tell them. Don't don't ask
me the question, what will my potential
liability be if I don't do the right
thing? The question is, what's the right
thing to do? Because if you do the right
thing in the first instance, you're not
going to have a liability to be
concerned about. Do could you get sued?
Sure. The great thing about this country
is it takes $75 for a filing fee or
whatever it is and anyone can sue
anybody for anything, but the judicial
system works it out. And as Trevor said,
it's not impossible to be liable for
something when you're a municipality
approving a building permit. But it's
extremely rare and it would require
something a lot more than simply having
made the wrong decision. And we
shouldn't be t we shouldn't be getting
all tied up worrying about liability
when we should be trying to decide
what's the right thing to do. Let me
just give you think of the discussion
we've had here
however long now. Okay.
How do you think this is going to be
absorbed by the staff when they start
going through this thing? I mean, you
think it's going to be a complex thing
for everybody to understand and make
sure they know what the hell we're doing
and we do it right. And let me give you,
you know, this process that said we can
trust the
professionals. go back to the uh motel
that was being built across from the
pier. All right. Doug Burg has been
constructing stuff in the city for a
long long time. And he he proposed a
garage that a subterranean garage that
really wasn't subterranean. All it was
was built on the same level. They put
some dirt around the side and called the
subterranean. And the staff approved it.
Staff approved it. Right. So, I'm just
saying, you know, look,
to some point we have to we're paying
Yolanda and her staff a lot of money.
I'm not a lot of money and probably not
enough Yolanda. I apologize for that.
But, but I mean, that's their job.
That's why they hire these. Look, I
don't I don't know how many of these
permits you've taken a look at or
Kayla's taken a look at that have come
into your chron. You don't you've never
seen one of these things.
>> These people have and we're paying them
» These people have and we're paying them
to do that and they're good at it. And I
don't want to take it away from them.
That's exactly what you're doing. You're
taking it away from their ability to do
and that's wrong.
>> It does not take away anything from
» It does not take away anything from
anybody. And it doesn't say trust
anybody whatsoever. It actually says
before you even get to have the benefit
of a doubt. You have to be all these
things, a licensed professional in the
proper standard in the proper um field.
But what this ultimately says is that it
is the city that makes a decision as to
whether the proposal is within a range
that the law permits.
>> That's what the city's doing today.
» That's what the city's doing today.
>> Fine. So then what's your problem?
» Fine. So then what's your problem?
>> That's exactly right. We're not really
» That's exactly right. We're not really
changing. We're memorializing it. It
says community director. We're trusting
her. We're This is what we're doing. We
are just putting it pen to paper, voting
on it. If there are things that you
don't like, we can change some of those
things.
>> Yeah, we still haven't heard Maryann's
» Yeah, we still haven't heard Maryann's
objections, and I'm not sure I don't
think Doug's finished either, but I
mean, Steve, I I really I hear you
coming at this from a standpoint of
being defensive, that this is a
criticism, that we haven't done things
right, that the residents, no matter
what, aren't going to be satisfied. That
is not at all the purpose of this. And
in fact, I didn't hear from the comments
at all that this is something that
they're going to be dissatisfied with no
matter what we do. And
>> say that they wanted more.
» say that they wanted more.
They may want more,
>> right?
» right?
>> But that's fine. That's the They're
» But that's fine. That's the They're
allowed to ask for everything and
anything they want. They could ask for
us to build their houses for them and to
put them up tomorrow.
>> This mentality of that they're not
» This mentality of that they're not
entitled to ask for things is strange to
me.
>> This has been pervasive that I've been
» This has been pervasive that I've been
noticing for a very long time since I've
been here. And I don't really appreciate
it because I'm a resident. And if my
horse my house burned down, I would be
here hoping to get what I needed from my
council. They are entitled to these
things and we're entitled
to have a great working relationship
here. Everybody is entitled. We can do
everything at once. We don't have to
exclude one party and we're defending
another. This us against them thing is
so bizarre to me. We're trying to do
what council people do. We're trying to
support staff. We're not criticizing
staff. We think we've done a fabulous
job. We're also trying to listen to
residents and also we know we are in a
disasterprone city. So instead of not
preparing for the next one, we have
tools that we can just trust. But
there's so much mistrust,
>> you know, and also after the fire, the
» you know, and also after the fire, the
staff after taking some time came to us
with a bunch of municipal code amendment
proposals and we didn't necessarily a
lot of us we didn't understand exactly
what they meant. The residents didn't
understand what they meant. We had to
have meetings to talk about what they
meant. We tweaked some of the words. We
listened to the explanations. We didn't
just have a knee-jerk reaction of, you
know, no, we don't like the fact that
this is being proposed. We don't want to
make changes. We listened. We rec we
knew that they were coming from the
right place, that they were intended to
benefit the residents. We wanted to make
sure we didn't go too far and do the
wrong thing. All the right things that
we should be doing now with this, too.
But the mere fact this isn't coming from
the staff and the mere fact that there
may be questions about what it means
means we should be having a discussion
about what does this mean? Should we
change this word or shouldn't we change
this word? Do we like this concept or
don't we like this concept? And that's
what we're we're trying to do. But we
shouldn't just be like there's problems
so let's throw this out. We don't do
this which is the which is what I sense
is the the attitude. We're not saying to
throw the whole thing out, but the
problem that you've presented here is,
and I'm using number section one, the
idea that the applicants professional
wins in the conversation. I know if I
was turning in a plan for rebuilding and
I had an architect that presented
something, I want the city staff to be
the quality control to make sure that's
correct and not just say, "Oh, you
submitted it by and you got a license
stamp. Go for it.
>> It's not what it says.
» It's not what it says.
>> That's what it says.
» That's what it says.
>> It's not. Everyone out there knows it's
» It's not. Everyone out there knows it's
not what it says. Every single one of
these residents knows that's not what it
says. Our lawyer knows that's not what
it says. Ask them.
>> I I I I'm sorry.
» I I I I'm sorry.
>> I know that you are the policy makers,
» I know that you are the policy makers,
but that I'm the impletor.
And it really states
what I'm getting out of it that it is to
the civil engineers submitting the plans
that they're going to be the one. The
way it's written, it is not clear for
interpretation and I'm just letting you
know as my recommendations are your
building official. The other thing that
I want to make clear on assumption of
risk and release when an assumption of
risk and release for technical is
submitted
is is is filled out, we still do a
review. We we for the minimum code
compliance. We ask for structural
calculations. We ask for title 24. We
ask for your technical engineers uh
report. So what the assumption of risk
and release is letting the property
owner know that hey there is a risk on
your property.
We will we as a city we would not we
would not be able to issue a permit if
we don't feel that it's safe.
So when we put our safe uh stamp or
compliance when we do a review is safe
for the intended use
the uh assumption of risk is agrees that
the proposed structure is still deemed
safe but is acknowledged to be in a
geohazard area. That's all it is.
the interpreta the number two when you
say that um
liberalize the process of securing
building code approval. I am not sure
what your uh statement indicates uh
because as a building official and as a
the representative for your building and
safety we adhere to the mandatory
minimum building code compliance.
So it's not for us to make it more
liberal, more flexible or more
stringent. We need to be neutral.
Uh the other statement that is said on
paragraph 2, eliminate the need for
geotechnical analysis for a life forlife
disaster rebuild to be reconstruct on
flat paths.
And this goes back to minimum code
compliance. If it's already required as
a building official,
there is no way to implement this if
this is happening on an active
landslide.
Um so for implementation
um paragraph one and two
uh needs a little more work
um because I would not be able to
implement it. it it goes against the
building code
>> and I and on just like I said to Doug, I
» and I and on just like I said to Doug, I
agree with everything you just said. I
truly do. And I don't think that's what
this says. It says that this it says
that where there are issues like that,
we should explore ways to to get around
them. Explore doesn't say you have to
succeed. It says look at it as hard as
possible and see if there are ways to
get what needs to be done done. If not,
it can't be done. But I I want to ask
the city attorney because I'm I'm
serious with this. Does this say that um
we have to defer to licensed
professionals anywhere?
» We're talking about section one.
>> Let's do one first. Yeah. Does this does
» Let's do one first. Yeah. Does this does
this say legally? Does this say we have
to defer to licensed professionals?
Because I that was not what was intended
and I don't believe the words say that.
Well, you have the city staff shall
defer to the stamped and certified
decision of the civil engineer employed
by an applicant so long as such they are
licensed basically in California and
experienced in that. So you do have that
language.
>> Read the whole sentence from the
» Read the whole sentence from the
beginning
>> to that end. Whenever there is a
» to that end. Whenever there is a
difference of opinion on an issue that
the community development direct uh
development department CDDD director
direct recognizes to be a difference of
opinion upon which reasonable
professional civil civil engineers might
differ. the city staff shall defer to
the stamped and certified decision of
the civil engineer employed by the
applicant.
>> Right. So wouldn't in order to meet the
» Right. So wouldn't in order to meet the
first requirement, doesn't the city have
to first decide it meets the law?
you're um it comes down to the comm the
community development director believes
that uh there's a the difference of
opinion upon basically a reasonable
difference of opinion about the issue.
If there's if there can't be a
reasonable difference in opinion then
this community development director
would not have to defer. That's the
intention. Right.
>> Right. if if there's not a if the
» Right. if if there's not a if the
community director does not determine
it's a reasonable interpreta a
reasonable proposal then they don't have
to defer to it.
>> So the gatekeeper is the city at all
» So the gatekeeper is the city at all
times. And again if the language needs
to be tweaked to make it even clearer,
let's talk about tweaking the language,
but let's not get held up thinking it
means something different than it does
and then saying no. Why don't we try to
find a way to get to yes?
>> Hold on a second. If I could, and I want
» Hold on a second. If I could, and I want
to go to Maryanne, but isn't this the
process? If it's what you think it is
that we're already doing right now, the
applicant submits the geology report,
the city looks at it and says, "No, we
don't agree with it." And the city wins,
but you're saying the city loses.
>> Now, if for as long as it's within a
» Now, if for as long as it's within a
range of what could be possible, my slab
example is a perfect example. Post
tension slabs are built everywhere,
but they're not built in Malibu on last
street.
Um, first of all, I think it is exactly
what we're doing now after 6 to9 months
of hashing it out, which I commend
Yolanda and her staff for getting to
that point. And I commend the city
council for getting to that point as
well. And this is intended to
memorialize where we've gotten to and
where the staff has gotten to without a
formal policy that approves where
they've gotten to. So I think it really
does do nothing more than memorializes a
city council policy where we are. And to
the extent that anyone here believes the
language goes further than that, or even
worse, if anyone here thinks the
language goes to a point which is
inappropriate or or unlawful, let's fix
the language to make sure that it
doesn't.
But the point is this is supposed to
provide a road map not only for now. And
it's it's actually the road map that's
already been built. A road map for now,
but a road map for the future so that
the next disaster, as Arno said, you
just pull it out of the drawer and there
it is. It's already there. It's not a
question of well, what did we do last
time? Let's think about it and do we
agree that we should do the same thing
this time. It's it's it's a policy that
could be pulled out and applied. It
doesn't have to be created again. You
don't have to keep reinventing the wheel
every time we have a disaster. So yes,
it is what we're doing now.
>> As I said, it was a result of sitting
» As I said, it was a result of sitting
here for the past year after
>> thesis. It's the culmination. It's the
» thesis. It's the culmination. It's the
end result. It feels like a little bow
is put on it. It's a closure. It's a
document. Um and again, if you don't
like some of the things, it's open for a
discussion. Um, but to just throw it out
because I think you think what it says
or you're interpreting it in a way that
you believe
is possibly I maybe you need to we need
to take a little bit more time and you
guys
need to reread it.
>> Yeah, but I mean you know this is the
» Yeah, but I mean you know this is the
problem of the Brown Act. We this is the
only way we can talk to each other about
this and and get it done.
>> Let me defer to Maryanne. I've talked
» Let me defer to Maryanne. I've talked
long enough.
>> Okay. So [snorts] I hear the community.
» Okay. So [snorts] I hear the community.
I hear what you're saying. I hear what
you want. Everything else,
um, I appreciate the council members
that put this together. I appreciate
what the other council members have said
to this. Um,
I think that
[sighs and gasps] my first first pass
through this, I just kept writing
micromanaging staff, micromanaging
staff, micromanaging staff. Now that
I've had a chance to hear from the
council members who put this together,
I'm
and hear from the community and
everything else
hear that there are people who don't
understand
what exists in the city process, what
has been done by previous councils going
back all the way to the 93 fire that was
right on the
the city hadn't even gotten its feet
settled yet. and then this major
disaster happens and then the mudslides
following them. Um,
I think that the
the municipal code and the local coastal
program had the exemptions and the
natural disaster rebuild
um codes already in them. I think that
it's been a policy of all the councils
that have encountered the disasters
93 2007
2018
they have all led with we want people to
rebuild their homes. Now the problem is
we don't know why people didn't rebuild
after Woolseie. The city had some
responsibility on that. COVID had some
of the responsibility on that and there
are a lot of external extenduating
circumstances that have led to people
not rebuilding and we do need to
acknowledge that. We do need to
acknowledge that people are underinsured
that they had life circumstances that
took them in a different direction when
it came time to rebuild.
I appreciate this document in as much as
that I know that there are people who
are looking for the city to just have a
policy of yeah, we're going to be very
conservative on new buildings, but when
it comes to rebuilding, it's, you know,
all hands go. I think our codes say that
already. Obviously, our community
doesn't think that. Obviously, there are
council members that don't think that.
And so you're looking to have something
that makes it very clear that rebuilding
gets priority over everything. I think
the things that we've done over the last
year have shown that this particular
council feels this way. I think that the
staff I know that they were in the EOC
emergency operations center and they
were already looking at the codes and
what needed to be modified because of
the nature of where this particular
disaster hit. And they did that after
Woolseie. They're do did it after
Palisades. And they'll do it after the
next one. Though I don't know what other
things could be needed after those two
disasters to be honest with you, but I'm
sure there will be something. Um, given
that we've been talking about this for
an hour and a half, we still have other
things on the council. I would suggest
that we schedule a workshop to actually
sit down and go through what this
because
I think there's three of us up here that
don't read this the same way that the
two people that put this together. Um,
and it needs some more time
and order to get to a place that
I think any of us would feel
comfortable with supporting it and
moving it forward. So my suggestion is
that we pause on this and finish the
rest of the business on our agenda for
>> Interestingly, Helen and I had wanted
» Interestingly, Helen and I had wanted
this to be a workshop from the day we
presented it. And again, because of the
way the city was being run at the time
because, you know, we're still we're
still somewhat semi-rutterless. I don't
with no disrespect intended, but you
know, we don't we don't have a permanent
city manager who's who's been a city
manager. Um, we we had wanted this to be
a workshop. I think a lot of the issues
that we're dealing with tonight in an
awkward way could have been dealt with
in a lot better way. Um, but we didn't
have the right to call a workshop. We
had the right to put it on an agenda.
Um, and it's been on the agenda now for
two months and we've been trying to get
it to the point where we actually our
intention the very first night we had it
on there was to say
let's put this on a workshop. So, I
actually concur with that. Um, I also
didn't feel that I, you know, a lot of
this stuff has already been done. Almost
all of it's already been done. So, the
urgency of getting this in place is less
than it was as you know. Um, keeps being
said, I I wrote an article about this 6
months ago. Um, and I'm remiss for not
having pressed to have it put on the
agenda back then. So, to the residents,
I apologize for not having done that.
Um, but you know, a good example in here
is this has a provision towards the end
of paragraph 2 about finding ways to let
people use their existing septics and
their listing and their existing
foundations. And until a couple weeks
ago, the being able to use your existing
septic system if it wasn't destroyed was
still a gating issue and it was finally
and it was resolved to the to the, you
know, by our by our great staff. Yolanda
took the lead on that and we got and
that was resolved. This has been
pressing for that. You know, I've been
I' I've been saying that in writing for
many months. Halen has been and it was
in this proposal and the events have
passed the requ the requirement that
that we try to find a way to get it
done. We still have to find a way if
possible to let people use foundations.
Maybe that's already been done, but
okay, it has. So again, these are not
these are not creating new rules. These
are these are memorializing as policy
that which we've all struggled with. so
mightily and gotten to the point of
doing. But having a workshop, I support
that. I suspect Tailon does. Let's let's
let's schedule a workshop. I if you know
I I feel bad suggesting to the residents
that we'd have to wait a little while
longer, but maybe it makes sense to do
it once Joe comes in.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> And we can and we can do it and he can
» And we can and we can do it and he can
coordinate with the staff better the way
it would have been done had it come from
the staff in the first place. But, you
know, let's just not throw this out. I
think it's an important piece of policy
that we owe it to the community to put
into place and we owe it to future city
councils to put into place.
>> I disagree with that, but I'd rather
» I disagree with that, but I'd rather
they have the opportunity to
to think about the specific nature of
those disasters when and if they come,
how they that city wants to respond and
that council wants to respond at that
time where we've already got the things.
I just want to go back to the opening
comments that Doug made regarding, you
know, getting some feedback from the
staff in terms of, you know, I had the
experience. We rebuilt the company. All
right? We did it under this rule that
we're going to get it done in two years
period. All right? So, we made up what
we thought were the right rules, but we
sat down with everybody in that company
and we said, "Here's what we're going to
do." And they had a chance to come back
and say, "That works. That's going to
work. That's stupid." All right? And so
when we got to the end of making the
final decision, even though we thought
we knew exactly what the hell we're
supposed to be doing, we got better
input as a result of talking to them. So
I just don't think we want to do this
without a conversation with the folks
who actually have to do the work because
they forgot more about this than I'm
ever going to know.
>> Yeah. Before you start, I just and I
» Yeah. Before you start, I just and I
wanted to address things. So the
foundation thing, the foundation's set
since Woolseie. It's the same policy
they were using in Woolseie. So that's
not something that just got done. It it
has been the documents have been
available. People have been able to get
it for the rebuild center. They've been
able to get it from the website. So that
goes back, you know, six years where
it's already been in process. So that's
what I'm kind of talking about that
there's there's information that's out
there, but people aren't either adopting
it or
>> I whichever. So go ahead. And I think um
» I whichever. So go ahead. And I think um
so what I've heard from from I mean
forever is just to be proactive and to
not and to be less reactive and I felt
that you know this is these are
unprecedented
earthquakes are unprecedented fires are
unprecedented um if another council like
I know I would totally appreciate just
having a guide book and I don't have to
adopt it but with my council members at
that time I could say well this is what
they did in 2025 this works this works
this doesn't work and it might save them
time and it might not. But having that
option of the information is so
important just to have this sort of
structure and foundation for the city.
Um because to me somehow it feels a
little irresponsible for us to go
through all of this and I'm I'm grateful
that we have it on video but to have
these documents and policy. If I was a
council member in 10 years and I'd go,
"Oh my god, they live through Palisades
and they didn't have a policy from
that." I think I would feel like
it was irresponsible. So that to me I
think there's a little bit of
defensiveness and everybody should sleep
on on this and because it's not intended
again to criticize or say that anybody's
doing a bad job in my opinion. It's
literally like it's our job to make
policy and we've explored all of these
things for a year and we're putting it
into a document. So, we'll sleep on it
and we'll come back to it in a workshop,
I think, because that would be great. As
Bruce said, I was hoping for an open
dialogue with people where we don't have
to be up here doing this in a very
structured format. Um, so do we vote on
that
>> draw? I mean, do we need a vote on this
» draw? I mean, do we need a vote on this
or are we just directing staff? I think
there's consensus from the body to
schedule a workshop
>> and it will be after the new city
» and it will be after the new city
manager
>> to schedule a workshop with the new city
» to schedule a workshop with the new city
manager.
>> So yeah,
» So yeah,
>> I just want one other comment is I had
» I just want one other comment is I had
comments generally for the community
too. I I don't think Danny I don't and
others have said this too. I do not
believe it's fair though to be calling
22 building permits a monumental
um failure. There are plenty of reasons
why it has taken the time it's taken for
the ones to be approved to be approved.
And I do believe that it doesn't help to
be criticizing the staff as as claiming
a failure. Um, and whoever said it was
Scott, the math is 22 in one year means
it'll take 27 for all of them. You know,
there's exponential improvement. It's
not it's not that you're going to get 22
a year every year. here and there's
going to be plenty that aren't going to
be built full stop because people just
are going to decide they're not capable.
I mean that happens every time
everywhere despite the best of
abilities. Um so I I think the staff is
doing an amazing job and this was
intended to memorialize a lot of the
things that they've done already and to
try to put them in place. And um
whatever we vote on this doesn't prove
electability or non-electability because
I'll tell you I'm not electable no
matter what because I'm turned out.
Okay. So, um, we're going to move on to
the next item. Yeah.
>> Okay. So, we're on to 5A.
» Okay. So, we're on to 5A.
>> Thank you all for your comments.
» Thank you all for your comments.
>> I I'd like to make one quick comment.
» I I'd like to make one quick comment.
There's there are things in here that
are workable and probably need to be
documented,
>> but I think uh there's issues that we
» but I think uh there's issues that we
have with this. Some of it language,
some of it's philosophy, but I would
encourage everybody and the phrase
that's used often times in management,
participatory management. It's amazing
what the people on the shop floor know
that the engineers in the offices don't.
And that's where you start getting this
all together. Go back to Steve's point.
When you build it with a team, you'd be
surprised how much better it's
>> this is a very inhibited process.
» this is a very inhibited process.
>> Yeah. I mean, Doug, genuine question.
» Yeah. I mean, Doug, genuine question.
You know, if if this was something you
were trying to accomplish and you had
these ideas and you thought they made
sense and you were dealing with a city
whose staff was overwhelmed with the
rebuild process and and didn't have time
to do the normal evaluation of something
and you had a um city manager who wasn't
willing to impose this on the staff and
appropriately so and you're not allowed
to talk to the staff beyond the city
manager and the director level. How
would you go about getting your
consensus from the staff to get to be
able to present something to the city
council?
>> It's a failure if you're not able to
» It's a failure if you're not able to
sell the concept to somebody. And
honestly, if if your job as a leader,
you and I think it's Michelle has a
comment uh that he always puts on his
emails, you can't explain it to a
six-year-old, you don't know what you're
talking about. So, that's where I think
you have to be able to sell the concept
that we need to have this and invest the
time. And honestly, we've spent enough
time right now, we could have gotten
Yolanda's input on this and been able to
build some of this and come back with
maybe iterations.
It look it takes time to build a
successful result. And that's what I
Steve's point. It you got to you got to
work the the minds and get the consensus
built. It's not the five of us up here
to do this.
>> That's what we're trying to do. I think
» That's what we're trying to do. I think
that there's a misconception that we're
not trying to do that. But I think that
Bruce, we've asked for workshops over
and over and over again. We've asked for
collaborations with desks that are down
there where we can talk about these
things. Um the this strange fact notion
that you're saying that we're not
building consensus. The Brown Act is not
a consensus building activity.
>> Okay. I'm I'm sorry. We We really have
» Okay. I'm I'm sorry. We We really have
other stuff we need to Let's talk about
this at the workshop. We can have it in
council gu items in the future, but
we've got some things that we need to do
tonight. I think we all heard each
other. We're willing to talk and flush
this out some more. Nobody's dismissing
it slight out of hand. We're not shoeing
it away. We're just giving us an
opportunity where we can actually have a
more robust long-term conversation. So,
I would like us to move on to 5A before
we have to start calling all these
things special things. So
5A, do we have a staff report? Anybody
wants to comment, put in a speaker slip
for 5A, please do so now or forever hold
your peace.
Do we have anybody online?
>> We have no speaker slips and one raised
» We have no speaker slips and one raised
hand.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yolanda, will you please guide us
» Yolanda, will you please guide us
through here, please?
>> Yes. Um should it's a very short
» Yes. Um should it's a very short
presentation.
Uh just uh as a background on December
8th uh we brought to you city council
emergency ordinance number three uh 531U
uh to incorporate the new uh state
building codes uh and also bring the
first reading of the ordinance. Um at
that time we recommend to do a second
reading of the ordinance. Uh and that is
what we're doing uh this evening. Any
clarifi clarifying questions by council?
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> just one quick qu one quick question.
» just one quick qu one quick question.
How much flexibility do we have to make
changes to this or not accept it?
>> None.
» None.
>> No.
» No.
>> Yeah. It's it's a state law. We just
» Yeah. It's it's a state law. We just
need to adopt it, right?
>> Yes. Uh we're following uh county's uh
» Yes. Uh we're following uh county's uh
recommendations. We also have added our
uh usual recommended amendments uh due
to our climatic uh regional and
geotechnical issues that the city has
very similar to what we had in 2020 uh
three and under the building code
adoption
>> and this does not apply to the uh
» and this does not apply to the uh
rebuilds because we're still under the
23 code. Correct.
>> That is correct. the uh state of
» That is correct. the uh state of
California, the governor u um provided
an executive order in which they he
allows uh fire rebuilds to rebuild under
the 2023 code. Uh there is an option uh
if any of the fire rebuilds that are
moving forward, they would like to
comply with the new code. Um they are
allowed to do that. And to just to
disclose to council, I have uh four
properties that decided to move forward
with the 2026 codes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other questions? Public comment,
» Any other questions? Public comment,
please.
» Joe Drummond.
>> Joe, are you there?
» Joe, are you there?
>> Hi. Yes. People are saying they can't
» Hi. Yes. People are saying they can't
hear me. Can you hear me?
>> We can hear you. Oh, sorry. We can hear
» We can hear you. Oh, sorry. We can hear
you.
>> Okay. Well, I'm speaking tonight
» Okay. Well, I'm speaking tonight
specifically on the adoption of
California Building Code section 106.3
to work exempted. A key provision from
the state and county code is being
omitted. And if that omission is not
corrected, it will continue to cause
unnecessary hardship for mal residents.
The state code explicitly provides that
a building permit is not required for
decks, walks, and driveways not more
than 30 in above grade, not over any
basement or story below, and not part of
an accessible route. I can personally
attest to the consequences of omitting
this provision. It took more than three
years to permit my 64 square foot
freestanding deck which remained
standing even after the fires which was
designed using prescriptive engineering
assumptions by the way which is routine
worldwide.
It is not rocket science to rebuild our
homes. It is simple engineering science
for our simple deck. What should have
been a simple administrative review
became a prolonged process involving
multiple geotechnical studies,
escalating fees, and even threats of a
variance, later confirmed by the city
attorney to be unnecessary. A small
freestanding deck under 30 in of off
grade supported by a modest concrete
pile foundation should not be treated
like a major addition or a hillside
structure. These are low risk projects
that should be resolved in months, not
years. I respectfully ask the council to
do one of two things. Restore the
working center provision exactly as
written in a state code or adopted it
with a clear size cap such as 200 square
ft or decks to ensure it applies only to
true small low impact projects. Equally
important, the city must clearly explain
what process applies to work exempted
work. In my case, the lack of clarity
led to code enforcement action and a
three-year ordeal despite acting in good
faith under the state code. To be clear,
this change would not affect decks
attached to higher stories to elevated
beachfront residents or other structures
that legitimately require full
permitting and safety review. Those
protections would remain fully intact.
Directing this commission in this item
would be a small but meaningful reform.
One that aligns Malibu with state law
and reflects a shared commitment to
making everyday project simpler,
clearer, and more reasonable for the
residents. I urge you to correct this as
part of item 5A. Thank you.
So that can conclude [clears throat] our
public comment. Can we
» Yes, those are all the public speakers.
Okay. So, public comments closed. Any
comments by council?
>> I have a question. So, what Joe is
» I have a question. So, what Joe is
asking is what we just heard we couldn't
do, which is to change it. Is that what
I'm hearing?
>> I'm sorry.
» I'm sorry.
>> I have a
» I have a
>> I have a um a graphic. Oh. Uh and just
» I have a um a graphic. Oh. Uh and just
to make it clear and I have a copy of
the code in front of me from the 2025
code. Uh let me just show the council
that I have the actual code right here.
Everybody here,
>> thank you.
» thank you.
>> I have a copy of the sheet uh what uh
» I have a copy of the sheet uh what uh
section 105 what permits are exempted
and none of them uh uh at asking for
decks to be excluded or not permitted.
So we are staying within regulation and
I can pass this to councils to read it.
Uh in addition, I want to clarify that
uh permits uh are not required for decks
that are uh 30 in above. And so I put a
graphic together. What we're talking
right now uh on the situation of uh or
one of our residents is the foundation
system. Um it was a deepen foundation
cut into the hill with an unpermitting
grading. Uh and that trigger the uh
permit requirements. Uh, so just to
clarify that for council
>> Steve, go ahead.
» Steve, go ahead.
>> Yeah,
» Yeah,
>> I'll make I'll make a motion to approve
» I'll make I'll make a motion to approve
staff recommendation.
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> I'd like to make a comment,
» I'd like to make a comment,
>> please.
» please.
>> I've been trying to understand some of
» I've been trying to understand some of
these things for years. We're told all
the time we don't have any discretion.
Um, I'm reading the report.
It expressly says page 204 after the
chart
um that
these these provisions apply to all
building occupancies throughout the
state whether or not adopted by a local
jurisdiction.
However, local governments will
typically pass ordinances adopting those
parts of the code by reference which
they seek to amend in accordance with
local conditions and to establish
administrative provisions. So they you
we says basically local governments tend
to affirmatively adopt these even though
they don't have to but they also might
seek to amend them. Uh and then says
local amendments must be specific to
each addition of the code. State law
requires amendments to the standards be
based on a governing body's express
findings that such modification is
necessary reasonably necessary because
of local clatic geological or
topographical conditions. So this says
very clearly we actually could if we
chose to and we had bases for doing so
make amendments even though this is the
state default law.
Um, we never study whether there are
things that we believe we ought to be
doing as exceptions to these rules cuz
we're told all the time that these are
the rules like them or take them like
them or not that we have to adopt.
Actually, we don't have to adopt them at
all. If we don't adopt them, they're the
law. And if we do adopt them, they're
also the law. And we also have the right
to change them if we have a basis for
doing so. But we've never once been told
what bases we could apply to make
changes if we if we did want to if we
did feel they were appropriate or
necessary. So, you know, I think I said
last time when we brought this up at
like midnight, we're doing this too
fast. I don't really understand enough
about it. We haven't had public input.
But, you know, it's not the case that
just because the state adopted it, we
have no choice but to adopt it. It says
here very clearly, we can make changes
if they're appropriate based on
appropriate findings, but I've never
been told what kinds of changes we might
be able to make and what findings we
would have to make to make them.
>> So, so Yolanda, can you explain?
» So, so Yolanda, can you explain?
>> Yes. And uh uh thank you. Um
» Yes. And uh uh thank you. Um
Mayor Prom, the if you read the
following ordinance, actually the
ordinance does have the amendments. Uh
in addition uh page 21 of the code
adoption findings, those are the
amendments down to the uh code and it
states if the decision the conditions
were administrated, climatic,
geological, geological,
uh administrative, topographical. Um so
we do we did provide amendments and this
is regular amendments due to the our
location. Uh so this document was uh
released uh for public uh uh for public
viewing. I remember uh the end of
November. Uh so
it has been a transparent document uh
for the past I will say uh close to 40
days.
>> I I appreciate that. So in the sense
» I I appreciate that. So in the sense
that it's been published. I mean, you
know, like when we did the housing
element, we would have somebody come
here and present to us all the things we
were doing, explain why we were doing
them, give us our options as to whether
we would do do other things. Um,
again, we, you know, we we have
different approaches to things up here.
Some some council members are of the
view that if the staff thinks something
makes sense and it's complicated and
technical, it gets presented and we and
we just approve it. Um, some like I I'm
one of them believe we should be fly
specking everything and making our own
decisions whether we think they make
sense or not and and then go forward and
others I guess have somewhere in
between. But um the process we follow,
you know, I I appreciate that these are
here and and I know you and others have
taken a lot of time to put it together,
but these aren't things we were
presented with. Why are we doing this
one? Does this one make sense? Are there
alternatives to what's being proposed
that we could be doing? Or is there more
than what we're being proposed we could
be doing? And it's because there's just
too much to do. I get that. Um, but I I
feel like a lot of these things are
presented to us as fay.com please
because we really don't have the basis
to make a decision to the contrary. So,
it's either take it or leave it. And
that's not a criticism so much as it's
an explanation of where we are.
Um, so that that's that's pretty much
why I abstained from this last time. And
just the process, the way this city
operates in general, and I'm sure other
cities operate like that, it it it
bothers me as someone who's used to
getting into the weeds and deciding
whether I think things make sense or
not.
>> Anybody else? Yolanda, I believe the the
» Anybody else? Yolanda, I believe the the
amendments that are proposed are done to
be consistent with the county and I
think the amendments are only allowed if
they're stricter than what's already
required by the
>> the state building code.
» the state building code.
>> That is correct. Uh the code cannot be
» That is correct. Uh the code cannot be
um those are minimum state uh
compliance. The only way that the city
can change it needs to be more
restrictive. Uh in order to uh propose
those amendments uh we need to make a
justification. In addition to that, uh,
as you stated, uh, Mayor Prom, um, yes,
uh, if the city didn't, uh, adopt any
codes, then automatically, uh, the
California code, uh, becomes our
building code.
>> Okay. So, so,
» Okay. So, so,
>> uh, let me just, let me just finish. Um,
» uh, let me just, let me just finish. Um,
uh, we did bring an urgency ordinance
because we usually adopt the county, um,
the county codes. Uh the state of
California requires that uh 30 days
after after the adoption
uh filing needs to be done through the
California state uh um building standard
commission uh so the city can be in uh
regulations and stay in compliance with
the building codes.
>> Well, wait a minute. So this the the
» Well, wait a minute. So this the the
report at least doesn't say that the
only kinds of amendments that are
permissible are more restrictive
amendments. I I can provide you a copy
of of of adoption of the of of the um of
of an ordinance and what it states that
it needs to be more resting.
>> You can so so there there's under no
» You can so so there there's under no
circumstance can a flex municipality
believe that there's a requirement
that's too stringent and relax it no
matter what findings they make. Okay,
that's that's what I was reading this to
mean. So if I if that's not what it
says, I take that back.
>> Yeah. and I I can provide a copy of uh
» Yeah. and I I can provide a copy of uh
state um documentation which uh will
give you more information on that. I
apologize.
>> That's okay. So So all the changes we're
» That's okay. So So all the changes we're
making then are making more stringent
the building code than would otherwise
be imposed upon us by the state.
>> That is correct.
» That is correct.
>> Okay. And but we but they're also they
» Okay. And but we but they're also they
have been proposed in the first instance
by the county is what you're saying.
They're not really our changes so much
as we're just adopting them. Some of
them are county and some of them are
specific to the city. An example
uh septic systems. Uh we have a plumbing
code that we follow. There's a a number
of plumbing fixtures that are allowed
per your um toilets and and lavatories
and um
so we were able to change that to give
credit uh to property owners that were
using lowflow toilets. So that was one
of the the changes that we so our
community can take advantage of of using
lowflow toilets and and have more
fixtures.
So that's just an example of of what was
included on the ordinance.
>> Okay. So let me ask this. I I this kind
» Okay. So let me ask this. I I this kind
of hearken back a little bit to the
conversation we had earlier about the
rebuilds, but I understand the new
code's not going to apply to rebuilds.
So this is not a specific issue with
them, but if we were operating in um you
know postwoolie where we didn't have a
governor's order saying the old code is
going to continue to apply then when we
adopt a new code which we add additional
more stringent requirements to wouldn't
we then be making it more difficult for
a rebuild than otherwise would have been
the case had we not adopted those
additional standards?
How do
>> do you follow my question?
» do you follow my question?
>> Trying to know where where where are we
» Trying to know where where where are we
going with the your question.
I mean the the the standard state code
would have been but the county codes
I think what I'm hearing is that he's
wondering that if we just defaulting on
what our
requirements are to by law we just
automatically the new code gets imposed
without the additional
um adoption that the county goes
through.
>> Mh.
» Mh.
Is it more stringent for the
>> What I'm hearing is every all these
» What I'm hearing is every all these
pages of of single space requirements
are things that we're adding as
additional burdens and you know as
everyone knows in the ordinary course of
new builds I'm perfectly fine with that.
Um, and we have fortunately in this
particular instance a governor's order
that says in the case of these rebuilds,
we're not going to impose these new
requirements. But actually, we are
imposing them on Woolseie, right?
Because we're we're saying that if you
had lost your home in a different fire,
we're going to adopt these more
stringent requirements than the state's
imposing on you. Well, if the
application uh came in um prior to the
new adoption of the code, we are not
imposing new. They're staying within the
within when the application was
submitted.
>> Right. But if but if tomorrow,
» Right. But if but if tomorrow,
6 months from now, one of the 40% of the
homes that still hasn't applied to be
rebuilt or whatever the percentage is,
they come in with a like forlike
rebuild. If we were not to adopt this,
then they'd be operating under a less
stringent code than the one that we're
being asked to adopt. Right.
>> We're talking for policy or for we'll
» We're talking for policy or for we'll
see.
>> Woolseie.
» Woolseie.
>> Yeah, we'll see. Well, Woolseie did not
» Yeah, we'll see. Well, Woolseie did not
follow the executive order,
>> right? So,
» right? So,
>> so we will have to comply with the new
» so we will have to comply with the new
codes.
>> So, would we would we have a way, for
» So, would we would we have a way, for
example, to say we're imposing these
additional more stringent requirements,
but not with respect to a casualty
rebuild?
So that when someone comes in with their
wooy rebuild three months from now.
>> So the building code is for safety and
» So the building code is for safety and
for resiliency, right?
>> Uh so uh
» Uh so uh
>> we are following the executive order
» we are following the executive order
from the state of California allowing
the 2023 code for the palace. Right.
>> There's nothing for wooly fire and it's
» There's nothing for wooly fire and it's
been more than seven years. Right.
>> Right. Uh so
» Right. Uh so
um
>> I'm forget forget whether we should or
» I'm forget forget whether we should or
shouldn't do it. I'm just asking
factually. Isn't it accurate that if we
adopt this then that means that when
someone comes in to rebuild a property
that was destroyed in a fire other than
the Palisades fire
>> and Franklin fire and broad fire. Yes.
» and Franklin fire and broad fire. Yes.
that we'll see fire will follow under or
any topanga fire that never they never
rebelled in 1993 and they decide to come
back tomorrow to submit an application.
>> Yeah. it will trigger the current code
» Yeah. it will trigger the current code
uh 2026
>> and and if there's a fire 6 months from
» and and if there's a fire 6 months from
now and 100 homes are lost and they
don't have an executive order to exempt
them from anything then the state code
if we didn't do anything which would
apply to them would be less stringent
than the code we're being asked to adopt
tonight.
>> They would need to comply with the
» They would need to comply with the
current code.
>> Right. But the state code that would be
» Right. But the state code that would be
the default if we don't do anything
would be less stringent than the one
we're adopting.
>> I guess I'm trying to understand your
» I guess I'm trying to understand your
question. You're trying to say uh let's
flex the code for any rebuilds uh that
happens. Um I I I mean I'm just trying
to understand where we're going on this
and I'm trying to give you the
information that you ask that you want
me to to give you. I I guess I'm I'm
just asking is it is it an accurate
statement that if a fire were to wipe
out a large number of homes in futurero,
you know, 3 months from now, and the
owners of those homes were to seek to
rebuild them like for like and they
don't have the benefit of an executive
order, then by adopting this tonight, we
would be creating a code that is more
stringent than the state code that would
otherwise apply by default to those
rebuilds. Is that accurate or
inaccurate? That's what I'm trying to
find out.
>> You will be I mean the the the code that
» You will be I mean the the the code that
you're adopting is more stringent than
the 2023 code.
>> No, but it's also more stringent than
» No, but it's also more stringent than
the 2025 code because we're adopting
various additional requirements to it.
>> Amendments,
» Amendments,
>> the amendments, the pages of amendments.
» the amendments, the pages of amendments.
But okay, the notwithstanding the chaos
that that would occur, you're really
going to create a an environment of
uncertainty because people aren't going
to know which ones staff's going to
have, okay, what date did this happen?
Which code do I get here? and the
consistency and the resale and yeah,
they're under the state code, but
they're not actually under the the
adopted code of the city. I mean,
>> what's the purpose of going down this
» what's the purpose of going down this
intellectual discussion?
>> And it's a it's also a layer that you're
» And it's a it's also a layer that you're
adding to it, right? Um, remember how we
say that you cannot the minimum codes
cannot be lowered down.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
>> Right. So, let's say Yeah. you um under
» Right. So, let's say Yeah. you um under
what justification,
climatic,
topographic or geographic
can we make an assumption that any
rebuilds, future rebuilds next year or
the following year do not need to comply
with this code?
I and I I guess I'm asking Trevor to
answer this question because I don't
know how to answer that question. Well,
Which question?
>> Um, a proposal of allowing fire
» Um, a proposal of allowing fire
rebuilds, future fire rebuilds not to
comply with this code and comply with
>> I I would think you would want to be
» I I would think you would want to be
careful. I mean, look at these are like,
you know, not allowing wood shake roofs.
I mean, do you really want to take that
out? I mean, is that something we want
to allow fire rebuilds to do? Um, if you
want to go and make adjustments to this,
I think, you know, suggest that we pass
the code tonight. So this the county
code provisions apply to everyone else
in the city. If you want to go look at
adjusting some of this, you know,
Yolanda can look into it if you want to
have more direction or or something
about particular um provisions of what
the county is adopted. There's also
concern
>> Mayor Pro's concern on fire rebuilds. Uh
» Mayor Pro's concern on fire rebuilds. Uh
if there's not an executive order, uh
what codes will trigger?
>> Yeah, let me ask.
» Yeah, let me ask.
>> Uh so that is the question.
» Uh so that is the question.
>> Let me ask this question. Um,
» Let me ask this question. Um,
are we able I mean, look, the we have a
state code. The state code presumably
has been combed over by very by
intelligent and and experienced people
and they've decided from a statewide
standpoint, this is the minimum standard
that makes sense. We have a county
that's gone further and adopted more
stringent requirements. Um, are we in a
position where we could adopt all the
county's amendments only with respect to
noncasualty rebuilds going forward so
that when there's another casualty, the
more less the less restrictive standards
of the state, which we have the right to
follow by themselves alone, would apply,
but we are nonetheless imposing the more
restrictive ones on new bills going
forward. So that that way when when when
someone loses their house and they come
to us and complain about item number
seven on this page that's imposing this
greater expense to them that they wish
they didn't have to um absorb
that they wouldn't have to they wouldn't
be able to make that argument because
we'd say no look all we did was go by
the minimum state standard. You have to
apply with you have to comply with the
state and we gave you a pass on
everything that we adopted that
otherwise applies to new bills. Are we
do we have the ability to make all of
these additions these exa these except
these amendments which are all more
stringent applicable only in the case of
a non-casualty rebuild
>> and then and then what happens in the
» and then and then what happens in the
casualty rebuild that adopts
>> they would be under the state minimum
» they would be under the state minimum
law
>> why would you want to do that you're
» why would you want to do that you're
creating a secondass structure
>> yeah you might want to adopt the modern
» yeah you might want to adopt the modern
you know all the studies that we're
doing with prior combustation and
>> why why is the county better than the
» why why is the county better than the
state?
>> Well, hold on a second.
» Well, hold on a second.
>> Because they're they're specialized to
» Because they're they're specialized to
our particular area and so they're
taking into account the special nature
that occurs within Los Angeles County.
>> It's also it aids I think by all the
» It's also it aids I think by all the
cities do it is so that contractors are
familiar with the county code and the
county building codes and then they can
you know apply it the same throughout.
Um,
I would want to look closely if this is
something you want to explore making a
carveout for for uh, you know, fire
rebuilds. Um, for other ones, we could
take a look into it. I wouldn't want to
just on the fly put that through. And I
know Y has concerns about you cannot
divide. I mean the statement on on
chapter one state this applies to every
single new construction even even if
it's a fire rebuilt it will be
considered under the building code as a
minimum minimum for safety
for resiliency for safety of our city.
You cannot divide. Okay. I wanna do
uh one portion of the population I will
do on one code and one portion of the
other population I will do in another
code.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> We will be against against the state
» We will be against against the state
law.
>> Well, we're No, no. Well, first of all,
» Well, we're No, no. Well, first of all,
we're doing exactly that right now
pursuant to the executive order. We're
applying an older law which
>> because the governor has put that
» because the governor has put that
exception, not because the city of
Malibu decided that
>> I I get that. But you said it would be
» I I get that. But you said it would be
against state law. I'm saying no
wouldn't let's adopt the state let's
leave let's let's adopt the state law
for for all for everybody and then let's
also adopt more stringent ones for new
builds that that isn't saying that if
you have a fire rebuild you're going to
get a less stringent than the state law
>> but you're going to get a less stringent
» but you're going to get a less stringent
than the county law
>> yeah that's right so it's not
» yeah that's right so it's not
>> which we have the right to do
» which we have the right to do
>> okay um I think people want modern
» okay um I think people want modern
building
>> okay
» okay
>> and from staff perspective you're
» and from staff perspective you're
>> you
» you
And Bruce, let me let me give you
another example. I just picked up one
page here and it's page 15, a top item.
It says you got to have sheer walls
because we're in a high seismic zone. I
mean, to leave that out would be
suicidal,
>> but it is out with respect to all the
» but it is out with respect to all the
rebuilds from Pelit.
>> No, it's in it's in the prior one. A lot
» No, it's in it's in the prior one. A lot
of this is continuation of what was in
the prior years. It's things like the
solar panels uh that are required in 20
26 or whatever this new one
because we're in the in the 23 zone. You
don't have to do that. All I'm saying is
understand that all these conditions
that are in here, a lot of them, in
fact, I think most of them are
continuations of the ones that were
there before. So, it's
>> okay. I understand.
» okay. I understand.
>> Okay. So, we'll call the question. We
» Okay. So, we'll call the question. We
have a first and we have a second. Do we
want to do a roll call or
>> I just the motion was staff's
» I just the motion was staff's
recommendation?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> And city attorney, did you want to read
» And city attorney, did you want to read
the title of the ordinance?
>> Well, I read it at the last one, so I
» Well, I read it at the last one, so I
don't need to repeat it second time
unless you really want me to.
» You want to roll call?
>> All in favor?
» All in favor?
>> I.
» I.
>> Those opposed?
» Those opposed?
>> None. Abstain.
» None. Abstain.
You said I. I'm sorry I didn't hear you.
Okay. Um, it's after 10:30.
Do I want to hear a motion to hear item
6A?
>> I'll make a motion. I hear item 6A.
» I'll make a motion. I hear item 6A.
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> All in favor?
» All in favor?
>> I.
» I.
>> I.
» I.
>> Okay. It's about our um fire rebuild
» Okay. It's about our um fire rebuild
ambassador.
We want a staff report.
>> No.
» No.
>> Okay. Do we have any public comment?
» Okay. Do we have any public comment?
No, we don't have any speaker slips or
raise hands on Zoom for item 6A.
>> Okay, so we're back up here at the
» Okay, so we're back up here at the
council.
>> I asked months ago if we could put this
» I asked months ago if we could put this
on the agenda to discuss it. And in
light of the fact that we are now months
later and things are operating the way
they are now, I would just withdraw the
the request.
» Okay.
>> So, where does that leave us? that we're
» So, where does that leave us? that we're
not going to go we're going to continue
without a fire rebuild ambassador and
this is going to conclude.
>> I think this is like the official
» I think this is like the official
termination that we lacked prior and
this closes that chapter.
>> So do we need to do a motion on this or
» So do we need to do a motion on this or
is it a withdrawn request and
>> just withdraw it?
» just withdraw it?
>> Well, but does that satisfy the
» Well, but does that satisfy the
requirement of the original
resolution?
>> It already expired. Yeah, I think it
» It already expired. Yeah, I think it
that the ambassador already expired and
uh the ambassador did resign as well. I
think this was bringing back a report um
that the council had wanted before that
had taken place and it was didn't happen
and so now the report's gone through. If
the council wants to reimplement it or
put it in, but if they want to take no
action, I don't think anything is
required here tonight. Kelsey, correct
me if I'm wrong.
>> That's correct. You don't have to take
» That's correct. You don't have to take
an action. And if you'd like, you can
make a motion to determine that you will
not move forward with the position, but
the resolution did expire. So there is
position currently.
>> That's my motion. What you just said?
» That's my motion. What you just said?
>> Is there a second?
» Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
» I'll second.
>> All in favor? I
» All in favor? I
>> Okay.
» Okay.
I hear to hear item 6B.
>> I'll make a motion to hear item 6B.
» I'll make a motion to hear item 6B.
>> A second.
» A second.
>> All in favor? I I
» All in favor? I I
>> Okay. Can we have a staff report,
» Okay. Can we have a staff report,
please, on 6B?
This is receive and file, right?
>> Um,
» Um,
>> yeah,
» if I may, Madame Mayor, this this
presentation may generate considerable
discussion.
>> Um,
» Um,
there's already been significant
discussion that's ensued this evening.
Uh we don't have anything urgent
requiring the council provide direction
on this this evening. Um if we were to
continue it to the next available
meeting
um that would still be consistent with
what stat staff would need to fulfill
the uh intent of the council going
forward.
>> I'll make a motion to agree with what he
» I'll make a motion to agree with what he
just said.
>> Well Trevor, since we already started
» Well Trevor, since we already started
the hearing, do we have to hear the
public comment?
>> We haven't substantively done anything.
» We haven't substantively done anything.
So, if you want to move to continue the
item, you could. Do we have any public
speakers on it, Kelsey?
>> One.
» One.
>> Yes, we have one speaker slip, but no
» Yes, we have one speaker slip, but no
raised hands.
>> I I would recommend that you let him
» I I would recommend that you let him
speak
>> since he's waited.
» since he's waited.
>> He's waited a [clears throat] long time.
» He's waited a [clears throat] long time.
You don't have to. You could continue
it, but [cough]
>> doesn't make sense to hear the public
» doesn't make sense to hear the public
speaker and then
>> Mr.
Thank you.
>> So, do you understand we're going to
» So, do you understand we're going to
actually we're going to have hear your
public comment, but
>> we're going to bring this back in the
» we're going to bring this back in the
future and
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> restarted. So, but we want you to hear
» restarted. So, but we want you to hear
what you
>> Good evening,
» Good evening,
>> council member, mayor.
» council member, mayor.
>> I'm representing an American Polo
» I'm representing an American Polo
Federation. I want to bring to the city
of Malibu a big sport elite that is
Polo. I'm working with Pacific Palis to
see where we can fill we can find a land
to do this sport and one of the thing
what we we need to bring is fund for the
victims victims for the fire and we want
to open a school for
eotherapy for um adults and and kids
with disabilities. is um so the other
thing that we I'm from Argentina so I
hope you understand
>> um I want to bring a tournament the most
» um I want to bring a tournament the most
important that was made in Monteito
Santa Barbara Palm Beach Wellington I
think is will be very important for the
city of Malibu to have a big tournament
here
so I'm looking for a
to build two fields of polo.
» Um, if I can ask a qu, how much land do
you need?
>> Uh, for two field of polo is about 200
» Uh, for two field of polo is about 200
by 150 m. 200 m by 150 m.
>> Large.
» Large.
>> Yes, it's very large.
» Yes, it's very large.
>> You're talking about horses. Horse horse
» You're talking about horses. Horse horse
polo.
>> Yes. Yeah. We want to teach polo. We
» Yes. Yeah. We want to teach polo. We
want to bring
college you know to practice. So it's a
lot
>> involvement of polo.
» involvement of polo.
>> So if somebody
» So if somebody
math to me what does that three and so
it's like 200 becomes like 600 ft.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> And but that doesn't include the stables
» And but that doesn't include the stables
and the viewing area and so forth,
>> right? Because it's so a polar field I
» right? Because it's so a polar field I
think is like a football field.
>> Pretty big.
» Pretty big.
>> Pretty pretty big. And it has to be
» Pretty pretty big. And it has to be
grass.
>> Yes, we
» Yes, we
>> How many horses are you talking for two
» How many horses are you talking for two
teams?
>> Um 32 horses.
» Um 32 horses.
>> The other thing is um
» The other thing is um
>> we want to build an arena so to do a
» we want to build an arena so to do a
tournament, you know, Burbank they did a
tournament and was very good. So
>> yeah, [clears throat]
» yeah, [clears throat]
>> I I would just say this is unofficial,
» I I would just say this is unofficial,
right? as benefit and nice as it would
be. I just don't think we have any land.
>> I saw coming from Canon Road. I I saw a
» I saw coming from Canon Road. I I saw a
lot of land in that in that area.
>> So, our city does not go very far. We
» So, our city does not go very far. We
only go about a mile. We don't even go
up a mile.
>> What about on the front here?
» What about on the front here?
>> I think would be too small.
» I think would be too small.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> No, I think that will bring that would
» No, I think that will bring that would
be possible. And you're talking about a
permanent polo field and polo school
traveling.
>> I tell you the I I can bring a sponsor
» I tell you the I I can bring a sponsor
here, bring a lot of money to the city
and also No, I tell you is this polo is
big money.
>> It's huge. It's good money.
» It's huge. It's good money.
>> Yeah. So they still playing for a long
» Yeah. So they still playing for a long
time in Wellington, Palm Beach,
Pocaraton
and I think will be nice invaluable. You
know they are doing in Santa Barbara.
>> Can I give you my card?
» Can I give you my card?
>> Can I give you [clears throat] my card
» Can I give you [clears throat] my card
and I can help you? We can talk about
it.
>> Yeah,
» Yeah,
>> maybe. Okay.
» maybe. Okay.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> I would say if on the the topic of the
» I would say if on the the topic of the
ecoin therapy, I mean we do have um an
equestrian center. It's very small in
comparison to what the numbers you're
talking about,
>> but um if you were just doing the ecoin
» but um if you were just doing the ecoin
therapy, there might be something. So, I
would encourage you to talk with our um
community services department.
>> Mhm.
» Mhm.
>> Um because we are looking at
» Um because we are looking at
different possibilities of
>> Well, at least to start with one field
» Well, at least to start with one field
>> and you need a flat field.
» and you need a flat field.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Yeah. We will we'll [laughter]
» Yeah. We will we'll [laughter]
we'll be
>> I'm not laughing at I we're not laughing
» I'm not laughing at I we're not laughing
at you. It's just so limited here in
Malibu like just the land,
>> you know, cuz then you're going to need
» you know, cuz then you're going to need
parking
>> because it brings
» because it brings
>> Mhm. You saw what is Monteito?
» Mhm. You saw what is Monteito?
>> I think Yeah, it's beautiful.
» I think Yeah, it's beautiful.
>> Yeah, but it's not a large place. So, we
» Yeah, but it's not a large place. So, we
can build here and Malu I think will be
great.
>> Um so, thank you very much for your
» Um so, thank you very much for your
comment. We are going to have this
discussion again. Um, I think council
member Conrad will talk to you, you
know, and like I said, for any ecoin
therapy, please talk to about our
equestrian to see if there's a a smaller
thing. Um, I think we're going to finish
the meeting out tonight. I am going to
request that we adjourn the meeting in
memory of Darlene Dubrey
um, who died recently. She was a active
C member for Malibu since 2015. She
played a key role during the Wolsey fire
and assisted with past distribution
following the Palisades fire. Even
though she was also displaced from her
home due to smoke damage,
Darlene loved surfing, biking, and was
well known at the senior center
participating in many of their
activities. Darlene had a sweet and
caring nature and never had an unkind
word to say about anyone. Darlene will
be mess be missed by many people who
knew and love her and that was uh put
together from Susan Dwanius in uh public
safety. So just want to make that
acknowledgement of um adjournment. So
and with that we are adjourned.
>> Thank you.